I’d been reading last month about how Pluto is officially no longer a planet, and I’d thought about writing about it, but never got round to it. Then today I read Eric Meyer’s post on the Plutonian Process and thought, what the heck, I might as well get round to doing it now. Incidentally, although it isn’t an official planet anymore, it is considered a dwarf planet and the prototype for trans-Neptunian objects. Well, I’m sure it feels better for that.

Eric seems quite happy that Pluto is no longer a planet. Scientifically, I’m sure he’s correct. But as someone who has always taken a keen interest in the use of words and I am a firm believer in the evolution of language, then frankly I don’t think the current astronomical definition of planet is good enough. It doesn’t translate easily into a short, snappy sentence. If people continue to use the term “planet” in reference to Pluto, then the common usage definition of “planet” will be different from the scientific one. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing: after all, science needs to have a very specific and precise use of language. I just think that if I call Pluto a planet and someone tells me I’m wrong, I’ll tell them where they can go … to. It’s like the fact that HTML, by dint of common usage, is an acronym. Some purists may insist on calling it an initialism, but I’ll tell them that they can go … away too, and that because language evolves, it’s also a bloody acronym too, all right?

After that, my thoughts were along the lines of: does it really matter? After all, Pluto will go on being itself for some time to come, regardless of what classification system we use for it, or what we decide to call it. For that matter, it will go on being called a planet by many members of the general public for some time to come, regardless of what astronomers say. But then it occurred to me that there are perhaps some questions that the astronomers didn’t consider.

Firstly, what does this mean for astrologers? Now that Pluto is no longer is no longer a planet, what does this mean for the influence on Uranus? (Sorry, couldn’t resist)

Secondly, surely Pluto is just that big Disney dog, not a planet at all?

Thirdly, Eric refers to mnemonics. Well, I too can name the planets without the use of a mnemonic (but maybe not the dwarf planets, if I have to include names like 2003 UB13 which frankly isn’t so catchy). However, the planets in order were: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto — which lent itself well to sensible mnemonics — My Very Easy Method; Just Set Up Nine Planets — as well as more bizarre ones — Men Very Easily Make Jugs Serve Useful Noctural Purposes. Whereas the best I can do now is My Very Easy Method: Just Serve Up Neptune.

Finally, and most importantly perhaps, what does this mean for the Cybermen? As any fule kno, Mondas used to be the tenth planet before it drifted off into deep space, and it’s where the Cybermen come from. So what does it mean for them? Will that Dr. Who storyline need to be renamed The Ninth Planet? Or will they be the Third trans-Neptunian dwarf planet object? Which doesn’t scan so well and sounds more like an Open University programme than a Dr Who story…

So, astronomers, what do you say to that? Can you answer those important questions? If not, then stop messing about with our planetary definitions…