I almost don't want to waste blog space writing about a subject that I think has already received far too much attention as it is, but this latest development seems too ridiculous to ignore:
(Full article here) So now Pluto is not a planet or a dwarf planet, but a plutoid. Pluto is a plutoid. How tautological is that?
The Pluto.has decided on the term "plutoid" as a name for dwarf planets like
Sidestepping concerns of many astronomers worldwide, the IAU's decision, at a meeting of its Executive Committee in Oslo, comes almost two years after it stripped Pluto of its planethood and introduced the term "dwarf planets" for Pluto and other small round objects that often travel highly elliptical paths around the sun in the far reaches of the solar system.
I doubt we'll see the end of this. My impression is that the original controversy arose because people were emotionally connected to the idea of nine planets. I can understand this; I picked up the children's book 11 Planets recently and it just felt...wrong. Blasphemous. Weird. So I don't think those people who desperately want Pluto to be a planet again will settle for anything less than Pluto, and only Pluto, restored to full-planet status. They think Pluto was unfairly demoted (which I disagree with) and they want justice.
As a scientist, I'm quite familiar with the phenomenon of words having different scientific and colloquial meanings, and I think it's okay. We know koala bears aren't bears and peanuts aren't nuts in the botanical sense. And while I still think it's more consistent to have either eight or eleven planets rather than nine, there are many precedents in our language for "wrong" words and concepts being retained for historical reasons.
That said, I'm still a proud member of the Facebook group "I'm Glad Pluto's No Longer a Planet; It Makes Gustav Holst's Suite Complete".