Exactly what constitutes a planet is still a hot topic in astronomy, although in my opinion the arguments seem more philosophical and semantic at times than scientific.<br /><br />I don't think there can be any non-arbitrary definition of a planet.<br /><br />If I were going to define a planet, I'd call any body independently orbiting a star with an average diameter greater than or equal to 1000 km, perhaps with a fudge factor of 100 km thrown in on the small side, in the case of uncertainty. Why?<br /><br />--Because it keeps with the powers of ten notation of the metric system.<br /><br />--Because it's larger than the largest asteroid, Ceres.<br /><br />--Because the number of bodies larger than 1000 km is probably not large.<br /><br />To keep away from the "So, does this mean we'd have to memorize 25-30 planets?" argument, I'd limit the definition of a "major planet" to one larger than or equal in size to the Moon, which would hopefully keep the "Pluto is a comet" crowd happy.<br /><br />--So, 1000 km to Moon-size = minor planet<br />--Moon-size and up = major planet