Yes, we won't solve the dispute.<br />The term "dwarf planet" is very fine for me. By defining it as meaning "non-planet", they calm the ones who like to live with an idea of a low number of planets for the children to learn at school.<br />But semantically speaking, they open a breach in their own exclusion strategy. For a dwarf human is a human, and a dwarf star is a star so...<br /><br />This ambiguity is a good thing.<br /><br />Full-fledged planets represent the vast majority of the mass in their orbital energy slot.<br />Dwarf planets represent a minority of such a mass, but a sizable part (Ceres is 30% of asteroid belt mass, Pluto is also about 1/3 of the plutinos mass, at least for the about 180 plutinos identified to date , and for Eris we still don't know yet but that's probable too). 2005FY9 looks king in the a=45.5 AU "region" (15:8). <br />2003EL61 leads the a = 43.3 AU region (of orbital energy diagram, not space)(close to the 7:4 resonance vs Neptune)<br />Sedna: we don't know, too few IOOC objects found to tell<br />Other 700km+ objects debatable (about 20 of them to date, more to come)...<br /> And the rest is small fry.<br />Fine for me.