Talk:List of largest lakes and seas in the Solar System

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy: Solar System Mid‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Geography Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

Lakes Low‑importance

	Lakes portal List of largest lakes and seas in the Solar System is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Limnology and Oceanography Low‑importance

	Oceans portal This article is part of the WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the inland waters and marine environments. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on limnology- or oceanography-related topics, as well as to ensure that limnology and oceanography articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.Limnology and OceanographyWikipedia:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyTemplate:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyLimnology and Oceanography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oceans Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceans, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of oceans, seas, and bays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OceansWikipedia:WikiProject OceansTemplate:WikiProject OceansOceans articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Oceans To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : List of oceanographers, create a comprehensive article on Concentrations of marine debris out of all the gyre and "garbage patch" articles
Copyedit : Draft:Terrance (octopus)
Expand : Coral Sea, Endeavour Strait, Greenland Sea, Solomon Sea
Photo : find images for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the oceans
Stubs : Oceanography stub articles, Marine geography stub articles, Aleutian Trench, Bellingshausen Sea, Caernarfon Bay, Gerlache Strait, Gulf of Oman, Iceland Sea, Draft:Terrance (octopus)
Update : Botany Bay, Wilkins Sound, Mariana Trench, Challenger Deep
Verify : Antarctic Circumpolar Current, Bering Sea, Gulf of Aden, Iceberg B-15, Ionian Sea, Japan Trench, Moreton Bay, Sound (geography), Timor Sea
Other : add ISBNs and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from Aral Sea; check La Belle (ship) for GA status; improve citations or footnotes and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from MS Estonia

Tweak subject definition?

Perhaps we should change the description of the subject to "single bodies of water or other liquid on the surface of a solid body (terrestrial planet or moon) or bodies of liquid water within them." Otherwise, internal bodies of liquid such as the Earth's outer core and bodies of magma would also fit. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I changed it to "near the surface". It's not necessary for the liquid to be water. I suppose magma chambers on Io would count, but we don't actually know of any. — kwami (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But "near the surface" does not really work either. Some of the theorized liquid-water oceans may be under several hundreds of kilometers of ice and if there are several stacked layers, then the lower layers are located even deeper, which would hardly be "near the surface". Earth's crust is typically 5–10 km (oceanic crust) or 30–50 km thick. The upper part of the mantle is apparently basically solid too (and thus grouped into the lithosphere), but below ~200 km, it becomes significantly more plastic (but apparently not properly liquid). Would plastic count, or would this be an appropriate reason for excluding it here? --JorisvS (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caspian Sea

Should it be described as the second largest ocean? If not, why is it listed? WolfmanSF (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would work too. If we count bodies of water rather than basins (hydrostatic rather than geological), it's both, as the Black Sea is lumped in with the Ocean Sea anyway. — kwami (talk) 06:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning "dwarf planet"

[1]@WolfmanSF: What do you mean "consistent"? Consistent with what?

"if we identify some dwarf planets, we should identify all of them"—we can't because our knowledge about them is very limited, that's why we have list of possible dwarf planets. Or do you mean something else?

"note that the mass ranges of planets and dwarf planets don't overlap"—How does this matter? --JorisvS (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have noticed, before my edit two of the 4 listed objects recognized as dwarf planets were denoted as such, and two were not, which is inconsistent. I rectified this. If we decide we don't need to denote any of the recognized dwarf planets as such, fine, at least let's be consistent. My comment that the mass ranges of planets and dwarf planets don't overlap was in rebuttal to your claim that the listed planets, dwarf planets and moons are all in the same mass range. WolfmanSF (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't. I didn't notice that Ceres had and kept its mention as "dwarf planet". And I never claimed that their masses overlap, I claimed that they are all planetary-mass objects, which is true: All have sufficient mass to be round, which is necessarily the case. No irregular object can have liquids. So anything that orbits in a belt necessarily is a dwarf planet. We can note this for the readers' convenience in the text, but there is no need to make this explicit in the table. --JorisvS (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhea's interior

A recent paper on Rhea's gravity field and interior:

Tortora, P.; Zannoni, M.; Hemingway, D.; Nimmo, F.; Jacobson, R. A.; Iess, L.; Parisi, M. (2016). "Rhea gravity field and interior modeling from Cassini data analysis". Icarus. 264: 264–273. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2015.09.022.

states that "In spite of the improved determination of Rhea’s gravity field, the significant uncertainties in shape prevent us from drawing strong conclusions about the interior structure. In particular, neither undifferentiated nor fully-differentiated structures can be excluded." This suggests that the possibility of internal liquid water is still open. WolfmanSF (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres' interior

A recent article on Ceres:

De Sanctis, M. C.; Raponi, A.; Ammannito, E.; Ciarniello, M.; Toplis, M. J.; McSween, H. Y.; Castillo-Rogez, J. C.; Ehlmann, B. L.; Carrozzo, F. G.; Marchi, S.; Tosi, F.; Zambon, F.; Capaccioni, F.; Capria, M. T.; Fonte, S.; Formisano, M.; Frigeri, A.; Giardino, M.; Longobardo, A.; Magni, G.; Palomba, E.; McFadden, L. A.; Pieters, C. M.; Jaumann, R.; Schenk, P.; Mugnuolo, R.; Raymond, C. A.; Russell, C. T. (2016). "Bright carbonate deposits as evidence of aqueous alteration on (1) Ceres". Nature. 536 (7614): 54–57. doi:10.1038/nature18290.

concludes that "fluids may exist at depth on Ceres today". WolfmanSF (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Michigan versus Superior

Why is Lake Michigan listed as the third largest body of water on Earth? Lake Superior is larger, both in terms of area and volume. 2601:642:4C02:9881:8BA:A981:F1B3:955 (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are in fact one singular lake separated by a narrow channel; their combined area (as Lake Michigan-Huron) is greater than that of Lake Superior ArkHyena (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]