Ok with the debate raging across the "planet"...figured we might want to give a crack at it.
 
Remember this is the vote only thread, please place all comments in the discussion thread.
 
and the options are ... yes you may vote for more then 1
For all subchoices inside, indicate the # and letter.  If it's a range between 2 sub choice indicate by using #x-z. if you can't decide or it's just not there for you use #z to abstain.
 

1	Must be bigger then a certain size?	a) >1000 Km	b) >2000 Km	c) >4000 Km
2	Must be smaller then a certain size?	a) >Hydrogen Fusion limit	b) >Dueterium Fusion limit Km	c) >Non-Fusing body
3	Formation method matters?	a) no	b) yes, only bound to stars	c) yes, but can be bound to planetars too.
4	Must be a certain shape?	a) Round	b) Ellipsoid	c) Doesn't matter
5	Divide in to catagories or families?	a) yes, it'll make it easier	b) yes, because it makes sense	c) no, it'll confuse the issue
		d) no, a limit has to be drawn on classification breakdowns
6	Best sums up my view, if I had to pick one.	a) A planet is any object in orbit round the Sun with a diameter greater than 2000 km. Everything else is irrelevant in determination.	b) A planet is any object in orbit round the Sun whose shape is stable due to its own gravity. Everything else is irrelevant in determination.	c) A planet is any object in orbit round the Sun that is dominant, in terms of mass, >=50% total in orbital range, in its immediate neighborbood.
		d) A Planet is of sufficient size that, given average system density, would be round due to self gravitation and is the chief principle object for its orbital range. Pluto, 2003 UB313, Sedna and Ceres meet these criteria.	e) Every speck of stellar dust should be classified as a planet as long as it's orbit is stable, this includes "moons", asteroids, comets, and ring particles.

1) b
2) b
3) a
4) c
5) b
6) v