Talk:Local Group

message: Where does the map come from? Who made it? What about taking the 3D map used in the german article?--CWitte 14:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: * OPPOSE a list is useful by itself, and would clutter the Local Group article. And not everything on the list need be a Local Group member. 132.205.45.110 22:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from List of nearest galaxies

message: Two more faint local group dwarfs -  - one in Canes Venatici, the other in Bootes. 
-- ALoan (Talk) 10:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's another one to add... Leo T  70.55.86.251 (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More dwarf galaxies

message: It's a nice, useful list. However, I miss certain things, especially the distance to the Milky Way Galaxy and the size of the Galaxy. It would a better list with this information. --JorisvS 12:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size and distance 

message: "Number of stars 	200 to 400 billion" That is for the Milky Way; what about for the Local Group? --Emesee (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See above - should be about a trillion.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Around how many stars total?  

message: Which gravitational force could be in te center? I don't assume these galaxies turn around each other?--80.200.214.233 (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The mutual attraction of all the galaxies makes the group hold together. IIRC, the "center" is relatively empty at the moment. But the central volume contains the Milky Way, Andromeda and Triangulum. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Check out Barycentric coordinates (astronomy) and Center of mass. 99.225.180.228 (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is in the center? 

message: Why is Aquarius Dwarf a probable non-member?
--84.43.145.225 (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aquarius Dwarf 

message: I don't see what connection this graphic has to the rest of the article. Nor do I understand what is being graphed. What is the x-axis?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.159.92 (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iron content graph 

message: interestingly... the Local Group was thought to be composed of 7 galaxies in 1971  -- Milky Way, Andromeda, Maffei 1&2, and three others (presumably M33, LMC, SMC) 65.94.47.63 (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Local Group in 1971 

message: The estimated mass for the local group is the same figure given as the mass of the Milky Way on its page, around 10^12 M☉.  One must be incorrect?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.161.8.15 (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass of Local Group? 

message: Should we mention that the Large Magellanic Cloud and NGC 3109 are possible Magellanic spirals?©Geni (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Magellanic spirals

message: Some information about the formation of the Local Group in a recent paper. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Formation

message: Should the article describe the Local group as a galaxy group or a galaxy cluster?  I believe the former; the number of members (54) is closer to the accepted definition of a group than the "hundreds or thousands" that are the norm for a cluster. In addition to the Hubble quote already in the article that uses "group", I have other sources that agree with galaxy group, but figure it is preferable to try to gather editor consensus than to start an edit war.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is absolutely a group. Do any sources call it a cluster? In fact, if we weren't inside it, it would barely even be called a group: from a significant distance away, it would look like a pair of galaxies (MW and M31), and nearly all the others would be too small to detect. I see that the article also calls it the Local Cluster. That's wrong. There is a Local Supercluster, but that is very different than the Local Group.  —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 11:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Alex, and thanks for making the edit. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group or cluster? 

message: The [clarify] tag on the History section in this version is bound to remain for a while as it is the phrasing used in the reference.
I'm removing the "almost two dozen" since I'm not really sure how to interpret it and the reference wasn't helpful.
–Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unresolvable clarify tag 

message: Article with some info on some of the dwarf galaxies
Gaia Data Release 2. Kinematics of globular clusters and dwarf galaxies around the Milky Way 
https://www.aanda.org/component/article?access=doi&doi=10.1051/0004-6361/201832698
Preprint at:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.09381
©Geni (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: gaia data

message: Hi, the first image (File:Local Group and nearest galaxies.jpg) may be very wrong. Because in this image, M31 position is higher than the milky way while LMC and SMC are shown lower than the milky way. 
We can see 
the map (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Local_Group.svg) 
or the last big image in this article (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Earth%27s_Location_in_the_Universe.jpg)
or,http://www.luratia.com/images/UM-Local-Group.jpg
In these picutres, M31 position is lower than the milky way. So very probably, the first image shows wrong relative position of M31 and the milky way.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feiximing1983 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong galaxy positions of first image 

message: In the introductory paragraph the relative speed of the two groups is given as 123 km/h  ,whereas in the collision article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda%E2%80%93Milky_Way_collision) it is given as 110 km/s  , several orders of magnitude different.  I looked at the publicly available part of the reference for 123 km/h but it did not cover that (presumably it's in the paywalled part). Can this be resolved?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Wolf 2 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Several orders of magnitude? Are you serious? The difference if within the measurement error. Ruslik_Zero 17:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 123 km per hour is indeed several orders of magnitude away from 110 km per sec.  But the former is almost certainly wrong: Astronomical speeds are routinely given in km/sec, and they are routinely triple-digit speeds (or more) in those units.  123 km per hour would probably be too small to measure (whereas the true relative of the two galaxies is certainly not too small to measure.) Jmacwiki (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed of approach 

message: It appears the non satellite Dwarf are to be found on one of two planes:
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/435/3/1928/1020301
That paper is referenced in this one https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/492/1/45/5672645?redirectedFrom=fulltext
©Geni (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure of the group

message: Hi, i'm not experienced enough to edit this myself. Correct me if i'm wrong, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGCA_86 does not belong in the local group anymore. Could somebody remove it?
(unsigned)
It looks like someone has done so. 203.142.136.254 (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  No longer part of the local group 

message: As of current, these galaxies in the "list of galactic bodies" section of the article show no info pertaining to the fact that they *might* not be part of the Local Group. (as per their respective Wikipedia articles.) I feel that indicating it as "Member of Antlia-Sextans Group" does not accurately portray the fact that despite being in this list, they might not be actually part of the Local Group.
As such, do you think it would be appropriate to either move these galaxies to "probable non-members", or perhaps the more rational solution of indicating that the Antlia-Sextans Group might be separate from the Local Group?
Limitlez1 (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Sextans A and B be classified as probable non-members? 

message: Why the Clickable map is not clickable? 116.73.134.216 (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @116.73.134.216 Sorry, It is clickable. 116.73.134.216 (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  clickable map 

message: The hatnote currently says "Not to be confused with Observable universe". I'm not sure where this confusion can arise from. Is this just ignorance, or should this hatnote be reconsidered? I'm quite willing to accept the former. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 23:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand more uninformed editors no being able to make that distinction. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not to be confused with...