This is the big reason why I wish telescope mounts would let us use Bayer Greek letters rather than traditional names for stars.
A better term might be "obscure names" rather than "traditional" ones.
As you say there was never a body of standard astronomical designations until the 20th Century, although certain major atlases (Ptolemy's, Bayer's, etc.) have been standards in effect.
The names of many stars have varied. The lower part of Eridanus was redefined and renamed once Northern Europeans started visiting the Southern Hemisphere for example.
It is pointless, beyond a certain point, to try to nail down the "real" name of star. It has made sense to use genuinely traditional names that have been used as actual common designations and appear in the scientific literature. But if the name is not a commonly understood designator, in what sense is it actually its name?
The literature has gotten filled with star names no one in Europe has heard of in generations (if ever) in the latter half of the 20th Century as scholars knowledgeable in Arabic, or else scouring old European archives, dug up names and began publishing lists of them.
This has even led to some purely spurious (I suspect jokes) being adopted as star names, the star "Sarin" for example is (I am pretty sure) a post-war joke by a Czech grad student. But it got printed in an atlas and so become the "name of a star".
We don't assign ancient Chinese names to stars. Why do it to Medieval Latin and Arabic?
In this particular case it seems that the name "Atik" was attached to two different stars. Which one is the real Atik? There is no real Atik, or they both are. And so the name has no value as an identifier.
Edited by careysub, 20 January 2019 - 11:23 PM.