Reading another question, I came across the argument that inconsistencies in Neptune's and Uranus' orbits lead to the discovery of Pluto. This brief write-up mentions Percival Lowell and William H. Pickering by name as two people who looked for the theoretical 9th planet.
My question is, were inconsistencies in Neptune's and Uranus' orbits detectable by early 20th century methods or were these scientists just chasing calculation or estimation errors with dreams of finding the next planet. My (guess) is that Pluto is much too small, and too far away and just one of many similar mass kuiperbelt objects, so it's unlikely that it was really discovered by measured inconsistency in Uranus/Neptune orbits method, (despite the fact that there are articles that say that's precisely how Pluto was discovered).
In a nutshell, that's the question. Was the wobble that Pluto's causes on Neptune's orbit observable by 1910-1930 observation methods. And related, was the wobble that the entire kuiperbelt (some 20 to 50 times the mass of little pluto, but much more spread out), was that wobble detectible by 1910-1930 methods.
Hard math isn't necessary to me for an answer, as I find the math hard to follow sometimes, so feel free to answer with or without mathematical calculations.