Talk:Planetary mass object

message: 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)
thread_title: Merge with Planet or Definition of planet?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Definition link? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: 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. --Ckatzchatspy 09:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Advantages" section 

message: *Why Hygeia is considered a planemo and Proteus is not.--Pedro 23:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hygiea Vs. Proteus

message: Fixed grammar in that section Rotten Venetic 11:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cha 110913-77344 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oph 1622 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nice citation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  One year later 

message: 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)
thread_title: ''Within our solar system'' section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Title of the Article