Talk:List of former planets

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of former planets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080324182332/http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/minorplanets.php to http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/minorplanets.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

First fifteen asteroids

Shouldn't Astraea through Eunomia be here too? Double sharp (talk) 03:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Paper arguing that that asteroids as a class were considered planets until 1957

Still at the preprint stage mind:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.04115

©Geni (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The paper has, by now, been published, though I'm not sure about the practicality of adding thousands of entries into the list... AstroChara (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

What is the point of the "restored" column?

There has never been a restoration... --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, many know how dumb the IAU's definition of a planet is and the fact that just a small amount of IAU astronomers was present during the notorious conference in Prague. Dr Alan Stern, leader of the New Horizons mission, and planetary geologist Dr Kirby Runyon, proposed another definition in 2018 which "restores" (actually Pluto and Eris never "lost" their status as planets because definitions don't change facts) the planet status of the Galilean moons, all other spherical moons, Ceres, Pluto and Eris:

A planet is a sub-stellar mass body that has never undergone nuclear fusion and has enough gravitation to be round due to hydrostatic equilibrium, regardless of its orbital parameters.

They call this a geophysical planet definition. It should be added into the page and mentioned that according to the geophysical planet definition the status of those bodies as planet is "restored". 212.186.0.174 (talk) 10:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Satellite planet

Why is the Moon not counted among the satellite planets that were removed in the 1700s? The reason for removing the Moon together with the Sun is inconsistent with the inclusion of "satellite planets" in this list.185.100.196.253 (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The Moon was referred to as a planet all the way into the end of the 19th century for that matter. AstroChara (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Iapetus trailing natural color.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2026 (UTC)