> But its obviously true that it was the right move, and creating this "dwarf planet" class of objects was correct. It was hard to justify Pluto being a planet when Ceres exists, but Eris, Haumea, Makemake and all of these other possible Dwarf planets are the nail in the coffin.

I don't agree that "its obviously true that it was the right move". Instead of demoting Pluto, they could have promoted Ceres, and let Eris, Haumea, Makemake, etc, be planets too. Under that proposal, they could even have the category of "dwarf planets" encompassing them, it is just that "dwarf planet" would be a subcategory of planets rather than a disjoint category from them.

I initially assumed from your comment that all of those objects are larger than Pluto, but none of them are, so what exactly is "obvious" about the decision? They haven't resolved any inconsistency by demoting it.

Why is Jupiter in the same category as planets then?

Jupiter does not orbit the sun (the first requirement per IAU definition of planet), the barycenter for the system is not inside the surface of Sol at 1.07 solar radius.

It is not planet then yes ? There is no push to promote it to a sub-brown dwarf or a new category .

Classifications are always arbitrary and only fits some bias one way or other.

Ceres by itself doesn't really challenge Pluto's old classification. Pluto has 14 times the mass of Ceres, and five moons. Ceres is the only "dwarf planet" classified so far that has zero moons. There are still good arguments for a definition that doesn't consider Ceres a dwarf planet.

This helps illustrate how arbitrary these classifications are. They depend entirely on what properties are included in the definition. The updated IAU definition is essentially reverse engineered to fit how they wanted to classify the planets.

I'm just salty about only getting served "Noodles" instead of "Nine Pizzas" from my very educated mother.