Talk:List of natural satellites

Sorting broken
Sorting by diameter sorts alphabetically instead of numerically ( 95 > 1,200 ). Tested in Safari 4.0. --IanOsgood (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It always works when sorting from biggest to smallest, but fouls up when sorting from smallest to biggest. It works fine now though. Don't ask me why.  Serendi pod ous  07:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, the problem is that numeric sorting is context sensitive on the contents of the first cell of the table at the time the sort is applied. If there are non-numeric characters in that first column, such as "±" or "—" to express inaccuracy, then the sort is alphabetic. This is why it sometimes sorts correctly and sometimes not. See Help:Sorting. (This is a wikimedia misfeature in my opinion; the data type should be specified in the column header.) --IanOsgood (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Still seems to be broken, seems to sort now on the first digit for me. ie, 9 > 10000. Shame that "List of Planets by diameter" redirects here when that list is basically nonexistent. NevarMaor (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the sorting seems permanently broken by the change in format. Don't really know how to fix it except to manually number them, but that would require redoing the entire list every time a new moon was discovered.  Serendi pod ous  10:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The diameter part is easy to fix, if a bit of a pain. Can't remember how, though. 'll have to look it up. — kwami (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here we go: Sortable_table — kwami (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It should sort properly now. It doesn't. I have no idea what I'm doing wrong. Asked on the help page. — kwami (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I also had a quick look at this. All the radius entries are done using the sort template and they seem to be entered correctly. They're entered in scientific notation ("80" is entered as "8.0e1") but I tried changing about half the entries and nothing seemed to change. Seems like a major issue, because I imagine users are quite often looking to arrange moons by size... Warrickball (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Dwarf planets
Barring a strong consensus against doing so, I've restored the dwarf planet moons to this list. While the size of the list was expressed as a concern, the fact is that there are so few DP moons that it really doesn't make a significant difference to the overall size if they are gone. Furthermore, their absence (and merging in with "minor planets") marginalizes the DPs in a manner contrary to what the IAU has done (in that DPs are described separately from SSSbs now) and does not benefit people looking for information on Pluto, Eris and so on. --Ckatz chat spy  17:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My principal desire in doing this (and I did not really want to do it) was keeping this list sortable. It still breaks down even now, but it seems to be functioning relatively well without the dwarf planet moons. I've been trying to figure out a way to bring them back without causing the list to implode, but I can't. Sooner or later, Orcus, Quaoar and god knows how many new mooned dwarf planets will be added to the roster, and if this list has DPs on it when they are, it will die. The only other long term option is to break the list back into the five lists it was originally and remove the sortability. But that was one of the criteria demanded for this list to reach FL status.  Serendi pod ous  17:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note, Ckatz, that the list no longer sorts properly. The radii are listed as 1 to 10 then 2 to to 20. I didn't do this on a whim.  Serendi pod ous  17:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, S. No knock against your efforts (without which we'd be sorely lacking a lot of good quality material in the Astronomy pages. It's just that removing the DPs here is the opposite of how we've treated them elsewhere in terms of mentioning them in concert with planets as opposed to SSSBs. I'll see if I can figure out the sortability issue; there's no reason that this content should break it as opposed to any other content (such as all of Saturn's moons). --Ckatz chat spy  17:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what is the sortability issue? I've just sorted by radius and it appears to increase correctly. --Ckatz chat spy  17:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Try it again. Sometimes it sorts correctly, sometimes it lists all the 1s (1-1000) then all the 2s (2-2000) then all the 3s etc. Hm. Actually, looking back, it seems to do that anyway whether the DPs are listed or not. Thought I'd fixed it.  Serendi pod ous  17:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, saw it, however, that appears to be either a flaw in the sorting code, rather than in the content. As such, it isn't a reason to remove the data from the list. (The sort feature doesn't appear to be entirely reliable, not just here but in applications across the project.) --Ckatz chat spy  17:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'm certainly happy to have them back in, even if it means I'm back to square one as far as sorting is concerned. :=|  Serendi pod ous  17:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The solution is to use sort template like Moons of Saturn. Ruslik_ Zero 19:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly support retaining the dwarf planet moons in the list.RandomCritic (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey 162.142.69.109 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Colours
The colours of Uranus and Neptune in the table are too similar, making it confusing. I don't know how to fix it, but I wanted to make the point.142.68.218.120 (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * They are not similar. You probably have a color blindness. — Chesnok (talk • contribs) 18:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there a project to improve readability of Wikipedia for colorblind people? 2620:8D:8000:1044:F349:7DC2:C1FF:7CD2 (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There is: WikiProject Accessibility. Ionmars10 (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Mass of satellites
I'm wondering why there is no column in the table for the mass of the various satellites? Is it because that is not known?

Thanks &mdash; SteveRwanda (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's known for the larger ones but not for the smallest ones.  Serendi pod ous  18:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I echo the request for masses. From Dione: “Dione is the 15th largest moon in the Solar System, and is more massive than all known moons smaller than itself combined.” And there’s sim:ilar comment in note g of Triton. Which suggests an obvious question: which moons are more massive than all smaller moons? So a (sortable!) table of masses would be welcome, perhaps with ±error bounds. JDAWiseman (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You must remember that the smallest satellites on this list are barely larger than your typical condo. Any mess estimates would be essentially guesses.  Serendi pod ous  18:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

A bit confused here
It says that Saturn has 62 moons (with confirmed orbits). 22 of them are regular, and "the remaining thirty-eight" are irregular. That adds up to 60--what about the other two?

Similarly, Uranus is said to have 13 inner moons and nine irregular outer moons. Since the total amount of named moons is 27, that means we're missing five. Would they be outer moons with regular orbits? Ron Stoppable (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 22 was an outdated figure for 24. Fixed now.
 * Yes, the missing five Uranian moons are the main group ones that are massive enough to have attained hydrostatic equilibrium. I changed it so that the 13 and 9 are referred to as "another 13...another 9", to make it clear that the 5 big moons are neither inner moons nor irregular outer moons. Double sharp (talk) 07:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hat note
The hat note read(s),
 * This article is about the moons of planets and dwarf planets. 

Problem is, it is not about the moons of the hundreds or thousands of dwarf planets, only of the five to be recognized by the IAU. There are additional moons of dwarf planets, including ones recognized by Brown, Tancredi, etc, and the IAU recognizes that there are many more dwarf planets than just the five it has individually recognized. Ckatz provided a NASA source on another talk page which spoke of "the first five recognized dwarf planets". That is accurate, and I suggest that we follow NASA here. Any reason not to? — kwami (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Very simply, because this is yet another example of you trying to push your agenda on as many pages as you feel you can get away with. You have repeatedly been told to stop, not just by me but by a host of regular editors of the astronomy pages. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  03:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ckatz, do you have any objection of substance? Not that you don't like me, but an objection to the wording? Talk pages are for discussing the article. — kwami (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What the h___ is going on here? RandomCritic (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a question of whether we follow a single authority (the IAU), or reflect the breadth of our sources (NASA, Brown, Tancredi, etc.). Ckatz is of the view that if the IAU does not say something, then we should not report it, even if other sources do say it. Or at least I think that's his objection. He seldom says.
 * Basically, there are hundreds or thousands of dwarf planets. This article does not list the moons of all of them. It only lists the moons of the dwarf planets which have so far been recognized by the IAU. It does not include moons of dwarf planets recognized by Brown, Tancredi, and others. I agree that we need to limit it so that it does not become unwieldy. But we should not imply that we list all of them. — kwami (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The International Astronomical Union invented the designation "dwarf planet" in 2006. Prior to that time it did not exist, and it has no meaning other than whatever meaning the IAU is pleased to confer upon it. When Wikipedia uses the term "dwarf planet", it means whatever the IAU means by "dwarf planet", regardless of what any other person may use the term to mean. The statement that there are "hundreds or thousands of dwarf planets" is not accurate; there may be hundreds of candidate objects, some of which might some day be accepted as dwarf planets, and there may be thousands of objects yet to be discovered which might be candidates for being labelled dwarf planets, but at this moment, there are only five objects which actually are dwarf planets. Because "dwarf planet" is an arbitrary label, we cannot reasonably say that, say, Sedna or Quaoar are dwarf planets; they would only become dwarf planets at such future date as they may be named as such, which depends upon obtaining accurate data as to their size, mass, composition, and shape, which is not as yet available. To say definitively that there are dwarf planets other than the five that have been named goes far beyond what Wikipedia is entitled to do. At most the project can say that certain objects, at some future date, might be designated as dwarf planets.RandomCritic (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So the IAU "definition" of the term really defines only a class of objects which are invited to apply for dwarf planet status? —Tamfang (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The IAU definition provides a general characterization of objects that would count as dwarf planets if we had sufficient data to know whether they fit the criteria. Since most of the objects involved are so far away, or so small, that their exact size and shape is still a matter of uncertainty, we have no way of telling for certain whether they are or are not dwarf planets according to the IAU definition, without extensive and time-consuming study. Until the IAU accepts, according to its own criteria, an object as a dwarf planet, Wikipedia has no reason to characterize any object as a dwarf planet independently of the IAU. RandomCritic (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * RC has said this before, over and over, but has never provided any evidence for it. It contradicts the IAU's definition, which is based solely on physical and dynamical attributes. — kwami (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If, in the above statement, "RC" is supposed to refer to me, I can only reply that the statement is a known falsehood. I haven't been involved in discussions about dwarf planets for years and certainly have never said "this" "over and over". Perhaps the user above has me confused with someone else, though I very much doubt it. Of course I have said nothing at odds with the IAU's own statements. The IAU has made it quite clear in its own statements that it accepts only five objects as dwarf planets "Ceres, Pluto, Eris, Makemake and Haumea" -- though it leaves the door open to accept others in the future. There ought to be no controversy about that fact. RandomCritic (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I did. Someone did make this argument before, over and over, without anyone else accepting it, and I could have sworn it was you. My apologies if I am wrong.
 * No-one disputes that the IAU has only recognized 5 objects as DPs. But that's a far cry from saying they "become" DPs when the IAU accepts them. A primate is still a primate even if it has no taxonomic name. Its ancestors were primates before there were humans to name them. An element is an element (assuming it exists somewhere) even before it is synthesized and named. The IAU definition is independent of whether the IAU evaluates the object. As NASA put it, these are the first five "recognized" dwarf planets. — kwami (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, you say something else in your answer to Tamfang: "we have no way of telling for certain whether they are or are not dwarf planets according to the IAU definition". Yes, that I agree with, for most objects: they either are or are not DPs, and we don't know which. Except for a few cases where we do: We have RSs that a few of the larger objects are DPs. Since the IAU is not addressing the issue, we're left to evaluate the RSs which do address it. For most, of course, RSs only say "may be, probably, possibly," etc. — kwami (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * RandomCritic, I can't recall if you were privy to what Kwami was doing at the dwarf planet article, but in a nutshell he's called for (and rejected the outcome of) two RfCs there plus a third at a related template. He's also been reworking related articles and POV-tagging those where his edits are rejected. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  19:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of that. This kind of unethical editing behavior is a matter of great concern, particularly when the person in question is a Wikipedia administrator. It raises questions of abuse of admin status on behalf of a personal agenda.RandomCritic (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh please. Where have I used my admin status for anything here. — kwami (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

False claims, no sources. This is a featured list???
"Triton is large enough to have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium, but, uniquely for a large moon, is irregular, suggesting it was captured."

There is no official source to support the claim that Triton has not achieved hydrostatic equilibrium. A search in respected scientific sites turned no official scientific articles supporting this claim/statement. The whole paragraph is false actually, even if Triton was irregular this has nothing to do with whether its a captured body or not. Its retrograde orbit is the reason for the captured body theory. I m very dissapointed reading such inaccurate articles on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.58.225.252 (talk) 06:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see the definition of irregular satellite, a term this list defines exhaustively in its opening paragraphs.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  07:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hm — Irregular satellite: There is no widely accepted precise definition of an irregular satellite. —Tamfang (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be better to change this to retrograde; while irregular is correct, it has no precise definition and has two different meanings. Double sharp (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The paragraph refers(referred) to the shape of Triton, then without any clarity uses the term "irregular" which is also used to characterize shape. The way "but" was used in the sentence is what caused the misinterpretation because it implied it continued on the subject of shape. My English may not be exceptional but I think I understand the language quite well. (A real statement and an example of the use of "but" in a sentence). Many thanks to all for your time and your replies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.58.241.217 (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (Almost three years late, but I still do wonder how one could think Triton is not in HE from reading that sentence, when its first clause explicitly says it is...) Double sharp (talk) 08:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

If Triton is an irregular moon, though, why is it listed in the table as a "Main group moon (retrograde)"? Double sharp (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "Retrograde irregular". Double sharp (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Angular diameter of primary viewed from satellite
This would be good to add as a column. --JWB (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Celestia can generate this info, but I don't know if it counts as an RS. The angular diameter would also have to be expressed as a range, so getting the info using Celestia would also be quite tedious in any case. Double sharp (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

keep those orbits safe

 * Jupiter has 67 known moons with secured orbits.

‘Secured’ is an odd word, not defined or used elsewhere in the article. —Tamfang (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this could be a remnant of the time when S/2000 J 11 was lost. Double sharp (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Following the way the article describes the orbits of the Saturnian moons, I changed "secured" to "confirmed". Double sharp (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Mind you, several of the irregular moons do not have very well-known orbits. The recent numbering of a few of the old 2003 moons of Jupiter was because it took until 2017 for some of them to be found again. It is likely that the current 2017 data from Sheppard et al. has all the other lost moons of Jupiter as well, but we'll need to wait till 2018 to confirm that by checking for them in a new batch of data; it may also have more new moons like Jupiter LIX (S/2017 J 1). The lost moons of Saturn may remain lost for a while longer, but I am hopeful that they will move on to that soon. There are also probably some more new Uranian and Neptunian irregulars awaiting us, too small to be seen at this distance by current technology. Double sharp (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think my current wording addresses this issue. Double sharp (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Largest seven moons
Why are they in bold and italic? Why the largest seven? (I may be missing something.) Double sharp (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Because they're larger than the dwarf planets.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  15:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Shouldn't we mention that, then? (Added.) Double sharp (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Images column
The images column is wider than any of the images (and hence than it needs to be) and attempts of mine to fix this have failed. Does anyone know how to do this? --JorisvS (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Retrograde as (r)
It looks a bit weird to denote a retrograde orbit by tagging the orbital period with "(r)". We could change these to "−...", but this breaks the sort and even if it wouldn't, mixed negative and positive numbers in a sorted column could be confusing. What about adding an inclination column? There are rather few figures in the list as it stands. Or does anyone have a better idea? --JorisvS (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We could add inclination, mass, and eccentricity. Double sharp (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Those make a lost of sense. It is actually ridiculous that mass is missing, really. I also suggest density to be added alongside mass. --JorisvS (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of natural satellites. 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/20160211051705/http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/venus/moons to http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/venus/moons

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Move page suggestion
If this article is only for the Solar System's moons, then we should rename this article List of Solar System natural satellites.--Wyn.junior (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering that there are as yet no confirmed exomoon detections, this seems not to be an issue at the moment. Presumably we may revisit it in the future when we do know of some confirmed exomoons. Double sharp (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Numbering
We should be using numbers (#) instead of numerals for the List of natural satellites. And we should have one column numbering the entire list.--Wyn.junior (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, numerals are correct as they are used in the official designations (e.g. "Jupiter II Europa"). Double sharp (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The use of roman numerals is not explained in the article, but it should be. Or at least, I could not find an explanation by searching for the word "roman". Indefatigable (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added a link to Naming of moons. Double sharp (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

What criteria for inclusion are we using now?
Quaoar, Orcus Salacia, Varda and Gonggong are neither planets nor dwarf planets. If Kwami insists on muddying the waters to push his personal agenda, then perhaps we should simply exlude the dwarf planets altogether.  Serendi pod ous  15:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * How do you know that? Brown accepts them all as probably DPs, Grundy accepts that three of them may be DPs. Do you have any source that they are not? This is a scientific article, even if just a list. We therefore follow consensus within the scientific community as best we can, or at least indicate the dispute if there isn't much consensus.
 * And do you really think it would serve our readers best to omit Charon from a list of natural satellites? — kwami (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * As for my "personal agenda", yes, scientific evidence for scientific articles is my personal agenda. It should be yours. If it isn't, you have no business here. When our best sources were Brown and Tancredi saying that there were many many DPs out there, I did my best to ensure our articles reflected that, at least for the ones they were most sure about, despite the whining of pseudoscientific bureaucrats that DP's don't exist unless they're assigned to a particular IAU naming committee based on H, completely misunderstanding (or disregarding) the scientific process. Then, when Grundy et al. argued the opposite, that only a few of those objects could possibly be DPs, I reversed my stance as well, and tried to ensure that our articles reflected their POV as well. If another RS study comes to yet another conclusion, I'll try to update our articles to reflect it as well. As they should. Personally, I suspect that only Ceres, Eris and Pluto are DPs, but I'm not going to say that without sourcing. We do have a RS that concludes Haumea does not appear to be a DP, and in a few months we should have a RS on the mass and density of Makemake. If the astronomical community comes to consensus that those bodies and everything smaller are not DPs, then of course we can remove them from the list, or perhaps we'll decide to add 'largest SSSBs' or whatever -- the inclusion criteria are arbitrary. But as long as we're including DP's and there is no consensus as to which they are, we need to be a bit flexible. Where exactly to draw the line is rather arbitrary, but making pseudoscientific statements like "Quaoar, Orcus Salacia, Varda and Gonggong are neither planets nor dwarf planets" is not a good way to address the issue. — kwami (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a side note: We do have an RS for the mass and density of Makemake: M=$3.1 kg$, d=$1.9 g/cm3$, from (Parker, 2018). Renerpho (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, cool. They're coming out with a new one, based on those later measurements. — kwami (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Kwami, as I have said over a dozen times to you since you began this crusade years ago, the situation sucks and I hate it. But it is not Wikipedia's job to make that call. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. We cannot call an object a dwarf planet unless we have evidence that the majority of scientists refer to them as such. Simply citing one scientist vs another is just taking individual sides.  Serendi pod ous  00:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But what you want is worse -- deciding the physical nature of a body based on a press release! We follow RS's on WP, and that's what I've been doing. And where do I say that any of these bodies *are* DPs? I only say they're possible or likely or unlikely to be DPs. Which they are. Yeah, it would be nice if we had lots of RSs to look over, so we could get an idea of consensus, but we don't. Not that many sources address the question. So we take what we can get. The alternative is to ignore the lit because there isn't enough of it.
 * If we only have one source on the mass of a body, we don't say that we can't use it because we don't have evidence that the majority of scientists accept it! We simply put the figure in the box with a ref. When we get another figure, we add it to the box, with its ref. When some of the figures get outdated, we start removing them from the box. When we label a body as KBO, SDO, Centaur, etc., we do it based on individual sources. So what if they contradict each other? That's just the nature of science. Whether a body is a DP is no different. Saying that we can't follow the scientific literature for whether a body is in HE is ludicrous. You're correct, of course, that this isn't WP's call to make, but that's exactly why I insist we follow RS's and stop trying to make the call. Taking a press release as the Word of God and ignoring scientific publication is also 'taking sides', as you put it. Ceres is demonstrated (assuming that claim stands up to scrutiny). Eris and Pluto are AFAICT universally accepted. So calling any of those three DP's would seem to be problematic. Haumea, per the latest study, is dubious, so we probably shouldn't be calling it a DP. (Though, like the confirmation of Ceres, I don't know how that will stand up to scrutiny.) Grundy et al. have mentioned a few possibilities as appearing to be solid bodies (which they imply are DPs -- I don't remember offhand whether they actually call them that) and several others like Salacia which they conclude cannot be solid. All of that is perfectly good sourcing that we should respect, just as we do for orbital classifications, spectra, orbital resonances, or anything else. — kwami (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You made that call in this article! There are hundreds of objects that may be DPs. Some of them are orbited by other objects. Should we include them on this list?  Serendi pod ous  08:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Only if the latest reliable sources consider them likely to be so – and judging from the Grundy et al. paper cited on List of possible dwarf planets, recent work is swinging against it. A press release certainly cannot compare to such an RS, even if there aren't many of the latter. Double sharp (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I made a somewhat arbitrary call. I'm happy to discuss some other place to draw the line. I could've tried to stick to Grundy et al. as the latest, but that would be taking sides against Brown, which wouldn't have been encyclopedic (even if personally I wish that Brown would address the issues that Grundy et al. made, and either concede or show why he thinks they're wrong). It would also require a bit of SYNTH as to which bodies fit his criteria, since he doesn't list them all by name. But even if we were to follow Brown, we need to cut it off somewhere, e.g. at "almost certain" or "highly likely". How long a list do we want? I could've followed Ortiz and removed Haumea from the list, but that would contradict common usage. As to why I included AW197 but cut off before 2003 AZ84 and 2013 FY27, both of which seem to have satellites, I remember that I didn't want to add an unconfirmed satellite to the main table. Like I said, the cut-off is rather arbitrary, I was trying not to favor any one source, to have a representative list but not too long, and am happy to revisit it. I just don't want to reinforce the spurious concept of 'official' DPs. There is, after all, only one official DP: Pluto, per an actual IAU resolution. — kwami (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I don't think many people using the phrase "dwarf planet" are following the IAU definition. Ortiz concludes that the "dwarf planet" Haumea is not in HE -- but then, according to the IAU, it's not a dwarf planet. Grunty et al. seem to use the term (though never explicitly) as any body that's fully solid -- again, not a DP per the IAU. So, even though we have a precise (if impractical) definition from the IAU, in practice it doesn't seem to be much more precise than "planetoid". — kwami (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I would prefer a non-arbitrary cutoff point, even if it means going with "popular usage". And I'd hardly call Ortiz a disinterested party where Haumea is concerned.  Serendi pod ous  00:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, now we have Grundy et al.'s cutoff (with higher-density Salacia, but without Varda). Double sharp (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And now without Salacia, since current up-to-date RS's apparently would not include it. (It does seem to have a similar density to Orcus, but measurement uncertainties are such that it also might not, and its smaller size and darker surface compared to Orcus speak against it.) Double sharp (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Turns out that Salacia and Varda might both be dense. As their moons Actaea and Ilmarë are pretty significant (both are larger than Hyperion), I decided to just return to Kwami's original cut-off, with Salacia, Varda, AW197, and MS4, but not FY27 and Ixion (which might be about the same size of AZ84, which has an unconfirmed moon and also might not be dense enough to be solid). Double sharp (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2021 (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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ferdinand - Uranus moon.gif

Summary – number of moons
In the "(Possible) dwarf" part of the table "Summary – number of moons", what determines the order of the objects? It isn't sorted by size, number of satellites, or name. Is it sorted by semi-major axis? Renerpho (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems to be so. Double sharp (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

New list by size
Please make a list by size (smallest to biggest or biggest to smallest) I'll post a link to it BirdgoesWue (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

List of natural satellites by size BirdgoesWue (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

BirdgoesWue (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:List of natural sattelites by size sorry BirdgoesWue (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft: List of natural satellites by size grr pls be da one BirdgoesWue (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * You can use page preview to check if you posted the correct link. Anyway, I don't think a separate list is necessary here since you can just take the list here and click to sort it by size, unless such a list also happened to include minor-planet moons. Ionmars10 (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The sizes with their current error bars start overlapping quite a lot once you drop down to the area where they stop being round. Double sharp (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Creating (and maintaining) a reliable list by size is a futile endeavour. Sizes are uncertain, and often assumed based on brightness, making such a list unreliable, borderline WP:OR, and prone to large swings. We could create a list sorted by brightness (absolute magnitude H) if such a list is deemed to be useful. Given that absolute magnitude is mentioned in the article body (incidentally without proper sources; I just tagged a missing citation), this may be a good idea. Alternatively, why not just add an H column to the existing table? Renerpho (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC) I meant to include you, too, sorry. Renerpho (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok BirdgoesWue (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer any of the alternatives I mentioned? – Also, I edited your comment, which contained a formatting error in the signature. Let me remind you about the "page preview" option mentioned above. Renerpho (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2021 (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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nix best view.jpg

Add columns for inclination, eccentricity, rotational speed
Inclination should be used to indicate retrograde orbits, instead of just marking them as r for retrograde. Rotational speed would be useful for calculating length of day. Eccentricity is probably important for other curiosities. 2620:8D:8000:1044:F349:7DC2:C1FF:7CD2 (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * ...as would be their axial tilt, surface albedo, and spectral class. All of these genuinely are highly interesting. But we have to draw a line somewhere, and with a table as long as this one, it is easy to get lost in the numbers. IMHO, a good set of questions to ask is
 * 1. Is this piece of information available for a majority of objects in the list?
 * 2. Does it add anything useful that's not already there (and what is it?), important enough to justify the additional "clutter"?, and
 * 3. Is it easily interpretable?
 * The rotation speed (length of day) fails to meet 1 and 2: For the larger objects, it is known, but is usually the same as the orbital period (almost all of them are tidally locked to their host planets). For the smaller ones where this may not be the case, the rotation period is almost never known.
 * The inclination is more interesting, but really doesn't add much value. Whether an object's orbit is prograde or retrograde is useful and easily interpretable; this is a distinction that's often used to classify satellites into groups that likely share common features, or even a common formation history. In contrast, comparing the precise inclinations of objects in orbit around different planets is useful for what, exactly (other than to classify the object, which we already do)?
 * The same question would have to be answered for eccentricity: What are those "other curiosities" you mention, and why are they important enough to be added? I'd argue against adding any more columns, unless they are shown to be essential. Renerpho (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I think this list is missing two Jupiter moons
They're on the Jupiter list but not on this one. Have they been confirmed?  Serendi pod ous  18:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Forgot to add three--S/2022 J 1, J 2, and J 3. Will fix. Nrco0e (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I wonder how long the list will get before astronomers stop bothering to count them. —Tamfang (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The list of minor planets is past 620,000. So probably very long. :) Double sharp (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not 620,000 yet; I checked and it was still 619,150. TenGolfPedia (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It was already past 620,000 when I wrote that: 620,000 was numbered in January 2023, and in April 2023 the list went to 620,108. It just hadn't been updated on WP at the time. Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia list will stop being maintained long before astronomers stop counting stuff. On the other hand, Wikipedia has a list of all 623,000+ numbered asteroids, and a second list of all the named ones which explains what they are named after... so I think there's no cause for concern. Renerpho (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 9 January 2024
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

List of natural satellites → List of natural satellites Solar System – Solar System is not the only planetary system with natural satellites. Eurohunter (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Lists has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Astronomy has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The proposed title is missing some words, but in any case there is as yet no confirmed exomoon, and the list doesn't include every moon in the Solar System anyway (minor-planet moons are in a separate list). SevenSpheres (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as there are no confirmed exomoons. When some get discovered, we can reconsider. 108.160.120.91 (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose – Per above. Svartner (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all the above. Double sharp (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

We CANNOT measure the mass of any of these objects
See Talk:List_of_Solar_System_objects_by_size, from Jamescobban (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Count at radius (and above)
At 5 km, 10 km, etc. As per article at 10 July 2024.

MBG02 (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)