Talk:M109 Group

Possible merge with Ursa Major South group of galaxies
After studying the reference material available for the Ursa Major South group of galaxies, I have come to the conclusion that it is part of the M109 Group (with the final page being named "M109 Group").

Currently, the Wikipedia article relies on material from the "Atlas of the Universe" page, which is not peer-reviewed. I checked Hyperleda, the reference within the Atlas of the Universe page, and I found that the reference gives results that are different from the Altas of the Universe page. This means that the Atlas of the Universe is a bogus reference on this topic.

I then checked the article by Fouque et al. (1992) which uses the term. Fouque et al. may be the only refereed paper that uses the term "Ursa Major I South" for the group. Apparently, many of the galaxies in the Fouque et al. "Ursa Major I South" group correspond to galaxies listed by the Nearby Galaxy Catalog and by Giuricin et al. (2000) as part of the same group as M109 (NGC 3992). The Giuricin et al. results are particularly robust; they used three different algorithms for group detection and derived similar results from all three for the M109 Group. I therefore think that Fouque et al. are probably in error and that the thing currently listed as the Ursa Major South group of galaxies should be merged with the M109 Group.

Before I undertake such a merge, what do other people think? Please respond by 17 Nov, at which time I will undertake the merge. GeorgeJBendo 16:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I received no comments on this in three different forums. I am moving ahead with redirecting Ursa Major South group of galaxies to M109 Group.  Note that the LGG Catalogue specifically identifies UMa I N and UMa I S as belonging to one group and that the results from the LGG Catalogue are representative of the other group catalogs.  The merge is therefore justified.  GeorgeJBendo 10:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)