Planets occur in a great variety of different compositions, masses and surface conditions. Planets with diameters below 100 km are usually classified as planetoids or asteroids. LOL, by that definition, Ceres would be a planet. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Why are you commenting this? It's facinating, but do you want to add compositions, etc. sections to this article? If so, please do! Go right ahead! --Galaxy001 00:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Putting a definition of a planet in here is a bit akward, as not even the scientific community is sure as how to define what a planet actually is. As you may know Pluto is often also not called a planet in scientific literature, but rather the biggest of the trans-neptunian objects.. only tradition kept it from losing its planet status so far. -- Challenger.
PNA-cite, in reference to the above, would someone care to cite that paragraph, as as well the following paragraph? --Alan del Beccio 01:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

New definition Edit

The International Astronomical Union is possibly going to be finally precisely define what a planet is. Under the new definition any non-moon that is large enough to be round due to its own self-gravity is a planet. More specifically: "A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet."

Maybe this should be added to the article. -- Krevaner 20:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Since there is no way that the producers could have had the new definition in mind when they created Trek, the article should stay as it was, and Pluto should remain a planet in the Star Trek universe. --Bp 21:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The new definition could be included as a background note, but since all of Star Trek was created under the old definition, that is what we should use. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Does anything in the ST canon specifically define a planet, and if it s defined, does the canon definition contradict the new definition? If not, then I see no reason not to include the new definition, as ST is set in our own reality. The preceding unsigned comment was added by W.T. Riker (talk • contribs).
Actually, Star Trek is not set in our own reality. Unless the Eugenics Wars went and happened in 1996 and I just missed it, or the integrated circuit was invented by Chronowerx Industries, etc. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget Voyager VI, Nomad and the Millennium Gate. - AJ Halliwell 02:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Protected Edit

Due to "The Pluto War" controversy being caused by the IAU's decision that Pluto is not a planet, as well as the definition of a planet (and its relation to Star Trek canon) this page has been protected from editing by those without sysop priveleges. Protection will be lifted once this whole mess has been dealt with. - AJ Halliwell 01:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And the hand of big brother drops again
Oh man -- now none of the ubiquitous anonymous IPs are allowed to vandalize this page! It's shocking! -- Captain M.K.B. 13:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I've set the permissions to allow registered users to edit the page, however "ubiquitous anonymous IPs" still cannot. --Alan del Beccio 05:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed from article Edit

Theoretically, all supergiants of the classes S and T may be regarded as "failed stars".

Seems to be Star Charts info. -- Cid Highwind 12:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Needed a site for a while. — Morder 00:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Forum:Planets Edit

How many planets are there? - Patricknoddy Talk 15:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Who knows. Lots? Category:Planets has all of the non-implied ones. Maybe. -- Sulfur 16:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-implied? - Patricknoddy Talk 22:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

He means all of those that have been mentioned, the category doesn't include those shown and not mentioned. - V. Adm. Enzo Aquarius 22:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Past Tense? Edit

Why is this entire article written in the past tense? Have planets ceased to exist in the Star Trek Universe? Captain MAJ =/\=|**** 10:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

MA:POV. Standard response. Stars, nebulae, and other astronomical objects stay in present tense. Planets do not. -- sulfur 10:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to revive this. I understand that a specific planet may not be an eternal concept, but I believe the term and definition itself could be. I think it's time we revisit this issue and change the tense of this specific article to present-tense. -- 03:23, October 14, 2011 (UTC)
Don't revive it here. Go to the talk page of MA:POV and do it there. -- sulfur 03:28, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

Prime designation vs. FirstEdit

As I understand it, there should be no distinction between "Prime" and "I". Both refer to the planet in a system closest to the system's star. For example, Mercury could be called either Sol Prime, or Sol I. While there may be a distinction in terms of what was said on air, I think that the Prime planets and First planets lists may be combined. 06:11, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure that isn't how it works. Prime planets seems to refer to the main populated planet in a system, particularly one where a civilization originated. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:31, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Missing FileEdit

There is a file missing from the article, a picture of Vulcan. (oops, I forgot to mention that the box for the picture is there, but the file is not). 01:03, November 15, 2013 (UTC)

I refreshed the page a few times and it came up- probably just some sort of temporary glitch. 31dot (talk) 01:41, November 15, 2013 (UTC)