I thought they were called "Plutoids" now anyway?

No James, Plutoids are the things that get left behind when you don't wipe properly.

I think you'd do better to get it right:

"I, for one, welcome our Haumean overladies".

Once you start naming KBOs as 'dwarf planets' where do you end? There are bleedin' millions of them! If they'd just accepted that Pluto wasn't a planet to start with then this mess could have been avoided.

How-meh-a is close enough.

Pluto IS a planet, as are all objects in hydrostatic equilibrium orbiting stars. If Haumea is in hydrostatic equilibrium, then it's a planet of the dwarf planet subcategory. What we really need to pressure the IAU on is reversing its ridiculous definition that dwarf planets are not planets at all. They are planets, just of a different type. That means our solar system now has 13 planets, not eight.

Bits knocked off? That means it hasn't cleared it's own orbit and *that* means it can't be a planet of any sort according to dimwit so-called "scientists" with too much time on their hands and not enough mental oomph to do original real science of their own, who spend entirely too much time telling everyone who'll listen how their betters got it wrong.

This horn-ear or whatever it's called is clearly a pluto-sized not-a-planet-any-more.

Beat me to it.

Then again....

"Arthur Clarke was right" as a headine is like......

"Schumacher wins"

"American President makes spectacular cock-up"

"England score 15 won goals, fans call for manager to be sacked"

"Water is wet, the sky is blue"

Why not make it easy for kids (and adults) to learn the frikkin names of these celestial objects by giving them sensible titles? Fuck it. I say scrap all those bollocky names and use something proper (and easier to remember) instead.

Yeah, Dave would be nice but possibly too corporate seeing as there's already a Channel Dave on telly.

Looks like there must be millions of so called dwarf planets orbiting the sun out there between Neptune and that large collection of asteroids that I forget the name of, so why name the fucking things at all? I mean, they're just nondescript lumps of rock in the main doing fuck all where nobody goes anyway. Out of sight, out of mind.

If it's a fat cigar shape (used to be called "ovoid" before dumbing-down set in), which diameter is similar to that of Pluto? Longways or fatways?

Let go... Pluto is dead now. I got so fed up with having to teach kids that Pluto is a planet (these things take excessive time to filter into the curriculum) that I quit teaching.

Nobody tell Clinton....

is a planet.

Perhaps because it was named for the God of the Underworld? Otherwise Charon would have been called Goofy.

Or would this be taking the Mickey?

just last night playing Spore

"What would happen if we joined teh galactic community and a race already had a planet called 'Earth'"? [Or something very similar]

Sol 3?

Some standardised galactic reference grid? I'm sure other races name thier stars sexier than our "M0343" or whatever (I think M may be galaxies though..)

We on't have enough words for all this stuff, we're just making it eaier to converse about before it becomes a big issue. Unlike Stargate characters, real people don't find it very easy to remember 8+ digit numbers in reference to it [after hearing it once]

Makes them easier to find in wikipedia too :)

@Anonymous Coward: There is a clear difference between dwarf planets, which are objects in hydrostatic equilibrium, meaning they have enough self-gravity to pull themselves into a round shape and therefore have geological processes akin to those of planets, and shapeless asteroids, which do not have these processes. Most asteroids and KBOs are not in hydrostatic equilibrium. Moons of planets that have attained this state can be called "secondary planets," as was frequently done in 19th century textbooks. They have all the qualities of planets, but they orbit other planets instead of orbiting the sun directly. There is no scientific reason to artificially limit the number of planets in our solar system. If we have several hundred primary planets (those directly orbiting the sun) and several hundred secondary planets, so be it.

@ Christopher P. Martin: Pluto is not dead. Reality cannot be changed by dictate of an organization, in this case one composed largely of astronomers who are not even planetary scientists. If teaching Pluto as a planet drove you away from the classroom, then maybe you didn't belong there to begin with. This controversy is being taught as an ongoing debate, not as a matter in which a final decision has been reached. And there is no reason for anyone to "let go" if they genuinely believe the IAU decision was wrong and irreparably flawed.

My throwaway teaching comment was an oversimplification, of course! I, like you, want to encourage debate. That I had to teach Pluto's planet status as a "fact" was the problem. However, I still insist that people need to "let go". It isn't that important. I think anyone who is particularly bothered one way or the other (as you clearly have been for at least two years judging by your extensive livejournal on the topic) should really learn to let go!

Doesn't matter what you call it, it's still there! You just said so yourself- reality cannot be changed "by dictate", so why do you care what Pluto's called? Stick to your politics. That's a more usual place for passionately expressed semantic debate that fails to change or mean anything.