That's part of the motivation for having a planetary definition. 2003UB313 couldn't be given an actual name until we knew if it was a planet or not, because the IAU has strict naming conventions for planets vs. other types of objects.
I wonder if Pluto's new status means it's ineligible for the name. Personally, I don't think Pluto is a planet because there's nothing to dynamically distinguish it from the rest of the "Plutinos" (KBOs in a 3:2 resonance with Neptune), but it should at get to keep the name. I don't think anyone's planning to change it.
I also don't consider this a "demotion". It's not like we're assigning it different resposibilities, cutting back its hours or giving it a pay reduction. It's still the same interesting object it was, and New Horizons is still (rightly) going to visit.
no subject
I wonder if Pluto's new status means it's ineligible for the name. Personally, I don't think Pluto is a planet because there's nothing to dynamically distinguish it from the rest of the "Plutinos" (KBOs in a 3:2 resonance with Neptune), but it should at get to keep the name. I don't think anyone's planning to change it.
I also don't consider this a "demotion". It's not like we're assigning it different resposibilities, cutting back its hours or giving it a pay reduction. It's still the same interesting object it was, and New Horizons is still (rightly) going to visit.