It's fine to disagree with the IAU about the definition of "planet"; however, if your definition includes Pluto but not Ceres, Orcus, Haumea, Quaoar, Makemake, Gonggong, Eris or Sedna, you don't actually care what a planet is – you just want the exact list of nine planets you learned in primary school back. Your cute little Pluto-including orbital distance mnemonic ought to be at least seventeen words long, and good fucking luck with the Q!
My Very Exciting Magic Carpet Just Sailed Under Nine Orphic Palaces, Slandering Hungry Quaker Matrons Going Erotically Southward.
I appreciate that you included Salacia but not Charon – really threading the needle pedantry-wise there.
iy think any planetary-mass object should be called a planet. the moon is a planet. so are the galilean moons. ganymede is bigger than mercury, so whiy not? just because it happens to orbit another planet too? a star can orbit another star, so whiy can't a planet orbit another planet?
Sometimes when I'm feeling especially contrary I'll advocate for a definition of "planet" which includes the inner planets, the trans-Neptunians, and all planetary-mass moons, but specifically excludes Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.
My contrary definition of a "planet" is any object that has orbital epicycles visible with the naked eye from the Earth's surface. This limits us to 5 planets and explicitly excludes the Earth.
If you're willing to be exceptionally persnickety about physical definitions you can get the Solar System all the way down to three planets, though that list does admittedly include Earth.
(For the curious: exclude the gas and ice giants, the dwarf planets, anything orbiting anything that isn't the Sun, and also Mercury because it probably wouldn't satisfy the orbital clearance criterion if the Solar wind wasn't doing the heavy lifting, leaving only Venus, Earth, and Mars.)
Planet Definitions
