When reading the article, I thought exactly what Vinny did about Neptune's overlap.
But then, if that quoted section is their exact definition of a planet, rather just being paraphrased for this article, it also has other seemingly idiotic effects on astronomical definitions - namely, that in order to be a planet, a celestial body has to orbit Sol... so anything orbiting the other stars in our universe won't count as a planet.
And what's the margin of error for "nearly round"? How close does a celestial body have to come to a perfect sphere to qualify for that? Can some celestial board of trustees deny a planet its status at their sole discretion, provided they give two weeks advance notice?
This is all so arbitrary.
Not that I can take astronomers seriously anyway, with one of them waving a stuffed animal around while another says Xena is kind of cool (2003 UB313? Xena? It's not like there's a shortage of Greek deities to add to the planetary lineup - Hesiod was listing them 50 at a time, for Kronos' sake...)
In summary: