Talk:List of Solar System objects by size

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

• Nix best view.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Restored, though I seem to have glitched Mercury's colour. Can't figure out how to change it. Serendi^podous 10:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything off. — kwami (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Isn't the term "cubewano" obsolete? Serendi^podous 22:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

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 "Shrive" is obsolete, but "short shrift" lives on.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)

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)

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)

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

• Dimorphos composite.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Yes. — kwami (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

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)

Done. P Aculeius (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

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? Serendi^podous 21:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

pretty please :) 2603:8001:C401:3D45:75B2:D3E0:1EAB:64DE (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Since we cannot put any of these objects on a scale in a known acceleration we CANNOT know the mass of any of them. All we can know is the acceleration which they impart to other objects in the Solar System, But the acceleration is as we all learned in high school determined by the product of the Gravitational Constant and their mass. However the value of the Gravitational Constant has only been measured to four decimals, whereas because of three thousand years of astronomical observations combined with tracking of space probes we know the value of GM for most of these objects to at least eight decimals.

For example the value of GM for the Earth is 3.986 004 42 x 10^14 m^3/s^2, nine digits. To make the "mass" of a solar system body meaningful to non-scientists it can be convenient to divide the value of GM for the body by the value of GM for the Earth, and you end up with a meaningful and useful value accurate to at least 8 digits. But the moment that you ask for a value in pounds or kilograms you get a completely useless number which is only accurate to 4 digits. In particular if some amateur decides to create a personal numerical simulation of the motion of Solar System bodies by directly applying Newton's Law F=GM1M1/r^2, the result will be inaccurate because of the use of the inaccurate value of G.

The column for "Mass" in all similar tables throughout Wikipedia should therefore be replaced by a column containing the product GM. Jamescobban (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. That won't mean anything to most people.

We can just give the mass to 4 digits, if known that precisely, or to 5 digits with its uncertainty. Since after all we give G to 5 or 6 digits with the uncertainty in the last digit or two.

Also, please don't spam a bunch of articles with this. I think 4 is enough. — kwami (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

(In general, with a few exceptions where the extra precision is meaningful, we probably shouldn't give any figures to more than 3 or 4 digits. — kwami (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC))

Convince the astronomy and physics communities that mass estimates are meaningless, get this published on reputable scientific journals, and come back. So far, your suggestion would violate WP:FRINGE. cyclopia^speak! 10:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

What exactly do we mean when we say "mean radius", and more importantly, where do we say so? There is no wiki-link, and there is no article mean radius (or mean diameter, for that matter) to link to. Simply pointing to radius doesn't do the trick, since there is nothing in that article to explain what's "mean" about it. Linking mean and radius separately would work, if there was a section in either article to explain what kind of mean this is. I would have liked to point to the definition in User talk:FriarTuck1981#"Mean anomaly" vs. "mean diameter", but couldn't. Both mean radius and mean diameter are used all over astronomy articles on Wikipedia (including template:Infobox planet and template:Infobox comet), but their meaning is never actually clarified. Renerpho (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

My thought would be to start with the definition for the Earth, and extend it to other bodies. There are some papers on that topic, although access is an issue. Praemonitus (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Praemonitus: It is quite amusing that nobody bothers to define it, because everybody thinks it's obvious! It's the geometric mean, meant to be volume-mean radius (the radius of a sphere with the same volume as the object, or as the best-fit ellipsoid) unless stated otherwise, but it's hard to find a source that just plainly says so. For example, the Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy uses the term frequently, but does not bother to give a definition. Their numbers (as in the examples Ceres, p.80; and Davida, p.115) demonstrate that they refer to volume-mean diameters: For Ceres, an oblate spheroid 975 x 909 km, mean diameter 952 km (assumed shape ${\displaystyle a\cdot a\cdot c}$, mean diameter ${\displaystyle {\sqrt[{3}]{975\cdot 975\cdot 909}}=952}$); for Davida, dimensions 360 x 294 x 254 km, mean diameter 300 km (assumed shape ${\displaystyle a\cdot b\cdot c}$, mean diameter ${\displaystyle {\sqrt[{3}]{360\cdot 294\cdot 254}}=300}$). The conventions involved are by no means obvious to the casual reader.

Leconte, 2011 defines it on p.9, §5.2, and Chambat, 2001 demonstrates the case of an equatorial and a polar axis (like for the Ceres example) on p.4, formula 29. I think we can use those. The former of those nicely states: Before going further, it is important to summarize the differences between the various radii that we have defined above. In the literature, the term “radius” is used loosely, even for nonspherical objects. [...] For any distorted object, we can define the mean radius (R) as the radius of the sphere that would enclose the same volume as the described surface. Renerpho (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and created mean radius, with mean diameter as a redirect. Renerpho (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Gave it a bit of a spit shine and some more conceptual explanations Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

In the first picture of this article which displays the mass of the solar system in parts per million it has "all else" listed in green at 150 ppm? That seems kind of high to me, no? All the planets are already displayed which means that the dwarf planets, moons, and asteroids, would account for 3 times the mass of Neptune. Is that number incorrect or is there something I’m not seeing here? 69.162.253.57 (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright, so I did some cursory addition for the most massive moons in the Solar System, and I was only able to get a value on the ballpark of ~0.1 Earth masses. I doubt adding all moons smaller than Triton will be capable of bringing this up to 0.2. The mass of the Kuiper belt is estimated to be around 0.01 Earth masses, with the main belt an order of magnitude lower than that. The scattered disc and Oort cloud may represent massive reservoirs of undiscovered material, but even including the hypothetical Planet 9 I doubt they would cumulatively surpass 10–20 Earth masses. @Cmglee:, if possible could you clarify why "all else" appears to be significantly overrepresented here? ArkHyena (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Quick facts

Mass Distribution Within the Solar System

99.85 percent	Sun
0.135 percent	The Eight Classical Planets
0.015 percent	Comets Kuiper belt objects Satellites of the planets Dwarf Planets Asteroids Meteoroids Interplanetary Medium

Close

@ArkHyena: This value comes from http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/basics/chapter1-1/metrics/aggregate/page_action/aggregate#Sun as on the right. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 07:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

it might be a rounding error? .0150 ppm instead of 150 ppm Phaserblast (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

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? Serendi^podous 00:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the perfect chart of what you are looking for. Largest Sun Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune Earth Venus Mars Ganymede Titan Mercury Moon Pluto Everthing Else 103.50.81.150 (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Uh what? Fred1000000000 (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

a kid praising said article? Higgs In Space (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

This looks weird. He doesn't even know about Vesta but is still on Wikipedia? ~2026-13475-59 (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Jupiter is 953 ppm; 0.0953%, so that plus the sun is 99.9953% apparently. Next we add Saturn, 0.0285%, and we get 100.0238% Citizen Premier (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

It should be 99.86 percent. Serendi^podous 18:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I can’t find a source for 2015 FF415 on the Small-Body Database Lookup and the 2 links aren’t that useful because it doesn’t talk about the object itself, so does anybody has a source? Fred1000000000 (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I've added two new names to the size list but my photo editor only uses pngs and I can't seem to convert it to svg without losing detail.

Can anyone swap the png for svg? Serendi^podous 19:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Solarsystempng.jpeg

This list contains a selection of objects estimated to be between 100 and 199 km in radius (200 and 399 km in diameter), being 200 km nicknamed the "potato radius" by astronomers.

Aside from the problem that the last part of this sentence is bad English, potato radius is a technical term, not a nickname. I don't think it can be assumed to be equal to 200 km. Actually, I think the technical term means something different, so I doubt this even should be a WP:blue link. Renerpho (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

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

• Portia1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

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

• Hermione06 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

There should be images for minor planets 78799 Xewioso, 2005 UQ₅₁₃ (Maybe), 541132 Leleākūonua (If any image is avaiilable), 54598 Bienor, 532037 Chiminigagua's Moon (Just use the Chiminigagua image like what was done for Dysnomia and Eris), and 221 Eos (Model) Orcus-Vanth (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

2025 UC₁₁ is a Aten meteoroid and is 0.41 m - 0.93 m, So should it be added? Fred1000000000 (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Adding it now LobedHomunculus (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)