Pluto and Ceres are both dwarf planets. Problem is they are very different. Ceres is a dwarf terrestrial planet while Pluto is an ice dwarf. Seems a lot of people here are rather on the dense side and just don't comprehend that the recent definition is bad not becuase it demotes Pluto but because it is simply nonrigorous like scientific definitions are supposed to be. Sure definitions become outdated as new data is collected, but you shouldn't make one that is obviously crappy from the start. I'm totally against calling Pluto a planet for "historical reasons" for the same lack of scientific rigor basis.

The issue with dwarf planet by the current definition isn't that it is different from other classes it's that A gas giant in the Kuiper belt would be one, Neptune should be one since pluto is in it's neighborhood, and its questionable whether any of the terrestrial planets are not dwarf planets. Just because the voters said otherwise doen's mean their classifications are actually consistent with the lousy definition they approved. A dwarf planet defined as anything less than X miles, or lacking an atmosphere above Y pressure at the surface would be acceptable, but not the silly clause added.

It's also ridiculous from a solar system evolution perspective. By this definition Jupiter at it's present mass would be a dwarf planet until it cleared the objects around it. Do these inconsistencies really make sense to most here? Or, do we simply have another gang mentality issue where those who wanted Pluto demoted are happy regardless of the bogosity of the means?