Ongoing IAU discussion   Is the reason that there was no improved IAU definition of planets that they wanted to pass such a decision with a large majority but couldnt come to an agreement yet I hope its not that they think the current definitions are OK because theyre clearly not For example the definition of extrasolar planet states the lower mass limit for an object to be an extrasolar planet is the same as in the Solar System but there was no such limit given Neither for dwarf planets nor for regular planets There would have been no harm done if the upper limit for extrasolar planets was also applied to the Solar System but that wasnt done either Its like theyre hiding everything behind smoke and mirrors and make up the results as they go  It would be relatively easy to come up with criteria that could decide if a newly discovered body is a planet or not But they didnt do it Why What for example is wrong with the following  A planetary mass object is an object with a mass between the agreed mass limit needed for hydrostatic equilibrium kg and the agreed mass limit needed for deuterium fusion kg Both limits might be set lower since the first would exclude Pallas and Vesta which are remaining protoplanets and the second doesnt take into account that objects with high metallicity could allow deuterium fusion at a lower mass  A planet is a planetary mass object on an orbit around at least one star that also has the capability of clearing its orbit per SternLevison criteria The difference is you only need to know mass and orbital period of the object and the star of course whereas with Soters criteria youd need to know everything about the system  A dwarf planet I prefer mesoplanet is a planetary mass object on an orbit around at least one star that doesnt fulfill the SternLevison criteria  More definitions could be added to account for other types of planetary mass objects I prefer planetar for those that dont orbit any star  regardless if they were formed by themselves or in a system of which they were later ejected Also Id like moon to mean a planetary mass object that orbits a planet since the prototype object Luna is just that  smaller bodies would just keep being satellites If you dont like to have  planets of which most are small why would you allow  moons of which most are tiny  Any ideas why the IAU doesnt come up with something like that     First of all there is a lower mass limit hydrostatic equilibrium Second this has nothing to do with improving the article Simply talking about the merits or lack thereof of the IAUs decision is outside the scope of Wikipedia   Your second point is right My opinions are not relevant as Im not an astronomer and my conclusions from the available data would be OR so neither belongs in the article But you dont seem to realize that your first point is extremely open to definition It could mean the shape of the object Then the next question is where the limit between spheroidal and irregular is It could mean an object with this mass and composition would certainly reach hydrostatic equilibrium Or it could mean an object with this mass would certainly reach hydrostatic equilibrium Im heavily in favour of the third as it is the one that could be most easily checked especially for exoplanets and avoids the problem that an ice world could qualify while a larger and denser asteroid would be rejected since rocky worlds are much harder to pull into equilibrium But from statements in the article Im guessing at least those astronomers favor the second one And if theyre not representative why would they be in the articleBasically I want to say that the IAU should make a decision that makes it clear the astronomers know what they are doing and want to share their knowledge with the public Because if the public decides to not follow astronomers findings anymore the result will likely be even less funding and that would be a real problem     There are many ambiguities with the current definition all of which are mentioned in the article already    Januar