> > >utterly, pointlessly stupid is in clause (1)(a),
> > >which specifies that to be a planet, a body must
> > >be "in orbit around the Sun" - that is to say,
> > >the 204 currently known objects in orbit around
> > >other stars that are commonly known as
> > >"extrasolar planets" are no longer classified as
> > >planets. Even though many of them are larger than
> > >Jupiter.
> >
> > Yeah, not sure what the heck that was all about. What are people supposed to call those things now?
>
> I can only think they meant to say "in orbit around a star" and totally frigged up the terminology. The definition makes exactly zero sense to me any other way.

If I recall correctly, they prefaced the whole definition with "in our Solar System." The definitions can apply to objects orbiting another star just as well as to ones orbiting our Sun. Of course, that still leaves open the question of what to call large objects that aren't stars and don't orbit a star.

It's mainly to satisfy this human need we have to label and categorize things - the objects themselves won't be any different whether they're called "planets" or "ghghiiihhs", the difference lies in how we think of them. If the word "planet" didn't evoke thoughts and emotions unrelated to the study of the cosmos, nobody would care what astronomers called them.

Astronomers have done a pretty good job of studying the solar system considering the limitations of distance and technology; this is mainly an agreement on terms.