Talk:List of Solar System objects by size

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: This is a good source (last updated Feb 23, 2021) of all outer solar system asteroids (Kuiper Belt and beyond) estimated to have diameters 101 km or larger:
http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/dps.html 2603:6010:9C07:AC00:107:CB1F:13B1:8666 (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Still hasn't updated w Gonggong's name! I bet "updated daily" hasn't been true for a decade. — kwami (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Now listed as having been updated 5 May 2023. And yet Gonggong's name is still not there. Double sharp (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outer System asteroids larger than radius 50 km. 

message: Why is the first section of this list now sorted by mass rather than size? If the reader wants to sort the table by mass, they can easily do so, but the default sorting should be by size, as stated in the article title. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored, though I seem to have glitched Mercury's colour. Can't figure out how to change it. Serendipodous 10:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything off. — kwami (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened? 

message: Isn't the term "cubewano" obsolete? Serendipodous 22:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why it should be. "Shrive" is obsolete, but "short shrift" lives on. If we find RS's are abandoning the term, we can of course follow. — kwami (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a 2021 article referring to both "Albion" and "cubewano". Google Scholar doesn't list many recent articles giving "cubewano", so maybe it is getting abandoned. Double sharp (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Given that QB1 has a name  

message: If you want to make a quick check of the surface gravity values listed in the article, You can Multiply the Radius times the Density, and divide by 3582.0 to get a very close estimate of the surface gravity in meters per second squared. The 3582 is rounded up from a calculated value of 3581.980 743. (calculated from Earth using RX Den / 9.80665 = ).  The Wikipedia Values for the four gas giants are lower than the ( Radius X Density )/ 3582, but nearly all of the rest of the numbers will have the Wikipedia Values being slightly higher, but usually still close.  The Numbers are close down  to Iapetus, but the Wikipedia Values are sometimes way off, and sometimes very close to the bottom of the orbs that still list surface gravity.  A Radius X Density = 3582 is almost exactly 1.0 meters per second squared. This will allow you to Create a graph with Radius on one axis, and density on the other axis, and a straight line.  Some planets will plot above the line (greater radius with lower density), and some will plot below the line with (lesser radius, and higher
density). Remember that density is related to both composition of the materials collected by the orb, and the internal temperature of the orb, and the stratification of the materials inside the orb.  Have Fun.  Michael W. Clark, Golden Colorado 98.245.216.62 (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A quick method of calculating Surface Gravity using the Radius ( km ), and Density ( g/cm^3) or ( kg/m^3) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: A quick way to estimate the surface gravity of any object in the Solar System is to make a ratio of the Radius X Density of the object of interest divided by the Radius X Density of the Earth.  The Earth Radius X Density is 6371.0084 X 5.5136 = 35,127.19191 (km)x(kg.m^3), this becomes the denominator.  For example: Using the Sun Radius X Density = 695,508 X 1.409 = 979,970.772.  The Ratio is thus 979,970.772 / 35,127.19191 = 27.897 782 85 X that of the Surface gravity of the Earth.  So 27.897 782 85 X 9.80665 = 273.583 7922 meters per second squared.  You can round as desired, and compare this value to other published values.  This could also be a quick way to see if either a Radius, or a Density is close enough to not need changing since satellite trajectories can be used to calculate the actual total mass of an object, and thus the actual surface gravity.  An important concept here is that radius, and density are interlinked.  If a radius for an object with a known mass increases, then its density decreases.  Radius, and Density will plot on Hyperbolic lines where the area under the curve gives the Radius X Density, and thus it will give the surface gravity as well.
Michael W. Clark, Golden Colorado  98.245.216.62 (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A way to quickly estimate the Surface gravity of an Object as compared to the Earth 

message: Earth is the fifth largest planet in our solar system, and Earth's Moon is the fifth largest moon in our solar system. Should this be regarded as a coincidence? Ar Colorado (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. — kwami (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coincidence or not? 

message: please do as it is one of the first 100 minor planets. 138 km or 110 ± 15 km ZokiZokias (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  P Aculeius (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Hesperia (69)  

message: There was a time, aeons ago, when the plan was to get this list featured and then to transform List of Solar System objects by orbit into a similar-style list but with orbital elements. Is this list featurable or is it just too vast to be cleaned? Serendipodous 21:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are we ever going to feature this list? 

message: The piechart for the relative masses of the rounded moons is a complete mess. The moons aren't in the order listed, and the smaller ones can't be seen at all. 
I made a pie chart, well 2 of them but they're in the same image, which I believe shows the relative mass of the moons much better. 
I'd love to upload it but i don't know how. I uploaded it at https://ibb.co/54K0G8D. If someone could upload it on my behalf I'd appreciate it :) 
And also just in case of legal jargon, yes i consent and there's no copyright etc IAPETUSOUTSOLD (talk) 06:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone please add this new pie chart image into the article?  

message: This paper: https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/253802/1/EPSC2020-866-print.pdf gives a radius of 385 +/- 1km. Is that a better, or obsolete, estimate or measurement compared to the one currently in the table?
If more correct, we may need to move that object down to the next table. Dhrm77 (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  radius for 2002 MS4 307261 ? 

message: Why the list is at "low importance" at WikiProject Astronomy? I think that is should be of mid or high importance. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a list, and relatively obscure. I do agree that it should be cleaned up and given more attention, but this is significantly lower priority than, say, articles covering basic topics and objects in astronomy. ArkHyena (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low importance 

message: I brought back table row background coloring after it got purged a number of years ago. I'm open to suggestions on how to improve it before I go on to apply it to all the other tables (currently only applied to the largest objects). I feel it greatly improves casual readability to be able to see the classification of objects at a glance. Something that was somewhat better back in earlier versions of this page from 2019 or so. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Solar_System_objects_by_size&oldid=917747673 Anyway, if anyone has suggestions please mention them. Ergzay (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table row background coloring 

message: pretty please :) 2603:8001:C401:3D45:75B2:D3E0:1EAB:64DE (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  guys can I pretty please color everything (like the >400 km radius section)