Talk:Planetary mass object

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 November 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Planetary-mass object
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Planetary-mass object

Merge with Planet or Definition of planet?[edit]

I've been trying to figure out a way to include Gibor Basri's theory in the definition of planet article. What do you think?Serendipodous 17:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definition link?[edit]

I don't understand the point of hotlinking to the wikipedia article defining "Definition". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.85.35 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 27 December 2005

Wikipedia:Build the web -- KTC 02:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for this article. I've heard this term quite a bit. I am against any merge btw. 70.177.68.209 04:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

definition??[edit]

The BBC article in external links seems to define the term as a planet-like body that does not circle around a star. Our article doesn't mention anything like that?--Sonjaaa 21:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Beeb article is somewhat misleading. A planemo is any object within a certain size range. If it orbits a star then it is a particular type of a planemo called a planet. Its like a square is still a rectangle, but just usually referred to as a square, whereas non-square rectangles are usually referred to as rectangles. 195.137.85.173 17:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Chiron (and possibly other centaurs) missing from the list of possible Solar System planemos? Sodbuster41 22:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Sodbuster41. August 23, A.D. 2006[reply]

Nope, its about 100-200km in diameter, way too small to be round from self-gravity.

"Advantages" section[edit]

I've removed the "Advantages" section - it was uncited, worded in a POV manner, and it directly contradicts a cited statement in the lead about the low level of acceptance of the term. Here is the text:

"It can be considered helpful as it creates a designation for so-called "interstellar planets" that are otherwise not covered by suggested definitions for 'planet', and it also creates a category to group large, compositionally-similar moons with their planetary counterparts. Many scientists back the term as it lends itself to a universal definition of planet based on physical characteristics, rather than other definitions which create dividing lines using arbitrary size limits.

--Ckatz^chat _spy 09:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hygiea Vs. Proteus[edit]

Why Hygeia is considered a planemo and Proteus is not.--Pedro 23:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Proteus is twice as light as Higeya and is not a spheroid. The last one might be it. Rotten Venetic 11:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cha 110913-77344[edit]

Fixed grammar in that section Rotten Venetic 11:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oph 1622[edit]

The Oph 1622 is not a planemo as pointed in the text, you all can verifiy this information reading it own topic:

"....The system was announced as the first reported binary system of objects this small. However later observations revised the masses upward, and both are above the 13 Jupiter mass dividing line between planets and brown dwarfs..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onsly (talk • contribs) 19:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice citation[edit]

http://time-blog.com/eye_on_science/2006/06/nanosolar_systems.html: "We come in peace from the planemo Zorg, orbting fusor HD-331." Said: Rursus ☻ 09:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One year later[edit]

Still just 4 uses found in articles. Outside the academic world, the usage is very confusingly used for anything that isn't a planet, such as brown dwarfs, superjovians, asteroids, comets, rough planets, etc.. Thanx IAU! Said: Rursus ☻ 09:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Within our solar system section[edit]

This section is conjecture and personal writing. There are no sources sited and I think the definitions that actually have cites make a clear distinction between a planet, such as everything in our solar system, and a planemo. Thus, the question should really be taken out or reworded or cited. --RossF18 (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title of the Article[edit]

The article itself states that "The term has yet to achieve common usage in the scientific community: as of October 2007, it appeared in only four papers in the astro-ph archive. It would be more appropriate, then, to rename the article "Planetary Mass Object" and have the term "planemo" be a redirect to this article. The section "origin of the term" would need to be deleted and its info placed in the leading paragraph. --Eddylyons (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]