Talk:List of Solar System objects by size

EN131090

This page talks about a meteoroid designated EN131090, which has a diameter between 28.5 and 30 cm. Should it be included on this page or not? LobedHomunculus (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know if I’m qualified to say this, but I think yes. Fred1000000000 (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I just added it ~2026-13475-59 (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Some stuff I did on my free time for TNOs and possible Dwarfs

I did this for no reason so use this if y’all want. The “-” objects are objects that aren't on the list and maybe should be, all the numbers are in radius and in km.

Albion - 68.75

- Arawn - 69.5

Chaos - 280

Varuna - 330.5

Ixion - 354.8

- Rhadamanthus - 90.75

Huya - 207.35

Typhon - 81

Lempo - 136

Quaoar - 548.8

- Deucalion - 85.75

Aya - 384

Uni - 329.5

Logos - 38.5

Ceto - 99.25

Borasisi - 65.7

Xewioso - 282.5

Sila-Nunam - 121.25

Teharonhiawako - 87.83

Sedna - 482.75

Orcus - 456.75

Goibniu - 340

Salacia - 425

Pluto - 1,188.3

Haumea - 798

Eris - 1,163

Makemake - 715

Rumina - 292

Ritona - 339.5

Altjira - 144.25

Varda - 370

- Mbabamwanawaresa - 91.717

Achlys - 386

Gonggong - 615

Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà - 321

Máni - 398

- Mors–Somnus - 112.4

Manwë - 75

- Otrera - 43.5

- Clete - 49.25

- Praamzius - 128

ǂKá̦gára - 69

Dziewanna - 278.5

- Taowu - 88.5

- Zhulong - 85.595

- Alicanto - 124

Arrokoth - 9.948

Chiminigagua - 371

Leleākūhonua - 110

- “Drac” - 38.5

“DeeDee” - 317.5

“Buffy” - 277.125

- “FarFarOut” - 200

“Farout” - 296.67

“Ammonite” - 150

“Biden” - 225

- “Caju” - 277

Chariklo - 124.8

Bienor - 86.83

Chiron - 98

- Thereus - 38.21125

- Asbolus - 39.110833

Hylonome - 36

Echeclus - 30

Okyrhoe - 24.5

Hidalgo - 28.4625

Pholus - 49.5

- Damocles - 7.5

Ceres - 469.7

Vesta - 262.7

Pallas - 256

Hygiea - 216.75

Interamnia - 166 Rocket Practice (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

cool Homlos (Message me bro) 08:56, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

btw, I really don't think radius under 200 km is a possible dwarf planet, but it's up to you Homlos (Message me bro) 13:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Iapetus trailing natural color.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Does 'mean radius' mean volumetric?

Actual mean radius would be basically useless, so I'm assuming it's shorthand for volumetric, but wanted to be sure. (In our Jupiter ref, the 'mean' radius is not the mean of the radii, in either 2 or 3 dimensions, so that's what I suspect they mean.) — kwami (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I think some of them are volume equivalent radius but some aren't like those TNOs Homlos (Message me bro) 04:30, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Im not really sure too Homlos (Message me bro) 04:31, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

But I think Jupiter one is the volume equivalent radius not area equivalent because if it's area equivalent then its radius should be 69126 km not 69886 km, but if it's volume equivalent diameter it should have axes of 71488×71431×66842 then it'd be a bit triaxial, but if it means mean radius then it should be 69165 km so Jupiter's 69886 km is not mean radius or area equivalent I guess this is Volume equivalent Homlos (Message me bro) 04:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Someone is not using official names and refusing to let me put it in parentheses for the official name.

I added the Great Comet of 1811, but a user named @LobedHomunculus is reverting his name to not follow IAU terminology. He is deliberately forcing his nicknames to it, even if I revert it to the official name with parentheses for his nicknames, he is still going to say it is "unconstructive". I know, it was discovered by Honore Flaugergues, but this is before the system for comets to be named after the discoverer, and it doesn't even have a comet number. ~2026-13475-59 (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Please read the article for said comet. I am not "forcing a nickname onto the article," that's it's actual designation. I didn't come up with it. LobedHomunculus (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, I was talking about "Flaugergues", not C/1811 F1 ~2026-13475-59 (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

After checking the Small Body Database Lookup, I'm not entirely sure if 'Flaugergues' is apart of its name, but C/1811 F1 is it's actual designation, so why not use that instead? LobedHomunculus (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Its because technicality is not consensus ~2026-13475-59 (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean? LobedHomunculus (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, I can not confirm the use of this nickname in databases. ~2026-13475-59 (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I already said that though.

I won't continue this any further as I don't want to start an edit war. LobedHomunculus (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Its just not a edit war, its just a talk argument ~2026-13475-59 (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

One final thing:

Every other object in this article uses either their IAU names or scientific designations. It would make no sense to have C/1811 F1 as an exception here. Also, according to the Small Body Database Lookup and the Minor Planet Centre, the comet is officially named C/1811 F1 (Great comet). LobedHomunculus (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Some meteoroids

Hey @LobedHomunculus, @My planet is Homlos, is it okay if I add meteoroids? ~2026-13475-59 (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

There are already several of them on the page. LobedHomunculus (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Like the ones without provisional designations like 2022 WJ1 or proper names like Duende ~2026-13475-59 (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I'm not a master in editing My planet is Homlos (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I think you should ask someone like @Kwamikagami or @Renerpho My planet is Homlos (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why not, but then I'm not one of those policing this article.

Personally, I think it would be interesting to see some examples of the really small stuff, even if this started out as a list of the largest objects in the SS. — kwami (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

me too I don't see why not tbh My planet is Homlos (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Question: What do you mean by "ones without provisional designations"? How do you want to add them when they aren't known? Renerpho (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

They're probably talking about objects that weren't given the typical provisional designations most minor planets get (e.g. 2014 UZ224 or 2012 VP113) LobedHomunculus (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@LobedHomunculus: There are a nearly infinite number of such objects hitting or missing Earth on a daily basis. Almost all of them aren't known as individual objects, and most of those that are probably shouldn't be in this list. It depends on what exactly we are talking about here.

If the proposal is to turn this into a nondiscriminatory list of bolides (like 2026 Koblenz meteor) then I oppose strongly. If the proposal is to list some notable meteoroids that have been observed to nearly hit the Earth, but missed us, then I'd be okay with that. There aren't a lot of those. One such object, EN131090, is already in the list, but this is a Featured Article and for that reason alone I think it should be listed; but what else? Anything mentioned at Earth-grazing fireball#Known Earth-grazing fireballs? Renerpho (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Well then there should just be a small amount of notable meteroids (like EN131090). LobedHomunculus (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for EN131090. When I tried to get it to a red text, non-existent page 'link', it just sent me to this factory. Also for the image. ~2026-13475-59 (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, I have a proposal that this list doesn't go down below 10 centimeters (0.1 meters) in radius, because there are many ones, and it is too much for a single article. ~2026-13475-59 (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-13475-59: What would you like to include? Do you have a concrete example?

The exact size of meteoroids is rarely known to better than within a factor of 2 or so, making it difficult to enforce a hard lower limit.

Maybe it is better to base inclusion here on how notable the object is, and how much is known about the meteoroid. Maybe we should limit it to objects for which we have a Wikipedia article about the object that we can link to?

We have a (very outdated) List of bolides, which hasn't really been updated since 2017. All the smaller events should probably go there. Renerpho (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

IMO bolides should not be included, as they're no longer separate bodies in the SS. This should be for things with confirmed orbits. Lost bodies should not IMO be included. But if there's a 10-cm meteoroid with a confirmed orbit, sure, why not? — kwami (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: That's not an easy distinction to make. They're no longer separate bodies in the SS -- as are 2008 TC3, 2024 BX1 and 2022 WJ1, all of which are included in the table. Bolides should not be included -- but EN131090 is (it still exists, and its pre- and post-encounter orbits are known). Renerpho (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Whether EN131090 is a bolide is a matter of semantics. But we have a confirmed orbit, so that would fit my criteria. IMO the others should be moved to 'list of bolides'. But that is just a suggestion for what I think would merit inclusion. — kwami (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. I'd rather make this list shorter than longer, and would support removing anything that no longer exists (which includes the past impactors with MPC designations). I'd also remove things for which we have no way to give a reliable size estimate, like comet C/1811 F1. We have trouble determining the sizes of comet nuclei to within an order of magnitude with modern technology. There is no reason to assume that historic observations result in better estimates. Renerpho (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Re. C/1811 F1: The size estimate (15-20 km in radius) is based on absolute magnitude, which often leads to overestimation. Compare C/2013 A1, which was thought to have a diameter between 10 and 50 km based on absolute magnitude, which was later refined down to a range of 1 to 3 km. We now know that the comet has a diameter of about 0.4 km. The source for C/1811 F1's size estimate is Kronk, 1995, who is quoting even earlier estimates, and who wrote this before we knew anything concrete about comet nuclei. Renerpho (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

As soon as any new estimates are made, this page may be updated to be more accurate if there is evidence to prove it on C/1811 F1 ~2026-13475-59 (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Quick question.

Apparently while looking at sources, I noticed there were some objects that had proper names, like Hathor or Cardea, but apparently it hasn't made appearance in this table. Just try to correct the small text for minor planet numbers, because I use visual edit and spacings are messed up. ~2026-13475-59 (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I've fixed your entry for Nereus. I see no problems with the entries for Hathor and Cardea. Of course there are a lot of objects that have proper names, but which are not in this table; there is nothing wrong with that. Renerpho (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I know. Hathor and Cardea are just examples for my topic on the talk page. ~2026-13475-59 (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Universe Guide's source for Sedna's mass? + Haumea and Titania switching places

Does anyone know where the Universe Guide gets its source for the Sedna mass estimate of "1.7x10²¹ to 6.1×10²¹ kg" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Solar_System_objects_by_size#Objects_with_radii_over_400_km , third paragraph)? IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

And I really dont know where the Universe Guide gets its source for the Sedna mass, they say 2.0 g/cm³ density is calculated but that's not possible Sedna has no moon, and if Sedna actually has (1.7–6.1)×10²¹ kg then its density need to be 4.37–15.67 g/cm³ based on a size of 906 km but there's no way that density is that absurd even if I use the early diameter estimates like 995 km its density would still need to be like 3.295 g/cm³ to reach a mass of 1.7×10²¹ kg, that's like mission impossible that's 35.64% higher than Eris's density, I kinda doubt if Universe Guide isn't even reliable, like 4.37–15.67 g/cm³ is super unrealistic, but if it's reliable then just keep using that because there's something called WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:NOTTRUTH some policy Homlos (Message me bro) 00:22, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I just discovered that the ref says "1.7×6.1×10^21 kgkg" like why's there an extra "kg"? And they say it's based on "2.0 g/cm² g/cm³" Why's there 2 units? And it said Sedna temp is –12 K, it's actually supposed to be 12 k and not in negative, –12 K literally breaks the laws of physics Homlos (Message me bro) 04:22, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, that Universe Guide said that objects with bigger size have stronger gravity, which is not completely true, That Universe Guide probably thinks that Uranus has a stronger gravity than Earth when it's actually not, so that fact is not entirely true, And the mass is likely calculated from one of Sedna's diameter older estimates with 2.0 g/cm³, this is either outdated or unreliable Homlos (Message me bro) 04:28, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it's best to just delete that whole sentence about Sedna being this or that mass in the article. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, someone should switch Haumea and Titania's places if we're using the ~780 km radius figure for Haumea - I don't know how without messing the table up. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 10:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok sorry I forgot to fix that Ill fix it now Homlos (Message me bro) 14:16, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@IvarTheBoneless123 I fixed it Homlos (Message me bro) 14:19, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Discovery refs

Guys I have a question, do I need refs to prove that (in the main 400 km+ radius list in discovery column) their discoveries are that year? Homlos (Message me bro) 08:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Expansion of the 100+ and 200+ km radius bodies list

Should we try and make the 100+ and 200+ km radius lists more like the 400+ km one? I'm aware that not all these bodies have determined masses yet, but neither does Sedna (which is in the 400+ km list).

Moreover, the above mentioned lists contain Mimas, Miranda and Enceladus which are planetary-mass objects.

And if such a decision is reached, I propose a 150+ km cut-off instead of 100+ km one, since Interamnia (with a radius of c. 166 km) seems to be the smallest object currently considered as a potential dwarf planet. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah Ivar, I think we should expand 100–200 km radius list, objects of this size is pretty interesting and sometimes notable Homlos (Message me bro) 04:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd do it, but I suck at tables. And besides, it's probably best if someone else joined in on the discussion before making any radical changes. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Eris new possible satellite

136199 Eris has a possible 1000 km moon orbiting every 18 hours, large enough to be in the main list. Should we wait for rather confirmation on its existence or place it in the list early? ~2026-35054-51 (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think unconfirmed objects should be listed here LobedHomunculus (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, if we include hypothetical bodies, there's also Theia and the Angrite parent body. That would require some discussion. — kwami (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Removal of Neptunian irregular satellites

@Nrco0e, you removed Neptune's small irregular satellites from the list because they apparently do not have measured sizes. However, the second paragraph of the lede states that all named natural satellites are included. Should this be changed then, if Neptune's small irregular satellites are excluded from the list? Thirtyfourninety (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh shoot, I forgot about that. Well... considering that many named satellites are really small and don't have measured sizes, I think the paragraph should be changed so the list doesn't get cluttered. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 21:33, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, alright then. It could be changed to only include named satellites with measured sizes. Removed satellites can be readded to the list if their sizes are formally measured. Thirtyfourninety (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I heard that a person that didnt have a account crashed out after revertal of their edits.

After someone which i think is @Lobed Homunculus reverted someones edits, they crashed out, launching a personal attack here and on YouTube on him. I really feel bad that this world is so cruel, but i think the way to cheer him up is to readd those. But i think @Lobed Homunculus knows what he reverted, and i dont know if he even wants to fix someones smile that he got personal attacks from. I heard that their edits were adding two asteroids he favorited: (537) Pauly, and (12410) Donald Duck. But i think it is forgotten now. But he might be so happy if those were back one day. Even if the drama was 1 month ago, its worth making someone smile. (@Lobed Homunculus please reply with your answer) SomeoneThatYouSaw (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

yeah I was the one who reverted the edits

I don't really want to re add them because the user then made a defamatory wordpress site about me and refused to take it down Lobed Homunculus 17:00, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

ok but whats the link to the site i wanna check if its still there SomeoneThatYouSaw (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

It was located at https://getmesomehelp.wordpress.com/ but it has been taken down.

The website when it was still up seemed to falsely accuse me of making the user suicidal, which is a very serious accusation for something this little. Lobed Homunculus 17:07, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

ok but if it didnt take down due to reports that means HE DELETED IT (you will be so happy now i think) SomeoneThatYouSaw (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

yes im glad its gone Lobed Homunculus 17:12, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

i saw a post with that link 2 weeks ago and it was still there now its gone meaning he deleted it SomeoneThatYouSaw (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

if your happy and you know it clap your hands *applause* SomeoneThatYouSaw (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, its me again. So after i found that user that crashed out deleted his channel and deleted his website, should someone forgive him?

You remember the person who got mad for someone that reverted his edits? That person now has deleted his YouTube channel and that website. So if you will forgive him for deleting all of the defamatory stuff (though deleting the channel was unnecessary due to no one getting mad at him, and he deleted it a few weeks after the fight even started, which means he might have deleted it for other reasons), so im curious if @Lobed Homunculus even forgives him, or his changes are now in the bin forever. SomeoneThatYouSaw (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't really care about the situation that much

Also please stop tagging me in random discussions that have nothing to do with the page they're on Lobed Homunculus 10:55, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

okay

R.I.P (537) Pauly, (12410) Donald Duck

June 5th 2026 to June 7th 2026

Forgotten and cannot be recovered

(dont ask why i made a funeral lol) SomeoneThatYouSaw (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Adding a section for max radius/length

I feel like using just a single average value for the object's radius can get a little misleading for irregularly-shaped objects, especially when we don't give any indication how elongated the object is, and whether we're using the area-equivalent or volume-equivalent radius. For this reason, I would like to suggest adding a new column for "max radius" (or should it be called "max length"? I don't want to confuse this with the uncertainty meaning for "maximum/upper bound mean radius"). This column would be placed to the right of the mean radius column, and you'd put the longest (or equatorial) semi-axis in the max radius/length column. I figured to not add a column listing all three a × b × c dimensions, as that would take up too much space and not many objects have well-known dimensions.

What do you think? Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 07:17, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

This sounds good Homlos (Message me bro) 06:23, 23 July 2026 (UTC)