Yeah, and people clearly didn't count them as "real planets", except for Pluto. So what's the issue? How are "dwarf planets" less planet-y than "minor planets" were?

▲

zamadatix 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Had the IAU said "Pluto is now a minor planet, which is a type of planet different than major planets" it would have gone over really well, been clear, historically accurate, and scientifically accurate.

Had the IAU said "Pluto is now a dwarf body, which is not a type of planet" it would have still been unpopular, at least clear, no more historically inaccurate than coming up with "dwarf planet", and scientifically accurate.

What the IAU actually decided was "Pluto is now a dwarf planet, which is not a type of planet at all". Since the sole positive attribute of this is it is scientifically accurate, it will have some level of unpopularity and be the cause of endless confusion even after everyone who knew Pluto as a planet is long dead.

I'm very supportive/glad they made it so Pluto wasn't the exact same classification as the remaining 8 planets. I'm continually facepalming over the absolute insistence to name the category dwarf planets but not have it be a type of planet.

	▲	Timon3 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Had the IAU said "Pluto is now a minor planet, which is a type of planet different than major planets" it would have gone over really well, been clear, historically accurate, and scientifically accurate. I disagree on multiple levels: 1. It would still have gone over very poorly, because many people explicitly oppose the demotion of Pluto. Demoting it to a different category would not change the issue in those people's eyes. 2. I doubt that "[...] a type of planet different than major planets" would improve clarity much for the general public - if you've seen studies or similar, a reference would be appreciated. But changing the meaning of an established term would definitely be far less clear on the academic side (since every mention would be ambiguous before the publishing year and/or individual stances of the authors/journal are known). 3. "Historically accurate" depends on what type of accuracy we're talking about, because IMO this approach is less historically accurate because we'd be changing the definition of an existing term, without a meaningful difference aside from that (since both are literally named X planets). 4. I'd need an argument for why it'd be more scientifically accurate. Since we were unaware of most of the objects in our solar system when the previous classifications were created, it's again IMO much more scientifically accurate to create a new classification. > Had the IAU said "Pluto is now a dwarf body, which is not a type of planet" it would have still been unpopular, at least clear, no more historically inaccurate than coming up with "dwarf planet", and scientifically accurate. This one would have been even less popular! It's definitely historically less accurate when talking about Pluto and previous minor planets, though at least I can agree regarding the scientific accuracy. > What the IAU actually decided was "Pluto is now a dwarf planet, which is not a type of planet at all". Since the sole positive attribute of this is it is scientifically accurate, it will have some level of unpopularity and be the cause of endless confusion even after everyone who knew Pluto as a planet is long dead. It's definitely less unpopular than "dwarf body" and much more clear than "minor planet (no, the new one)"! And as explained, I'd argue it's historically the most accurate one.