Talk:List of Solar System objects by size/Archive 1

ranking

I'm not sure if I agree with the system of ranking objects that are irregularly shaped. Shouldn't we find the average radius of those objects and use that to rank them? Otherwise, small oblong objects could rank above generally larger but rounder objects. --Patteroast 14:48, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I didn't really use a system when trying to compare and rank irregularly-shaped objects, just more or less did it "by eye". Perhaps there's a better way. -- Curps 17:43, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You could compare for example the average radius - the radius of a sphere that will have the same volume as the moon. If a moon has a volume of V, then the average radius is $3V^{1 \over {3}} \over {4\pi }$Smartech 19:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That's the same as comparing the volumes.

In my corresponding page, I just referred to it as Solar system by size, thereby sidestepping the whole "radius" issue. When one gets down to the irregular bodies, the ranking necessarily becomes somewhat arbitrary anyway. --Doradus 03:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

The following post intended for this page was accidentally posted to a broken link by Smartech on 01:21, 12 July 2005. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

And how exactly should this merging be done? Unfortunately, the two rankings are not the same, since some bodies are denser than others. For example Ganymede is lighter than Mercury, even though the former is the smaller body. In any case, there would be two lists, so in my opinion it is a decision on whether to have those two lists in one article or in two. Smartech 01:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Radius/diameter

Thanks to User:TheTom for catching my goof. I had a suspicion something was wonky but didn't figure it out, even while changing half the numbers. This brings up an interesting question, though. Why are we charting by radius, when the planet infoboxes and most articles use diameters? I'll add a note inside, though, to future editors, so they don't make the same mistake I did! --Dhartung | Talk 18:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Is there an established precedent such that the infoboxes use diameter? Or is choice of diamter versus radius an aesthetic choice that would be preferable to standardize? --Iamunknown 07:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, the infoboxes almost always go with diameter. Seems to be largely an aesthetic choice: diameter is probably more intuitive because it immediately gives the approximate "size" of the object. Radius is more convenient if you want to run around calculating volumes and surface areas, but that's a marginal pursuit, I believe. Actually, it always mildly annoys me that this list uses radius, so I'm happy for it to be changed to diameter. Deuar 14:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I would rather see this list use diameters instead of radii. Radii make sense for orbits, but diameters make more sense for planets, stars or other objects. HunterTruth (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename

I'd like to rename this article to the following: List of Solar System objects by size. Any objections? --Doradus 21:44, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Since it's unlikely there would be a different corresponding article, e.. List of Solar System objects by diameter, I don't object. There will be a bunch of redirects to fix, though. --Dhartung | Talk 05:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep the "radius" wording, but if you'd like to make a redirect from List of solar system objects by size to this article, go ahead. The problem with "size" is that it's too loosely defined. —Bkell 21:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

... or you could go with "volume", if irregularly shaped bodies are causing a problem. —Bkell 21:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The looseness of "size" is why I prefer it. For smaller bodies, there's no easy way to rank them precisely by volume until we go take each body, dip it in a bathtub, and — eureka! — measure how much water it displaces. --Doradus 01:03, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

The looseness of size may make executive decisions for we editors easy, but it makes an unnecessarily confusing, ambiguous, and misleading article for readers. --Iamunknown 07:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Rank is not a useful column

This list is not exhaustive, and so the Rank column is not useful, and may even be misleading. I would like to remove it. Any objections? --Doradus 01:04, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I sorta like it, but I can't see keeping track past (say) Pluto. I agree it's potentially very misleading for the lower end of the list. Then I can't think of a good argument for only having it for part of the list. Primarily, it's going to be a pain to maintain as more TNOs are discovered and others, like 2003 UB313, have their diameter pinned down. --Dhartung | Talk 01:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the Rank column is 'not useful'... this is a list of objects by size, correct? Going from largest to smallest? In which case, the size-ranking is of interest. --Firsfron 03:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

As I said, it's not useful because the list is not exhaustive. The rank we present is meaningless, aside from listing where an item appears in our list. There's absolutely no reason to believe, for instance, that Mercury is the 11th-largest body in the solar system, since we could discover a larger TNO at any time. This problem becomes even more pronounced as one moves downward in the list, at which point there are even known bodies that are not in our list. I have started by removing the ranks after Europa, since the relative ordering of Triton and UB313 are not known. --Doradus 16:27, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

According to Dave Jewitt, we could discover something larger than Jupiter at any time, too: "a planet of Earth's mass could exist undetected if it were more than a few 100 AU away, and even a Jupiter (300 Earth mass planet) could exist at distances only slightly greater." (from the Kuiper Belt Page: http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/faculty/jewitt/kb.html ) However, there is ample evidence that Jupiter is the 2nd largest body in the solar system, and that Mercury is the 11th-largest body in the solar system: in over three hundred years of telescopic astronomy, we haven't discovered anything larger.

Does the possibility of something existing that is larger than Jupiter mean Wikipedians can never create a list including the rankings of known objects by size, because there might be something larger? Of course not. Many resources, including books and web-sites, refer to the size-ranking of various bodies: check here for Mercury , here for Jupiter, and here for Europa (official NASA site, BTW). If NASA's ranking planetary bodies by size, there's no reason Wikipedia can't. --Firsfron 22:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The potential to find new objects is secondary; I'm sorry I focused on it in my remarks, because it was a spurious argument that seems to have utterly distracted you from my main point, which is that our list is not exhaustive. Even if it could be made exhaustive, which I doubt; even if we could find some means to include every known solar system object in the list, and keep it up to date with new findings; the sizes of most of them will never be known with enough precision to allow them to be ranked. The whole concept of the ranking is fundamentally futile beyond about 15th or so.

Having said all that, if you would like to use a ranking you find in another source, and cite it, be my guest. Wikipedia is all about collecting knowledge from credible sources. --Doradus 03:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yes. I believe you said that, once or twice. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." ;) Exhaustive: from Dictionary.com : very thorough; exhaustively complete. I'm not exactly sure how you think this list of objects could be more thorough or complete. If you think the list is incomplete, I wonder why you don't add the information you have (with suitable citation, of course). If it's just that you believe that more objects exist out there, yet undiscovered, I think I already addressed that: there's always the potential for larger objects (than Mercury or Jupiter) to exist, but we haven't found any, in the last three hundred years. And even if we do, it's really not too hard to update the list. Meanwhile, these are the largest objects known to exist, outside of fringe speculation and conjecture. If you're basing your objection to rank based on speculation, I don't know what to tell you: I've taken a look at your edits on other pages, and they seemed really sound, so your argument here seems quite puzzling.--Firsfron 13:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Please, just for one moment, consider the possibility that I'm not an idiot. Maybe, just maybe, I have a point, and that is this: 1) there are upwards of 5000 bodies currently known in the solar system; 2) most of them are very small and their sizes are only known to one significant figure, and 3) this makes a ranking of 90% of the bodies impossible and meaningless. --Doradus 16:09, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you're an idiot, Doradus. In fact, I thought I pretty much said that above, when I said I liked your earlier articles. I'm not sure why you thought I didn't think you weren't intelligent, as my post tried to indicate something else entirely.

I'd like to address these new points, P3, but I wish you would have mentioned them earlier. Anyway, back to your new points, which weren't mentioned earlier.

And I wish you had asked, or found out for yourself, rather than assume I was mistaken. ;-)

1) there are upwards of 5000 bodies currently known in the solar system; 2) most of them are very small and their sizes are only known to one significant figure, and 3) this makes a ranking of 90% of the bodies impossible and meaningless.

There are certainly 5000 bodies currently known in the solar system. Most of them are very small and their sizes are not all certain, true. However, you're off on point three: the list we are discussing doesn't contain 5,000 bodies. It contains the largest bodies known. You say this makes a ranking of 90% of the bodies impossible and meaningless, but in point of fact, the 90% of the bodies were never on this list. Only the largest bodies were on this list, and their ranking according what's currently known. Astronomy is an ever-evolving field, and our knowledge of heavenly bodies is always expanding; that doesn't mean that a list of solar system bodies, or even a ranking of known solar system bodies, is meaningless: as I said earlier, more than one resource, even NASA sites, cite size ranking, so obviously it's important to some people. Certainly the high school student who is writing a report on Saturn might find it useful to mention that Saturn is the third-largest body (known) in our solar system, and that's where a ranking might be useful, and not at all meaningless. Cheers! --Firsfron 16:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

First, the 35 or so bodies we have listed are not the 35 largest known bodies. They are the 35 bodies that people felt like adding to the list. That is why I keep saying the list is not exhaustive (though that could be fixed). Second, out of just these 35 bodies, the rankings of more than half of them are uncertain. Thus, even if you don't want to consider all 5000+ bodies, my points still stand with just these 35. Our rankings for most of them are meaningless. --Doradus 21:44, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

First, the 35 or so bodies we have listed are not the 35 largest known bodies. Not true. According to [[1]] the KBO on our list are the largest objects. Also compare with [2]. Neither site lists any KBOs that are larger than any on our list, so this isn't a case of the list here being inaccurate because people 'felt like adding bodies to the list'. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia's list here agrees with the findings on both of these sites, which I might add are run by professional astronomers. See also my talk page or yours for further comments. --Firsfron 04:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I concur with the elimination of a ranking number past 15, and I've added an editorial note to that effect inside the article (with a see talk). I think it's OK to have it there, at least partially, because it's something that a casual reader might expect.

Regarding Jupiter: It's certainly possible for a Jupiter-sized object to exist on a very long orbit of the Sun, if hypotheses about a brown dwarf companion have any validity. --Dhartung | Talk 05:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Hypotheses about brown dwarf companions to the sun are always interesting, of course, but doesn't that sort of fall into the category of speculation? --Firsfron 13:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I was just responding to the over-certainty in the earlier comment. In fact, I think it's more certain that we will discover planetary bodies at least as large as Europa -- in other words, our Top 15 is by no means finished -- and remains possible that we will discover very distant gas giants at least as large as Neptune, so that the Top 5 might even change one day. That doesn't change my view that down past 1500km there are going to be objects too numerous (er, hyperbole) to count, let alone definitively rank. In fact, I think these are complementary views. --Dhartung | Talk 23:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't change my view that down past 1500km there are going to be objects too numerous (er, hyperbole) to count, let alone definitively rank. While I agree there are still many bodies left to be discovered, some of which could be quite large, if the Main Asteroid Belt is any example, most of the larger objects in the Kuiper Belt have already been discovered (the first four asteroids discovered represent a majority of the mass of the entire main belt). In the past twelve years, we've discovered less than a dozen objects in the 1000 km range, which works out to less than one per year. That average doesn't really support claims of many large ("too numerous to count") objects in the range of 1500 km, and even if we discovered a large object every year for the next hundred years, we'd only have to update the list once a year.--Firsfron 18:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

David Jewitt, who discovered the first TNO, beleives that the Kuiper Belt contains some 70,000 objects larger than 100km, and is 300 times more massive in aggregate than the asteroid belt. [3] There are only 230 asteroids that large; and we're not necessarily counting objects in the Oort cloud (of which one is on our list already). Most of these are icy and dark. I don't think the history of asteroid belt astronomy is necessarily an excellent match; the first several TNos aren't even on our list, and it was only 1998 when we discovered the first of them (Ixion) and that's now the smallest listworthy object. So I still think there are a lot of them out there, and I don't think that 2003 UB313 is the upper bound; the odds are simply against it. Anyway, my argument has little to do with updating the list regularly; if anything, Wikipedia is in a better position to keep an updating ranking than NASA or anybody, because they publish static pages, while ours might be updated within minutes of an announcement. I'm just concerned that the ranking ceases to be useful after a certain point, because we simply don't know the mean radius value on which it is based to a reliable degree of accuracy. --Dhartung | Talk 19:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

the first several TNos aren't even on our list, and it was only 1998 when we discovered the first of them (Ixion) Actually, of course Pluto and Charon are TNOs that are on our list, so of course Ixion wasn't truly the first. I do certainly agree with you that the Main Belt discoveries may not be, as you say, an 'excellent match', however even with the great probability of thousands of objects in the 100 km range, the rate of discovery of larger, 1000-km-scale, objects (less than one per year during the past twelve years) doesn't really support the idea of vast numbers of 1000km+ objects. I certainly also agree with you that the ranking ceases to be useful after a certain point, but strongly disagree at where that point has, IMHO, arbitrarily been placed. There were less than 40 rankings on the list, and the majority were removed because the rankings 'were not useful' or something, based on the perception that the list was not accurate at its lower end. {Doradus -- I removed rankings after after Europa because the relative ordering of Triton and UB313 are not known.} There are, however, no other bodies that belong in amongst these ones, according to [4], which is updated as new large discoveries are made. I also agree that Wikipedia has a better chance of remaining up-to-date than NASA's site or other places. --Firsfron 05:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree on some things! (And yes, I do fall into the Pluto=TNO camp.) Putting it quite simply, speaking only of the known bodies, after #15 is where we start to get bodies whose mean radius is not known with any certainty. 2003 UB313 could be 16th through 19th, depending; Orcus could be 19th through 36th, by my count. Given that, assigning ranks is purely arbitrary. Cheers. --Dhartung | Talk 06:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

To rank or not to rank

The previous discussions have become quite voluminous, so let's see where we stand.

Can we agree on these two points?

• The list currently does not contain all known solar system bodies. It does not even contain all known bodies in the size range it covers. This could be fixed if we wanted to do so.

• The size of most solar system bodies is known only approximately. Therefore, rankings beyond a certain point are meaningless. (Note: I have currently pegged this at number 15, because we currently don't know whether Triton is larger or smaller than 2003 UB313.) This point will increase over time, but the large majority of known solar system bodies will always be unrankable.

In light of the new statement on 2003 UB313's diameter in the 2/2 Nature by Bertoldi et al., I have (1) changed the radius to reflect the latest figures, (2) placed 2003 UB313 higher than Triton on the list, (3) removed the "15" ranking from Europa (since it is possible that 2003 UB313 is larger than Europa). RandomCritic 14:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I see a few possible courses of action. Please add more to the end of the list if I have forgotten any.

1. Remove the Rank column. (This was my original proposal.)
2. Include ranks only for those bodies unaffected by known omissions and ranking uncertainty. Leave the Rank column blank for all other bodies. (This is the list's current state.)
3. Include only bodies unaffected by known omissions and ranking uncertainty. Include ranks for all bodies in the list.
4. Include rankings for all bodies in the list, despite ranking undertanty. Fix known omissions by adding the missing bodies.
5. Include rankings for all bodies in the list, despite known omissions and ranking uncertainty. (This was the state of the original Rank column.)

It's only #4 and #5 that I really object to. #3 seems to exclude a large number of interesting bodies (like Pluto).

My original proposal was #1, but having read other people's arguments, I think I'd now prefer #2. --Doradus 18:20, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

If we're voting, then Option 2 is my preference. I think it's a reasonable compromise between readers' expectations of some sort of ranking in a list "by N", and the known unknowns. --Dhartung | Talk 07:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm fairly happy with Option 2, if we're putting it to a vote. 1-16 have all been visited by probes and their sizes are well-known (since the 1980's, in fact), so there's little controversy on their respective sizes and rank in size. Having said that, the current Wikipedia article on 2003 UB313 lists its radius as anywhere up to 2,500km. --Firsfron 16:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm neutral, but while we're talking about the rank coloumn, did anyone notice that the images are overlapping the numbers? :| 66.134.206.66 20:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong radii?

Okay, these radius figures are all wrong. For example, it list Pluto's diameter as being 1195, when it's really 1430. That's just one example, as they all seem to be wrong. What's up with that?

What do you mean? I see Pluto's radius in the table as 1153 not 1195. This is directly from the Pluto article. Note also that it's the radius not the diameter that's tabulated, and in any case a diameter or radius of 1430 for Pluto is way out. Do you have any other examples? Deuar 10:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

(1153x2)x1.6 = c. 1430 (1433 might be more accurate). Get it?

Rich Farmbrough 23:16 10 May 2006 (UTC).

Well, I understand that 2×3=5, but i'm getting a bit lost with these bigger numbers! Deuar 10:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Name change

I moved this article from Geological features of the solar system, keeping in line with the lower-case usage at solar system. Please see Talk:Solar_system/Archive_001#Solar_System_vs_Solar_system and Talk:Solar_system/Archive_001#Requested_move (with discussion) for rationale. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Recommend change

In the chart, the earth's moon is called "moon". Is not the name for earth's moon suppose to be "Luna"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.31.11.2 (talk • contribs)

See Moon. In English, Luna is basically a romantic or fanciful name. The Earth's moon is generally called the Moon. --Dhartung | Talk 23:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm pretty sure that Earth's moon is called The Moon (note the capitalization) just as the star we revolve around is called The Sun. I know I read that on wikipedia, but I can't source it so I won't make changes. Prnd3825 22:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's only capital-T "The" at the start of a sentence. Mid-sentence, you would use "the Moon". Same goes for the Sun. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that our moon's scientific name is Luna, to distinguish between it and other moons orbiting different planets. Mrug² 19:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Check this out: NASA explanation

"The Moon was called Selene or Artemis by the Greeks and Luna by the Romans. I'm sure other cultures also had names for the Moon. But in English, Moon (from Mona and Moone in Old and Middle English) was used before anyone had any idea that the other planets had moons. So it was more a case that the specific name for the Moon was extended to mean small bodies revolving around planets elsewhere. The Moon's name is the Moon."

--Ckatz^chat_spy 20:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Mrug2, I've been in amateur astronomy circles since the 1970s and I've never once heard anyone call it "Luna". If you believe this name change is warranted, this topic should be continued at Talk:Moon. --Dhartung | Talk 00:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why radius?

Why we use radius, not diameter?--Nixer 09:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Why use the diameter? Why not use radius? --Iamunknown 07:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

ranking

With the smaller uncertainty in 2003 UB313, it looks like Triton can be confidently ranked 16th largest of the known bodies. Deuar 15:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thumbnails to wide?

Is it just my system, or a common view? Looking at the list, the thumbnails of the planets (etc) overlap onto the list od radii, partially obscuring the first digit.86.16.42.154 00:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Darkson

You were the second complaint. It turns out that the center syntax in the image tag for that column was causing an overlap in Internet Explorer, a bug not visible in Firefox. When I removed it there seemed to be no ill effects at different browser sizes in either software, so I hope that fixes it for everyone.--Dhartung | Talk 02:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Eris and Pluto

It's odd that Pluto is listed by its numbered designation while Eris is listed as simply Eris. This is presently the reverse of the titles of their respective Wikipedia articles. Considering the heightened state of awareness over these two names, I recommend either using the same format for both names, or following the naming of the main articles for these two dwarf planets. There has been enough debate over this already to justify such a change. 69.136.238.165 23:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Both those articles have been subject to page-move wars, so that's not really an arbiter. Right now there's a requested move discussion taking place on Talk:136199 Eris#Requested move.--Dhartung | Talk 01:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest removing the numbers from all minor planets to make their names more readable. --Greg K Nicholson 05:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing the '1' from the name of Ceres -- to be consistent both with the naming of other dwarf planets, and with the name on Ceres' own page which has already been thoroughly discussed over there. Anyway it's nearly impossible that anyone would think the name refers to the goddess in the context of this list. Montalto 18:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Proposal to merge content from List of planetary bodies into this article: 1. Because the objects treated are effectively the same. 2. Because the basis for determining a "planetary body" is not sufficiently different from the criteria for inclusion in this list to potentially result in a different set of inclusions, and therefore the two articles will be near-duplicates. RandomCritic 21:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, basically because I think there's an added value in having a list that's ordered.Junuxx 16:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I disagree as well. I think the other article should not be a list by size but an alphabetical list by type. --Dhartung | Talk 18:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree and will rework the list and change the order of the objects.--Planemo 18:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree as well − both orderings are valuable. Deuar 18:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Images

Should we be using only true images of these objects (be they true or false color), or is it acceptable to mix in some conceptual art images of what they might look like? (i.e. FY9 and EL61)~~Sethhater123

There was a discussion of this same issue a while back at Talk:List_of_solar_system_objects_by_mass#Should we have artist's impressions?. I would say artists impressions are ok provided there is absolutely no real image available and that they are easily distinguishable. What was done over at the list by mass was to give them a different-colored background. (Although they actually seem to have disappeared again now. Can't remember when) Deuar 19:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Common number format

Why does the Mean Radius vs Earth and Volume vs Earth start at using decimals then switch to percentages. It should probably be consistent throughout the column

Yes they should initially when it was created it was assembled in a mish-mash fashion. Abyssoft 15:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it was not mish-mash. It was considered easiest to understand. If they are all fractions, then Ceres becomes 0.076 instead of 7.6%. If they are all percentages, then the Sun becomes 10925%. --Doradus 13:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Something seem wrong with the lists...?

I'm not sure... could someone take a look?

If you press that button at "Mean Radius" twice, the order is different from where it was in the beginning. I think it's because of using both decimals and percentages. Also, using mean radius, Earth is at the top of the list, where the Sun should be. I think this is because of the space between numbers in 696 000. 74.116.137.2 21:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Xenaandgabrielle.jpg

Image:Xenaandgabrielle.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Mass fraction of system

While the graphics (esp. "Relative masses of the bodies of the Solar System" pie charts) are nice, some people (read: I) wouldn't mind seeing a column (at least for objects >400 km) showing the percentage of the whole 1.0014 M_sol mass of the solar system. Any possibility?

49.183.87.182 (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on List of Solar System objects by size. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/dwarfplanets/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/uraniansatfact.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111018154917/http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/dps.html to http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/dps.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141107172122/http://benoit.carry.free.fr/science/article/2012-AA-544-Carry.pdf to http://benoit.carry.free.fr/science/article/2012-AA-544-Carry.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mqp8r4gD?url=http://www.psi.edu/pds/resource/imps%2Ehtml to http://www.psi.edu/pds/resource/imps.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/abs/2001/29/aa10228/aa10228.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-3881/132/2/692/205235.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Sci...318.1602P
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/comet/hyakutake/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.psi.edu/pds/archive/astdata04/simps04/diamalb.tab
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=4769%20Castalia;orb=0;cov=0;log=0;cad=0#phys_par
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=Hypnos
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi#top
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=4660%20Nereus;orb=0;cov=0;log=0;cad=0#phys_par
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-014
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110111142013/http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2009fd.html to http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2009fd.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=1998%20KY26;orb=0;cov=0;log=0;cad=0#phys_par
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mqp8r4gD?url=http://www.psi.edu/pds/resource/imps%2Ehtml to http://www.psi.edu/pds/resource/imps.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060623213811/http://www.psi.edu/pds/archive/astdata04/simps04/diamalb.tab to http://www.psi.edu/pds/archive/astdata04/simps04/diamalb.tab

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of Solar System objects by size. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150530075157/http://dawnblog.jpl.nasa.gov/2015/05/28/dawn-journal-may-28-2015/ to http://dawnblog.jpl.nasa.gov/2015/05/28/dawn-journal-may-28-2015/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/db_search/show_object?object_id=2010+KZ39&commit=Show
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=4769%20Castalia;orb=0;cov=0;log=0;cad=0
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=4660%20Nereus;orb=0;cov=0;log=0;cad=0
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=1998%20KY26;orb=0;cov=0;log=0;cad=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on List of Solar System objects by size. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/dwarfplanets/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/uraniansatfact.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305034458/http://lcogt.net/files/K2SciCon/Robert_Szabo-Szabo_TNOs_web.pdf to http://lcogt.net/files/K2SciCon/Robert_Szabo-Szabo_TNOs_web.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/69AxYXaJY?url=http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/db_search/show_object?object_id=2010+KZ39 to http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/db_search/show_object?object_id=2010+KZ39&commit=Show
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ssd.jpl.ar.gov/sbdb_help.cgi?class=MBA
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.psi.edu/pds/resource/imps.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-3881/132/2/692/205235.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11470851
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Icar..196..578D
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Sci...318.1602P
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/comet/hyakutake/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=4769%20Castalia%3Borb%3D0%3Bcov%3D0%3Blog%3D0%3Bcad%3D0
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=Hypnos
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303201658/http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/22732/1/97-1257.pdf to http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/22732/1/97-1257.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=4660%20Nereus%3Borb%3D0%3Bcov%3D0%3Blog%3D0%3Bcad%3D0
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-014
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7426755.stm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=1998%20KY26%3Borb%3D0%3Bcov%3D0%3Blog%3D0%3Bcad%3D0
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.psi.edu/pds/resource/imps.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorting by Mass

I notice that when we sort the list by mass the exponent is ignored. Is there anything we can do about this? It makes it difficult to compare a 2.1×10²⁰ kg body to a 8.8×10¹⁹ body. -- Kheider (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it might work if we use the exponent template {{e|20}} or {{e|19}} instead of spelling it out. Serendi^podous 19:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the sort program is that smart so I am filling the M_Earth column for the known masses so that the list can be sorted by mass. I am currently leaving out the assumed^A masses since they are just guesses. -- Kheider (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Mass list added

The entire mass list is now incorporated into the big list. Now I want to go over the list and condense it (there's no point in having two different measurements of the same value (km or kg vs Earth) in separate columns), add Surface gravity, type of object and sphericity. Serendi^podous 18:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep both of the Mass columns. One for common use (kg) and one for wiki-sorting (M_Earth). If you currently sort the Mass kg column you will see that Ceres is the most massive at 9.5. :-) -- Kheider (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've made a request on the Lists talk page. I hope we can figure out how to do it. If worst comes to worst we can change kilograms for yottagrams (×10²¹ kg). Serendi^podous 20:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. I notice NONE of the columns are sorting properly. -- Kheider (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too; I reverted everything. Shame. If I want this merge to work, then this list is going to have to be really wide. Serendi^podous 11:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This merge is still a good idea because a sortable list is better and all the data could be kept in one list. Besides when I think of masses I think in kg, not yg. If we wanted to we would keep the assumed^A asteroids from cluttering the "sorting by mass" by not inserting a M_Earth value for them. I realize that for objects beyond Saturn, including most of the smaller moons of Uranus and Neptune, "assumed masses" is the only way we can really do a complete list.-- Kheider (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Red Links

Should we remove the red TNO links? Their radii (200-264) appear to be taken from Johnston. With an article like this I prefer TNOs with a better estimated size, ie "Johnston #" and the Spitzer list. -- Kheider (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure Johnston used a source to cite it. And he lists his sources on his page. We could always create their pages. Serendi^podous 19:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. On Jonhston's page, objects marked with a # next to the diameter have actually been professionally estimated. All other bodies are "assumed to have an albedo of 0.09". I looked at the red link TNOs, they are all assumed albedo 0.09 (per Johnston). I don't mind assumed albedos for the largest bodies, but these red links are basically small unknown TNOs. -- Kheider (talk)

I've had a think and I have decided that I agree. They should go. The only one I think we should keep is the last NEA, since I'm sure that one's radius can be determined fairly accurately.Serendi^podous 11:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Given their large radii and potential as dwarf planets, I added 2005 UQ513* 462, 2007 UK126* 439, 2003 UZ413* 303 (all assumed albedo 0.09) to the list. -- Kheider (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If Chiron is on this list, then shouldn't Charilko, which is bigger than Chiron, also be on this list? Serendi^podous 20:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes we need to list the largest centaurs, just as we need to list the largest dwarf planet candidates. With that in mind I also believe that we should list 1995 SN55 that could turn out to be the largest known centaur. -- Kheider (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Radius

Currently * symbolizes "Radius is known only very approximately". We need more tags for radius. Should ^R be used for "Objects that have been determined by various methods, such as optical (Hubble), thermal (Spitzer), direct imaging via spacecraft." This would be good for say Eris, Haumea, 2002 TC302, Orcus, MS4, AW197, GV9, AZ84, UX25, TL66, DE9, Huya. We could also have a ⁹ label for all the basically unknown "assumed albedo 0.09" objects. The * will also be good smaller moons like Sycorax.

This would give us:
* Radius is known only very approximately
^R Radius has been determined by various methods, such as optical (Hubble), thermal (Spitzer), or direct imaging via spacecraft
⁹ Unknown radius, generic assumed albedo of 0.09
-- Kheider (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

At some point we're going to have to go a lot farther than that. We are going to have to provide an individual reference for every established radius and note any radius that is derived from other properties, such as albedo. I know it will be tedious, but that's how these things work. Serendi^podous 10:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this merge may be a lost cause

The sortbot simply can't handle so many terms. It can sort the mass figures alright going up, but not down, even when all the figures are regularised. Serendi^podous 12:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should split the list in half, one for bodies above 100km in radius, one for bodies below 100 km in radius. Serendi^podous 12:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Heck, I'll just try it. Serendi^podous 14:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I did it and it worked! Yay! One thing; while I was sorting out the over 100s from the under 100s, I noticed that 283 Emma's radius seemed remarkably big for something of its mass. Are you sure it wasn't 48, rather than 148? Serendi^podous 15:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Yes, 283 Emma (Binary) has a density of 0.83 per BAER. BAER is the source for current volumes and masses of the asteroids. This is why I tagged it with a (M)ass known. This is also part of the reason I like keeping the M_Earth for objects with known masses. Otherwise you don't know when you have a 8 Flora (Density 7+) or an Emma. -- Kheider (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Baer

I figured Baer (as a source) would be coming up. Baer just gave a presentation at the AAS Division of Planetary Sciences meeting in October. This is why I have been busy playing with the masses of the asteroids so much. Baer also put out a paper in 2007.  :-) -- Kheider (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I just realised a second problem

Now that the tables are split, many objects in the lower table actually higher masses and surface gravities than those in the upper table. I wonder if the merge is worth this or whether we're better off with the three old tables. Serendi^podous 17:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• One master table to maintain is better than 3 "very generic" tables. And for the most part it appears sortable.
• I still doubt the gravity entries for the smaller objects with assumed diameters and masses (Below Miranda @ surface gravity.) Those with known masses are (assumed) ok.
• Since the start of this project I figured this master table may get split into two sections, kind of like planet vs dwarf planet. :-) There will always be little rocks with more mass than a chunk of styrofoam.
• I am still comparing various sources for the diameters of the smaller moons: JPLSSD, Sheppard, NSSDC. Things get pretty wild around Sycorax (diameter 150-190).
  -- Kheider (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Mass and radius are now in

All that remains is surface gravity. Since there are about 100 entries to input (starting at Elara) I would very much appreciate it if someone else could help in shouldering the load. Serendi^podous 16:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• According to surface gravity, Sycocrax has a radius of 75km (Sheppard/NSSDC), but it claims it has a mass of 5.4×10¹⁸! Ouch, that would require it to have a density of 3. I think Sycorax probably has a density of 1.3 to 2. But if the original entry showed a radius of 95km (JPLSSD) with a density of 1.5 then we would get a mass of 5.38×10¹⁸. Crud, even the original entry shows a radius of 75. :( -- Kheider (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• For Caliban, a radius of 36km and mass of 7.4×10¹⁷ requires a density of 3.8. Ah, I see. They took their mass estimates straight from the (April 2007) wiki articles, and if those numbers were a mix match of different edits to the mass, radius, etc... you get weirdness. -- Kheider (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Bugger. Since it would appear that adding any more figures from that list would be more dangerous than not doing so, I'll just go ahead with the merge. I guess I'll have to do what I usually do: drag Ruslik over here to do the calculations. Serendi^podous 19:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been starting to compare the mass and gravity figures to what are given in the main articles and most of them do not deviate too much. But yes, I think I trust the main articles to be more up to date. And we really only want 3 sig figs for smaller bodies. If Ruslik works on it, I would have him start with bodies that have a known mass/radius (JPLSSD) instead of the assumed densities. -- Kheider (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

List of named Solar System objects

This list contains a number of objects that we might want to include in the bottom list. Serendi^podous 12:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. But I am trying to stay away from adding too many poorly known objects (with radii<20 km) that have assumed masses. I have even given some thought to removing asteroids 141 Lumen through 100 Hekate since they are little known asteroids with assumed masses. We have enough quality asteroids with known masses for the list, IMO. -- Kheider (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The list no longer exists.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Kheider

could you link to your sources? Lists need to have some form of referencing, even if it's not as rigorous as the referencing for an article. Just posting them at the bottom should be enough. Serendi^podous 22:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem of Mass Unit?

It appears to me that masses given are in Kg x 10 to the 24th but unit shown in heading is Gm x 10 to the 24th(Yg).Dspacenut (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The top list gives its values in 10^21 kg (Yg). The bottom two lists give mass values in 10^18 g (Eg). Serendi^podous 22:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Volume in Earths

My calculations are giving completely different values to the numbers listed. Can someone check please? Serendi^podous 21:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Having a quick look at Mercury, Venus, Jupiter and Neptune using http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetfact.html I don't see a problem. Which objects did you see a problem? -- Kheider (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you have a look at Charon and Umbriel? Serendi^podous 07:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Umbriel: Volume of a sphere with radius 584.7 km = 837,313,109.4 km³ / 1,083,207,317,374 km³ = 7.7E-04 = 0.00077 Earth
Charon: Volume of a sphere with radius 603.5 km = 902,704,853.6 km³ / 1,083,207,317,374 km³ = 8.4E-04 = 0.00084 Earth
-- Kheider (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. So they're wrong on the page. The list claims the volumes are 0.095 and 0.092 x10^9 km^3.

Which is not only the wrong value but appears to be off by a factor of ten. For me, 837,313,109/10^9 is 0.837, not 0.0837.

Which means I have to manually go through the entire list and redo the whole thing.

Bugger. Serendi^podous 14:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This list claims that Charon has a volume of 0.87*10^9 = 870,000,000. Though it should be closer to 0.9*10^9, I do not see where it is off by a factor of ten. It also depending on how the original author rounded and what estimated radius they used. Heck even the Charon article claims radius 603.5 ± 1.5km while Planetary Satellite Physical Parameters shows 603.6 ± 1.4. The radius of Charon to Earth is 604/6378=0.0947 (which is what this article shows.) -- Kheider (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've been reading the wrong columns. God this is painful. But still, it means that OR10's volume is going to be misplaced when it's added, unless I redo all of the volume figures. Serendi^podous 18:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Are the "Mean Radius" and "Volume" columns supposed to be related by the formula V=4/3*pi*R^3 ? Currently they aren't because Eris's R is greater than Pluto's, and Pluto's V is greater than Eris's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.99.73 (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ceres

MPEC 2006-R19 : EDITORIAL NOTICE says:

• "Ceres, Pluto and 2003 UB313 were identified as members of this new category"
• "It should be noted that, just as some of the numbered objects that have exhibited cometary activity also have designations in the catalogue of numbered periodic comets, the numbering of "dwarf planets" does not preclude their having dual designations in possible separate catalogues of such bodies."

IAU Questions and Answers on Planets says:

• "Ceres is (or now we can say it was) the largest asteroid" (clear as mud. So what was the first asteroid discovered? 2 Pallas?)
  

-- Kheider (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Kheider, thanks for adding the "in the asteroid belt" part. I actually intended to do something along those lines, but forgot for some bizarre reason. (The "DP in the asteroid belt" format is consistent with what we are doing in other articles involving Ceres; keeping the "asteroid" status somewhat ambiguous in the absence of any definitive statement.) It also with how we don't identify Ceres as the xth planet discovered; identify it as a DP and leve the rest as background. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Surface gravity

It can be argued that we don't need surface gravity measurements for those objects under 20 km, but why leave the field there while removing the title? That makes no sense. Serendi^podous 12:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Because the small objects aren't in gravitational equilibrium (i.e., they are potatoes), the surface gravity will vary depending upon where on the surface you are doing the measuring. The value computed from the mass and mean radius is really just a theoretical upper bound. This applies to the 20-200 km objects, too. For example, one of those dog-bone asteroids will not have anywhere with a surface gravity near the value computed from the mass and mean radius. So I think surface gravity should be dropped from the under 20, and probably from the 20-200, too, since it isn't any actual surface gravity on the object. Tbayboy (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Very well. But the problem is that many of the mass calculations for the smaller objects were obtained by assuming sphericity and then a likely density. I would prefer a cited mass figure if one can be found, but that isn't always possible. Serendi^podous 11:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

density?

i was thinking of adding density to the tables, as this is also an interesting attribute. Then people could sort a list, showing for example that the average density of Earth is higher than the Sun.

I thought i would ask before doing so, is there a reason that density is not included? Is it because mass and volume are provided?

I think density is important enough to be included. Sorting by density would be a lot different that sorting by either mass or volume, it paints a whole different picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.216.45 (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Will get onto it eventually. Serendi^podous 20:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

When sorting by density (descending) on the first panel Pluto comes out on Top , over Earth 5.514 g/cm^3 and Mercury 5.427 Obviously at 1.87± 0.02 g/cm^3 it should be on position 12 after Titan . It is my impression hat Pluto is there alone in a category by itself and thus appears on top. Can someone try to correct this. I would myself but I am afaraid I might mess things up. Thanks Rudy235 (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC). I went ahead and corrected that glitch on the ability to sort by density.. I hope it did not spoil anything that should have remained.Rudy235 (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a bug in Template:Val (which I've reported). Values using Val do not sort properly with values not using it. Ideally, all values should be listed using Val. --JorisvS (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

repetition

-- object 140 Siwa is repeated; around 55 km radius. ........ Well spotted. Serendi^podous 20:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Trojan 4348 Poulydamas albedo

A Jupiter Trojan discovered in 1988 that's over 100km in diameter? Forgive me if I'm doubtful. — kwami (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Just curious because of the "1988", but what exactly makes you doubtful? Anyway, looking at the IRAS source documents, the diameter is calculated from the absolute magnitude using an assumed albedo of .01, whereas other entries in the Wikipedia table with unknown albedos use the standard .09. Note that using that assumed .01 albedo, the source also lists 9 Metis as 737 km, Irene as 730, Euterpe as 529, etc. With .09, Poulydamas would have a diameter of 64 km. Tbayboy (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's the same size and distance as 624 Hektor, but took another 80 years to find? That just set my BS detector off. And, as you note, the albedo assumption applied to Metis and Irene make them the protoplanets rather than Vesta and Pallas. Of course, maybe Poulydamas is unusually dark and so just escaped notice, but our article on it mentions nothing about it being tied with Hektor as the largest known Trojan. — kwami (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

With absolute magnitude H=9.2, 4348 Poulydamas generically (one size fits most) should have a diameter of around ~60km. Assuming a generic trojan albedo of 0.06 would yield a size of ~80km. An albedo of 0.02 (624 Hektor has an albedo of 0.025) would still only place Poulydamas at 135km. In 2004 the European Asteroidal Occultation Network listed it pre-occultation as 48km in diameter. Trojan 2456 Palamedes H=9.6 has an albedo of 0.03 giving it a size of 91km. Asteroid 1049 Gotho is H=12 with a very dark albedo of 0.01 (size=51km), but he is a rare breed. -- Kheider (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you've bumped the size down to 24km, below the 100-km limit of the table, shouldn't it just be deleted, and the info moved to the Poulydamas article? — kwami (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I moved it down. Serendi^podous 09:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Distance from Sun column

I think we should add a distance from Sun column that would make it easier to find bodies so that the object can be sorted to follow the more common pattern of Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, etc. --TimeHorse (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately, the plan is, once (if) this article ever gets to FL then to go onto List of Solar System objects and do a complete workup of their orbital elements, from semi-major axis to eccentricity to argument of perihelion. Serendi^podous 16:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A distance from the Sun column is a great idea. Does anyone have a link to the information? I am glad to work on it.--Wyn.junior (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

File:2003 EL61.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:2003 EL61.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Using non-free images in the list

The images of 2867 Šteins (File:Steins-Rosetta.jpg) and 25143 Itokawa (File:Itokawa4.jpg) were removed for being non-free and lacking a rationale (WP:FUR). From where I stand including an image where possible adds to the list. Is there any way we could get these back in? --JorisvS (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorting

Putting DP first messes up sorting by KBO, SDO, asteroid, etc., and does not even provide sorting by DP. (We can't sort by DP, as WP editors disagree as to which objects qualify as DPs: There are numerous sources that Sedna is a DP, for example, but that's not reflected in the sorting.) Also, the lists further down all sort by KBO, SDO, asteroid, so listing DP second makes the various lists consistent. — kwami (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverted, and no, you disagree. The column sorts perfectly well for dwarf planets. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If it sorted, then the DPs would be listed together. But they're not, because we can't agree on which are DPs, because you refuse to accept any sources which disagree with your POV. We can, however, agree on which are KBOs and the like. And since that's how the other tables sort, that's how they should all sort. — kwami (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the root problem is that the "type" column contains multiple axes of information. With the "shape" column, they try (inconsistently) to contain info about what the composition of the body is (star, gas, ice, rock), its dynamic status (sun, dominant body, satellite, small body), its dynamic group/location (e.g., planet, main belt, centaur, cubewano, detached, etc.), and its shape (H-E, unknown, potato). (Even more, with the binary indications and so on.) No matter how you arrange it, the sort will be wrong from some perspective. It doesn't help that the DP definition is a combination of dynamic status and shape, which are properties independent of each other. Anyway, reorganising those two columns into three or more that are focused on well defined, single axis properties is what's needed to improve the sorting. Tbayboy (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Do we really need...

Do we really need the volume and surface gravity columns? And really need them twice? Would people really (regularly) use the volume figures, and if so, what is the added value of including these when the figure can very easily be calculated from the radius of the object? With densities often simply assumed (and usually arguably incorrectly assumed to be Pluto's) and radii often only approximately known, a surface-gravity figure would simply not be meaningful in the majority of cases. That said, I can easily offer two much more useful figures that are omitted from the table: semi-major axis and orbital period. --JorisvS (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a list of solar system objects by size. Not by orbit. If we added orbital period and semi-major axis, this would not be a list of solar system objects by size; it would be a list of solar system objects. That in itself wouldn't be so bad, perhaps, but there's no point in listing an object by orbital characteristics if you can't order the list by orbital characteristics, and there's no point in ordering the list by orbital characteristics if all you will learn by doing so is which ones have the longest orbits within a certain size range. The only way to make this work would be to merge all the subsections into one giant list, and I don't think that list would be sortable.

The List of Solar System objects by orbit was supposed to be tackled once this article became a featured list, which was the goal established during the Solar System FTC ages ago. But since this list is now expanded beyond all redemption, I don't think it will ever be featured, so I have no idea when the ...by orbit list will be completed. As far as approximations go, nearly everything on this list is approximate. If we kept our list to well-established values, then Pluto would have to be taken out entirely. Really all that matters is that the list orders correctly; the important thing to take away from the Surface gravity list is that surface gravity is not directly tied to mass or size. I can take or leave volume. Serendi^podous 16:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

What about the Type of object column? Including semi-major axis wouldn't suddenly make this a list of Solar System objects by orbit (or at least no longer a list by size), otherwise this list would already be a 'list of Solar System objects by type' (or at least already not a list by size). It would then simply include information on the semi-major axis of the objects, just like it already includes info on the type of object (which I think would be useful to many users). Note that it would then still not fork a fully expanded '... by orbit' list. --JorisvS (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well as I said, there's not much point in having a sortable orbital list unless you can compare it to others on the list, and since the list is already broken up by size, the orbital stats won't reveal much. Look at List of moons for an example of how orbital stats can be sorted. Serendi^podous 18:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Volume is a kind of size, especially relevent for potatoes, so I think it belongs here. Surface gravity (as much as I like having it) isn't, nor shape and type. I think some interesting non-size info is desirable (like the images), but which to choose seems pretty subjective. Given the images, I don't think shape is needed at all; you can see for yourself in the thumbnails. I think the earth-relative columns are rather useless, but they're at least on topic (size). The missing column I would like to see is H, even if it's not really a size measurement, since that's the only solid data for a good chunk of the TNOs and centaurs, everything else being derived from it by guesses about albedo and density. Tbayboy (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

For spheroids volume can be calculated very easily. On the other hand, for the potatoes volume figures are no longer given. Some of the images give the mistaken impression that their shapes are known to be spheroids, so I think the shape column is useful. I agree with you that it would be good to have an absolute-magnitude column. --JorisvS (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistent referencing

Why do some objects have references attached to the numbers, but not others? The red-linked entries are obvious enough, but why do, e.g., Titan, Eris, and Pluto have references for their radii (that are the same size as on their main articles), but not Mars, Ganymede, nor Ceres? Rhea but not Oberon? Tbayboy (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

because this article is a mess. Wanna tidy it up? It'll only take about six months. Serendi^podous 07:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Which way should it be? It would be easier (both to do and maintain) to not have a reference for fields that are in the body's article's infobox, but does that violate Wiki policy? If we must have references, would it be okay to put a single reference on the name (for well studied bodies like Jupiter), where that ref contains all the data? Tbayboy (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

A simpler solution would be to simply give the references their own box, as with List of natural satellites or Earth's location in the universe. Serendi^podous 15:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Type of Object: Ixion

( any particular reason Ixion is listed as a KBO instead of a plutino? ) MistySpock (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added that description to Ixion, ie (KBO—Plutino). -- Kheider (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force?

In the Surface Gravity paragraph, should it not be centripetal force and not centrifugal? The formula seems to suggest it's centripetal force as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.156.168 (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorting by Type (100-50km and down)

[Please forgive me if I've done something incorrectly. This is my first time posting a comment; usually I just get fed up with trying and quit, but it kills knowing that I could contribute something, or bring it to the attention of someone who knows how.]

I noticed that, beginning with the 100 - 50 km radius list and down, there isn't an option to sort by type. I've found it pretty helpful in the preceding lists; I'm sure someone else would find it helpful if these lower lists had that function, as well.

I tried looking at the Beta edit, but couldn't see anything different aside from the fact that it looks like they aren't actually included in a column of their own, despite being separated as such on the display page. I'm pretty seriously afraid of messing around with the code, however much I /think/ I could handle it. (Like those slashes; are they going to italicize? I don't know!) Edit: No, they aren't, because this input box has that option right in front of my face.

Would greatly appreciate it if someone could tell me how to do this. Or do it themselves; I'm not picky! (adelaz) 75.66.200.203 (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed :-) Serendi^podous 18:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of Solar System objects by size

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of Solar System objects by size's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "brown":

• From Mars: Carr, Michael H. (2003). "Oceans on Mars: An assessment of the observational evidence and possible fate". Journal of Geophysical Research. 108 (5042): 24. Bibcode:2003JGRE..108.5042C. doi:10.1029/2002JE001963.
• From List of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System: Mike Brown, K. M. Barksume, G. L. Blake, E. L. Schaller, D. L. Rabinowitz, H. G. Roe and C. A. Trujillo (2007). "Methane and Ethane on the Bright Kuiper Belt Object 2005 FY₉". The Astronomical Journal. 133 (1): 284–289. Bibcode:2007AJ....133..284B. doi:10.1086/509734.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• From Hydrostatic equilibrium: http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/dps.html

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Size of table cells

Rhea and Iapetus have larger cells in the table, compared to surrounding Titania, Oberon, Makemake, etc. I don't see a reason for this but I also don't know how to correct it. Rothorpe (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. Perhaps you're not expanding the screen wide enough: the comments section of Rhea+Iapetus will wrap to three lines high if the screen is too narrow, whereas the surrounding entries will stay at two lines high until very narrow. Tbayboy (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I see now, thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

1996 TL66 could be included?

(15874)_1996_TL66 MistySpock (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The article has undergone some heavy editing lately and it was removed. It was listed for years and can be found in some older versions. [5] Fotaun (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Columns for eccentricity and distance from the Sun

Columns for eccentricity and distance from the Sun would be nice. If no one objects I might add those, starting with the planets.

Maybe some of the duplicated columns should be taken out? Maybe only keep mass, volume and gravity in fraction-of-Earth's units?

Liiiii (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

If dropping duplicate columns, I would rather keep the SI units. For mass, Earth units are meaningless for the smaller-object tables, and keeping it in SI makes it easy to compare across tables. I wouldn't object to dropping volume altogether, but if it's there at all, I would want the number that's more readily usable in a calculation, which I think is SI. (The idea of relative size is already conveyed by the radius-in-Earths column.) For surface gravity, Earth is close enough to 10 that comparison is easy in SI.

The table is about size, so I don't think orbital parametres really belong. But if adding them, why only distance and eccentricity? It also gets confusing with satellites, since they would need different units for distance, otherwise it becomes hard to read. Tbayboy (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that the SI units are preferable. I don't see the added value of the surface gravity relative to Earth's. What about starting an actual list at List of Solar System objects with the following values? It would mean people can easily find these values, and so would not request them here.

Body	Image	Orbital area	Semi-major axis (km)		Eccentricity	Inclination	Mean radius (km)	Mass ×1021 kg (Yg)	? Mass (M⊕)	Density (g/cm3)	Shape	Rotation period (h)	Axial tilt (°)
			Distance to Sun	Distance to primary

Are there any missing? --JorisvS (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Orbital elements belong in List of Solar System objects by orbit, which we haven't started yet, because we were supposed to start it after this got an FL. Serendi^podous 18:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

But there's snowball's chance in Hell of that ever happening. What about just beginning? What do you think of the parameters above? --JorisvS (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

If we added them, this wouldn't be a list of solar system objects by size anymore. Serendi^podous 19:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This page would stay as is. JorisvS is talking about the already existing page (see above), which isn't currently in tabular form. This discussion should be taken over there (assuming Liiiii is okay with having the info there). That would be a lot of overlap, though. Tbayboy (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Size ranking

Not going to continue an edit war about this but there are an couple of issues that I would like to discuss. First of all I think that an index column in the first table would be very useful but apparently there are editors with strong opinions otherwise. It would make it a lot easier to scan the table to find an object if you know their size rank rather than having to think down the radius column with keeping the radius in your head and continually calculating greater than/less than. Ordinal numbers are much easier to find that discreet values, even in an ordered sequence.

Second point is that the table uses radii rather that diameters. Many of the linked article, like Eris (dwarf planet), only mention the diameter in the lead section so you end up dividing by two on top of that (Yes, I know the radius is in the infobox but it is not easy to spot). Why does the table not use diameter anyway? People don't intuitively think in radii, but rather in diameters, which is what you see when you look and at any round object. The radius is not a visually recognizable property of a spherical object. Don't know about any else but I don't have x-ray vision myself.

The argument that the ranking/index would have to be constantly changed or updated sounds like a little laziness to me. The table has to be re-ordered anytime additional information changes the order anyway. I also get a feeling that some resistance to changing this may also be due to a little WP:OWN.

The only other way I can see to make it easier to find an object in the table would be to enable sorting by the object name column.

I started looking for a good source that would have the ranking and one thing I came across was this Top 20 list. Not exactly a reliable source and the order is the same only down to number 16 anyway. Also found this pretty picture but that list only matches to #16 also. I will bring up individual questions about that in a new section.

I don't realistically expect to see a consensus to change this but I had to express my options. Nyth63 17:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

If it is added (as a result of the discussion at Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet)), please put the rank column on the right side of the table, where it won't push more meaningful information off the visible edge of the browser window. Tbayboy (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

top 50

This is copied from discussion on the Ceres page. It's intended as a companion piece to the mass diagram. It's SVG, so you can edit it with a text editor and easily make changes for new size figures and ranking. Tbayboy (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Significant figures

There are a number of numerical problems in the tables with Significant figures. In particular the mean radius given in a ratio to earth is very poorly calculated. Given that it is just a rough yardstick to help visual the size, I can accept that it is given with fewer digits as for example, the radius of Mars is given as 3389.5 km verses 0.532 Re (five digits vs three) but from Charon down it gets worse. There are only two digits given down through Ceres and only one for Sedna and the four below Ceres. Could someone recalculate these and give at least three figures for all of the numbers? And Makemake is blank in that column completely. Same issue with the volume and mass ratios also. Nyth63 01:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I did the following based on the information from the corresponding articles on each object, taking into account error bars:

Sun: 109.30 ± 0.01

Jupiter: 10.9733 ± 0.0009

Saturn: 9.1402 ± 0.0009

Uranus: 3.981 ± 0.001

Neptune: 3.865 ± 0.003

Earth: 1.000000000000000 ± 0.000000000000000

Venus: 0.9499 ± 0.0002

Mars: 0.53202 ± 0.00003

Ganymede: 0.41345 ± 0.00005

Titan: 0.4043 ± 0.0003

Mercury: 0.3829 ± 0.0002

Callisto: 0.3783 ± 0.0002

Io: 0.28592 ± 0.00008

Moon: 0.272657

Europa: 0.24499 ± 0.00008

Triton: 0.2124 ± 0.0001

Pluto: 0.186 ± 0.001

Eris: 0.1825 ± 0.0009

Titania: 0.12375 ± 0.00009

Rhea: 0.1199 ± 0.0002

Oberon: 0.1195 ± 0.0004

Iapetus: 0.1152 ± 0.0004

Makemake: 0.112 ± 0.001

2007 OR10: 0.10 ± 0.02

Haumea: 0.097 ± 0.005

Charon: 0.0947 ± 0.0002

Umbriel: 0.0918 ± 0.0004

Ariel: 0.09086 ± 0.00009

Dione: 0.08812 ± 0.00006

Quaoar: 0.0871 ± 0.0005

Tethys: 0.08336 ± 0.00009

Sedna: 0.08 ± 0.01

Ceres: 0.0747 ± 0.0003

2002 MS4: 0.073 ± 0.004

Orcus: 0.072 ± 0.002

Salacia: 0.067 ± 0.004

I will update it accordingly. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Omit the tolerances. You significant figures are still all over the place and very inconsistent. Pick a number like 3 or 4 and stick with it. Nyth63 13:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That becomes difficult, as some objects have poorly-defined sizes (like 2007 OR10) so I can't easily define a constant figure without giving undue accuracy to some, or having few significant figures for others. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of my original comment was to move the table towards being more readable, which with the last change it certainly is not. Removing the tolerances would help and that information is rather abstract in the secondary column anyway as it becomes a tolorance relative to the radius of the earth and not the object itself. Since the column is a calculation of size relative to the earth, that should guide the purpose of this column. Also, the calculation of figures is still a mess. For example, the radius of Pluto in km is given to 4 figures, but the Re is only 3. Titania is 4 vs 5. Salacia is 3 vs 2, etc. Again, as the actual known/measured/estimated radius is given in column 3, the purpose of column 4 I assumed was to give a "visual" reference towards earth and not just a repeat of the same data in different units which would be as redundant as also listing another column in leagues, rods or fathoms.. Having the same number of significant figures on every line would make it much easier to make this comparison in your head. If you are concerned with implied accuracy, then just round to three digits and go with it. If any one needs more accurate information they can just refer to column 3. Nyth63 15:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I am also wondering if there is some miscommunication between significant figures and decimals here. A number like 123.4 has four significant figures as does 0.001234 and 1.000. I am an engineer and habitually think that way and I apologize if I was not clear what I meant. The wikilink should help clarify this. Nyth63 15:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I attempted to round it to four significant figures, as that appears to be the maximum that is within the objects' diameter errors. Objects whose size errors are greater than this- Pluto, Makemake, 2007 OR10, Haumea, Charon, Umbriel, Quaoar, Sedna, Ceres, 2002 MS4, Orcus, and Salacia- were only included to the accuracy of their sizes. If that doesn't work, I could of course just use accuracy to 3 digits for objects smaller than Earth. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks a lot better now but there are a few that I feel should be carried at least one more digit like 2007 OR10, Sedna and the bottom three. I understand your argument that the size tolerance offsets the last significant digit but they are still there and should be calculated that way.

Also, I don't think it would be harmful to round off the figures for Ariel, Dione, Tethys by one more digit. Do you think there may be room to add (approx.) in the column header?

Done, perhaps I should change Pluto, Makemake, and Haumea at this point? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks greats now. I was not going to quibble over the last few but I think a clarification that these are approximate might be useful. Nyth63 19:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Request to revert good-faith edits

In order to continue the overall revision of the tables in the article, Kwamikagami's good-faith edits need to be reverted to the version before this edit. His edits lead to a number of inconsistencies and are (currently) not helpful. I'm not going to argue about as to whether or not these edits make sense per-se, as it is not the time to restructure the article as long as I'm cleaning up the tables.

Whether or not the first three tables in the list should indeed be splitted/merged or not is something that may be discussed later on when the revision I've been doing is completed. (Also the question of whether to use radius or diameter may then be decided and implemented.) If so, then theses edits will have to be consistently made over the entire article (e.g. the "yottagram" paragraph in the lead) and not just in an ad-hoc manner. I'm not going to fight over this article. If everybody's happy with what Kwamikagami did, then I'm out of here. -- Rfassbind -talk 14:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

What in the world is your problem? How do my edits have anything to do with yours, or cause you the slightest inconvenience? If you're going to pout and go home because you're not alone in editing this article, then you don't belong here. — kwami (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Very aggressive and unconsidered reaction. I already explained myself twice. Maybe your time has (finally) come to go somewhere else, ever thought of that? Rfassbind -talk 23:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)