I define a planet as a large interstellar body in a set rotation around a star. Thus a moon is a moon because it rotates around a planet. Without a fixed orbit around a star, then it would just be a meteor or comet. Comets have an orbit but that is not fixed around a particular star as it can easily and often does change orbit, unlike planets.
I agree to konquererz. The main problem, I think, is the definition of "large". There should be an exact definition, like "XXX kg" or "XXX km diameter".
But, being realistic, even in that case the media would be saying "new planet" each trimester or so, so they can say they give scientific news..
I was wondering who gets paid to discuss whether or not Pluto should be a planet any more? This is one of those jobs I really wish I had. Because of all the important issues plaguing our land today, I always considered the classification of a planet type as one of the most pressing. However, I find it interesting that they decided to change the requirements of a planet anyway. It did meet the requirements at some point, but changing the requirements seem pointless to me, a planet is only the sum of its definition after all.
I'm not sure the astronomers are paided to debate about it, I think they actually paid for the debate out of grant money. There was a semposium where the ex planet's fate was discussed, the money had to have come from somewhere. It does seem silly for people with that much expertise arguing over what is to be considered a planet.