When are we going to get Mercuroids (Celestial bodies in orbit around the Sun at a distance lesser than that of Venus that have sufficient mass for their self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that they assume a hydrostatic equilibrium (near-spherical) shape, and that have not cleared the neighborhood around their orbit.)?

What about Uranoids (Celestial bodies whose names are often made the butt of a crude joke.)?

Plutoids: Pluto, Eris
Ceresoids: Ceres

Pluto is a Kuiper Belt Object. Ceres is a big asteroid.

K.I.S.S.

Please! You're not even a planet. I don't waste my time on Plutoids. Don't make me get Jupiter involved.

You hear 'dwarf planet' and you have an understanding of what it is. You hear 'plutoid' for the first time, and you have no idea what it means.
If I had to guess, I would say it was a small body from Pluto itself or had to do with it.
Way to go, genius.

No. Believe it or not I never saw that interview. Funny that two different people come up with the 'Angry Pluto' meme.

I mean, it's just not that hard is it? Just call any object in the Solar System that is not already in a major category a Dwarf Solar System Body or something similar. Then you could refer to them with additional specifiers, such as trans-Neptunian DSSBs, asteroidal DSSBs, DSSBs beyond 40 AU, DSSBs in high-inclination orbits etc. You could even have Extra-Solar System Dwarf Bodies or something similar for similar objects in other solar systems.

The problem with getting specific, and it really is bleeding obvious, is that the more specific you get with a definition, the less objects it actually covers. The IAU are in the amazing situation of trying to come up with a general definition by being more and more specific.

Plutoid? Congratulations – you've just created an additional (!) definition that covers almost nothing.

If so, you're an angry little fellow, aren't you?

We get your stupid radio, TV and a little WiFi leakage too. So we know all about you 'liquid water' sissies.

And now, greg c, you have angered us. Beware loose Kuiper belt objects. ( Yes we use the phrase 'Kuiper Belt' too)

But silliest of all is the fact that everything in these definitions applies to the Solar System and the Solar System alone. That is way beyond silly, especially in the moment when we're discovering extrasolar substellar objects by the hundreds.

And, Sili, direct detections of extrasolar dwarf planets may be centuries ahead, but the if the instrumental sensitivity and refinement of methods continues to increase at today's rates, their presence will be inferred relatively soon, rest assured. There are already stars where we know that there's a Kuiper Belt analogue; in some we inferred the presence of planetary bodies through certain characteristics of dust densities. It won't be that long until we're able to check out dust densities in those belts to infer the presence of "dwarfplanetary" (did I just invent a word?) bodies. We won't see them, but we'll know they're there.

(these studies, BTW, are easier from outside the system than from within, much the same way we know more about the global structure of faraway galaxies than our own)

So out of curiousity, when Pluto crosses the orbit of neptune and becomes closer again, is it back to strictly a dwarf planet :p

And please. We can barely find plutoids in *this* solar system. You're not gonna make believe we'll ever find them elsewhere – short of going there in person/robot/satellite.

If need be it's easy to extend the definition to "those big lumps of ice outside of the last gas giant."

I liked "plutino" better, but "plutoid" isn't bad.