My name has a double meaning. Additionally, my initials are the first two letters of the name of a planet, as well as the initials of Percival Lowell, the person responsible for the search after the planet in question.
My question "Where to submit, or ask to submit, a proposal for a redefinition of a planet to the IAU?" was deleted. My (censored) definition of planet was and is:
A planet, or wandering star, is a spheroidal and internally differentiated celestial body that does not have enough mass to start fusion of deuterium into helium-3 and does not share a barycenter with a more massive sub-deuterium fusion-mass body.
By this definition there are 20 planets in our Terrestrial System. In order from closest to farthest from the Sun they are: Mercury, Venus, the Earth, Mars, Vesta, Ceres, Pallas, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Orcus, Pluto, Varuna, Haumea, Quaoar, Makemake, Gonggong, Eris and Sedna.
On meta-question 'Why do we care if Pluto is reclassified as a planet?':
The 2006 IAU definition is not being applied correctly; if it was, either would Pluto (and certain other non-recognized planets) be planets or there wouldn't be such thing as 'planet'. So it's rather a criticism of the IAU definition than just wanting to have Pluto still as planet. But I see how it's also a bit too late to have taken such reclassification since Pluto counted as planet for 76 years, and as the probes Dawn and New Horizons got prepared, the IAU should have waited with their decision until the probes would arrive at their destinations. However, the 'nine planets' before were wrong too, since stronger telescopes proved Ceres has a spherical shape. Therefore, Ceres should have been reclassified as a planet long before 2006.
Before 2006, every spheroidal and internally differentiated body directly orbiting a star counted as planet. Irregular bodies counted as asteroids. And you didn't and don't even distinguish bodies orbiting a sub-stellar body at all: all of them count as 'moons' regardless of their size, mass, shape and geology.
So it's just a matter of logic; I can't list here all that is wrong with the 2006 definition, but logic makes clear many unrecognized planets are planets. If you think otherwise, please be consequent and also distinguish planetary satellites into moons, dwarf moons and asteroidal moonlets. The term 'planet' means wanderer, so that technically even asteroids would be planets, but our understanding of planet is a body that is spherical, differentiated, and neither a star nor a moon. Therefore, Ceres and Pluto are planets with no excuses. The Sun-orbiting body in question is either a planet or an asteroid. There was absolutely no need to create an inbetween class of 'dwarf planets'. "Because we'd have dozens of planets" is a non-argument. Ironically we have 20 planets which is an easier-to-remember number than eight or nine.