text:
Talk:Tessellation

Non-Euclidian Geometries -- Spherical Geometry?
"It is possible to tessellate in non-Euclidean geometries such as hyperbolic geometry."

What about spherical geometry? Has nothing been done in this area? Is it somehow not possible due to a quirk of mathematics? I'd suggest at least a mention of this would be expected, since you mention the two other main branches of geometries.

--167.230.96.9 (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Spherical polyhedron has regular, uniform, and uniform dual tilings of the sphere. These could be mentioned in Tessellation somewhere. And the regular 4-polytopes also can projected onto the 3-sphere as tessellations/honeycombs and viewed in stereographic projection. Like 120-cell projected here File:Stereographic_polytope_120cell_faces.png. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * By loose analogy to the seventeen wallpaper groups, there is a family of tessellations of the sphere for each of the point groups in three dimensions. —Tamfang (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Introductory video
A nicely done "educational animation" was added by an anonymous user to "explain the basic principles behind tessellating patterns." I have removed it for a number of concerns. --seberle (talk) 06:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) It introduces some artistic concepts about creating tessellation art, but does not really explain the basic idea of what a tessellation is. If the video is restored, perhaps it should go later in the article?
 * 2) The video ends with an ad for a certain website. This is not appropriate for the introduction to an article. Perhaps as an external link? I have not checked the website.
 * 3) It claims that only 3 "basic shapes" can tessellate. It is true that only 3 regular polygons tessellate, and many simple artistic tessellations follow these three patterns, but there are many other possible shapes and patterns in tessellations, such as the Arabic tessellation in the next image.
 * 4) The video claims there are 3 "basic principles" for tessellating: translation, rotation, glide reflection. Is reflection being considered a type of glide reflection? In any case, these are symmetries found in many (not all) tessellations, not "basic principles." E.g. Dirichlet tilings generally have no symmetry at all.

 * I agree with your decision to remove this animation. Any one of your four reasons would probably have been justification enough; the combination of all 4 makes the decision easy. Darrah (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd really love to see that video. Too bad it has been removed Nonkuli (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Nonkuli: The video is available on youtube here. There are hundreds of other similar videos that you can find with searches on youtube like "Tessellation Introduction", and if we were going to put one here, many of the other candidates do a better job of showing a wider variety of the basics, IMHO. Darrah (talk) 08:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Expand Manufacturing Section
The "In Manufacturing" section looks tiny. I think we should add more to this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimli536 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Creating a separate Tiling (mathematics) page
There is tons of material on mathematical tiling/tessellation. So much so that adding it all to this page would be tedious, especially for readers coming to this article for the art, manufacturing etc aspects who don't have any interest. I've been discussing on the Talk:Polyomino page the possibility of creating a separate page purely dedicated to all of the finer mathematical points of tiling, which would include Discrete Tilings (e.g. Z^n for starters... there's a lot of literature here) and also the more usual tilings by sets of polygons, and then leaving a link to that more comprehensive article here. Mathguy9109 (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no difference between tessellation and tiling, so there is no justification for having two articles on those two different titles. We have articles on subjects, not on their names; see WP:NOTDICT. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Do I need to start giving notable examples where what you're saying doesn't apply. What a terse and thoughtless reply. Mathguy9109 (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The point is: if you think there is important content on tessellations that this article does not describe, then it should be added to this article, or as a separate article on a special case of tessellations. We should not have two different articles on the same topic merely because "adding it all to this page would be tedious". We are here to benefit the readers, not to alleviate the tedium of the editors. I note that you have also tried to make the same suggestion at Talk:Polyomino and received more or less the same response. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Yes, this is the main topic. If there is a lot of material on one particular kind of tessellation then of course it will make sense to add or extend an article on that subtopic, and if need be to extend the summary here briefly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

 * If it is indeed the case that discrete tilings are not treated in any Wikipedia article—I was unable to find any mention—then a starting point might be to create an article on that topic.

 * Two comments:

 * (1) Now that I've had a closer look at the Tessellations article, I like the structure the way it is. I see it as positive that practical, artistic, and mathematical aspects are combined into a single article.  This is what general-interest articles on mathematics topics that have large overlap with other areas should strive to be.  If readers come here looking for the artistic or manufacturing aspects, and are exposed to some mathematics along the way, I see that as a good thing.  A lot of work by many editors has gone into making the article what it is today, and it has achieved Good Article status.

 * (2) I'm not sure I have grasped the source of your dissatisfaction with the article. I do see that there is a literature on discrete tilings that seems not to be mentioned on Wikipedia, and it would be good to fill that gap.  Couldn't this be done, however, by simply creating an article on the topic and linking to it from the "Introduction to tessellations" subsection of "In mathematics"?  Perhaps your point is that it is mathematically more productive to regard discrete tilings as tilings of the space Z2 rather than as a restricted class of polygonal tilings of R2.  (I don't know whether this is the case.  I'm just speculating on your motivations.)  If that's the issue, perhaps a discussion could be added either under "Tessellations in non-Euclidean geometries", or in a new subsection devoted to discrete tilings.  In an article aimed at general readership, I don't think it would be helpful to do a wholesale rewrite describing some very general theory in which tilings of Z2 and tilings of R2 are treated on an equal footing.  Again, I don't know if there is such a theory—I'm just speculating, based on comments you made at Talk:Polyomino.  If there is such a general theory, then perhaps a specialized article could be created on that theory, again with a link from the main article. Will Orrick (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

 * I think it would certainly be possible to make a separate article on integer tilings with a brief link to it from this article. (I would prefer the name integer tilings to discrete tilings because in this context the word discrete is too ambiguous.) —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't the extended Girih tilings have its spot somewhere?
When I read the topic of Tessellation I miss something.
 * Under the "In Mathematics" topic there are a number of sub topics, starting with the introduction that explains for example regular and semi-regular tessellations.
 * A few sub-topics down the section for non-regular tessellations begins, called "Tessellations with polygons". In the end it talks about different monohedral tilings based on the number of corners, and there it links to "Pentagonal tiling".
 * A few sub-topics above we have the "Aperiodic tilings" section, which have a picture of a 5-fold Penrose P3 tiling pattern.

Not until we step out of the "In Mathematics" topic and enter the "In Art" topic we get to see a reference and a link to 5-fold patterns - the Girih tiling page. Being in the art section hints that the tiles themselves don't have merits, and it's only the decoration and lines on top of the Girih tiles that is important - which I agree is true for art - but my question is if this isn't interesting from a mathematical point of view too? It should render a mentioning in the "In Mathematics" topic.

It also should have its own separate topic. I know the topic of Girih tiles already exist, but there are a few problems with it: These non-equilateral prototiles together with the extended set of the Girih tiles, should get their rightful spot on Wikipedia. I just don't know where. Please help me! Rixn99 (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The tiles defined as Girih tiles (by Lu and Steinhardt) are only five - and there are far more of them, but a classification and complete list have yet to be published. Girih+ Diagram v6.7 Exerpts-foor-Wikipedia.png Bonner is the most prominent figure in this matter, and he actually published a paper with a bigger set of these tiles long before Lu & Steinhardt, but it didn't get any acknowledgement. Myself I'm looking into the classification issue, but haven't published anything serious yet. See the draft to the right:
 * The name "girih" implies that it is purely a Islamic geometry issue (even though the Islamic Geometric Art community haven't really embraced the tiling method). 5-fold pattern is universal math. We are missing that chapter/page, and from there the five Girih tiles are a sub-set and should be linked to.
 * If we take a look at the Topkapı Scroll it contains several non-equilateral prototiles (including the Kite from Penrose P2 tile set).

 * OK, thanks, and two immediate comments. Firstly, it would be preferable to mention and link Girih only once in this article. Secondly, we are allowed only to rely and cite existing published sources. If there's a "page" missing (a Wikipedia article, I take it) then feel free to write and cite it; we would then summarize that article here, as a new paragraph or as a new section. Failing that, if you know of suitable sources on the mathematics of girih, then feel free to write a brief mention of the topic here, citing those sources.Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your answer. I'll try to address each issue, starting with the "mentioning" issue first:
 * 1) I'm not sure I understand you - I only link to the Girih Tiles page once (and no link to the Girih page)? For the mentioning of the word "girih", I didn't know I couldn't use it several times. That would limit my option on communicate what I intend to say. That can't be the objective. I suspect there is another reason for you saying this. Please enlighten me on what you mean?
 * I think we're talking at cross purposes. All I mean is that in an ideal article one only discusses a subtopic once; of course it may be necessary to name it in various other places in passing. I was not referring to anything you had written in the article or elsewhere.
 * 2) I realize that we only can add information that can be referenced by reliable published sources. Since I started delving into this field these are the questions that have evolved, so guess I'm asking this community for help to see if someone here have any knowledge of additional sources about this?
 * I don't have a formal higher education in mathematics, so I wanted to know if there, from a mathematical point of view, would be valid to add a small section for the equilateral five Girih prototiles in the "In mathematics" section.
 * The issue is about the extended set of prototiles. As it contains non-equilateral prototiles I assume it would be defined differently from a mathematical point of view, which should be mentioned in this article too, but I assume it would require the article about it first.
 * This would lead to the writing of this new article. Already today, I believe there is enough published references that would support such an article. I'll start to see if I can create something useful. Is there a way to share one's sandbox to others here in the Talk discussions?
 * Rixn99 (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * All sounds reasonable. You can simply provide a wikilink here to your sandbox article, and you could post a notice on relevant projects such as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Split "Tessellation (mathematics)" ― or an alternative
Tessellation currently seems a broad-concept article (BCA), covering several closely related concepts. Its main section, Tessellation, is notable enough to deserve a separate article, Tessellation (mathematics). That section is so large that it has its own introductory section. A summary of the new article would be left in the old section, of course. fgnievinski (talk) 05:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

If you don't agree with the splitting proposal, that means Tessellation is not meant to be a BCA. Then, I assume it's supposed to be mainly about the mathematical concept and secondarily about its occurrence in other areas. In that case, the present article would need some restructuring. First, sections In art, In manufacturing, and In nature would need to be demoted as subsections of a new section Tessellation. Secondly, section Tessellation would need to be promoted, by making its subsections first-level sections. fgnievinski (talk) 05:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion at. fgnievinski (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 * You know it's currently listed as a Good Article, correct? So perhaps your "this is all wrong and everyone who thinks otherwise is also wrong" approach could use re-thinking. Or in other words, what's wrong with an article that covers both the real-world and mathematical aspects of a topic, in a single article? Where is the need to ghettoize all mathematics into its own separate articles to keep them away from all those nasty real-world applications? To put it more bluntly, I strongly disagree. I think that having both applications and their mathematical analysis in a single article is a good thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 * I appreciate your concerns for ghettoization of mathematics. I believe it could be saned leaving a summary in the broad-concept article (BCA). That's how I and others have done at Surface and in Surface (mathematics). The intention here is more to give space for Tessellation (mathematics) to grow. Perhaps even have some equations (other than the few existing in-line equations), you know. But it looks like you prefer Tessellation not to be a WP:BCA, in which case the Mathematics subsections would be promoted and the Application sections demoted, as proposed in the second original option. fgnievinski (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Or, we could, you know, keep the balance as it already is and not do what you say or else. The threatening language you used as the header for this thread is not promising as a way of building consensus for some kind of change. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 * I apologize that my language made you feel threatened. That was not my intention, I value and expect civility in Wikipedia. So now I've rewritten the talk section title, replacing "or else" with "or an alternative". fgnievinski (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Infinite tessellation with single shape
There are article in New Scientist, but behind a paywall:

jcubic (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tessellation


text:
Great Triumvirate

In U.S. politics, the Great Triumvirate (known also as the Immortal Trio) refers to a triumvirate of three statesmen who dominated American politics for much of the first half of the 19th century, namely Henry Clay of Kentucky, Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and John C. Calhoun of South Carolina. These men's interactions in large part tell the story of politics under the Second Party System. All three were extremely active in politics, served at various times as Secretary of State and served together in the Senate.

Clay, the oldest, emerged on the national political scene first, serving as counsel for Aaron Burr in his treason trial and serving two short stints in the Senate before being elected Speaker of the House of Representatives for the Twelfth Congress. Calhoun was a freshman member of this Congress and his friendship and ideological closeness with Clay helped propel him to prominence as a leader of the war hawk faction agitating for a war which would eventually be declared as the War of 1812. Webster was elected in 1813 to Congress and immediately became a leading anti-war and anti-administration Federalist. Webster wrangled with the nationalists Clay and Calhoun on post-war issues such as the chartering of the Second Bank of the United States and the Tariff of 1816. After the Fourteenth Congress, Calhoun became Secretary of War and Webster declined reelection to focus on his law practice in Boston, a practice which took him before the Supreme Court in landmark cases like Dartmouth College v. Woodward, Gibbons v. Ogden and McCullouch v. Maryland in which he represented the Bank of the United States.

The three were reunited in the Senate in 1832, with Calhoun's resignation from the vice presidency and election to the Senate in the midst of the Nullification Crisis. The three would remain in the Senate until their deaths, with exceptions for Webster and Calhoun's tenures as Secretary of State and Clay's presidential campaigns in 1844 and 1848. The time these three men spent in the Senate represents a time of rising political pressure in the United States, especially on the matter of slavery. With each one representing the three major sections of the United States at that time and their respective mindsets (the Western settlers, the Northern businessmen and the Southern slaveholders), the Great Triumvirate was responsible for symbolizing the opposing viewpoints of the American people and giving them a voice in the government. The debates leading to the Compromise of 1850 were the last major contribution of the three as they were eclipsed by a new generation of political leaders like Jefferson Davis, William H. Seward and Stephen A. Douglas.

Calhoun was so ill at the time of the Senate debate on the Compromise that he was unable to deliver his fiery speech opposing it, instead having it read for him by James Mason while he sat in the chamber. Calhoun would die just two weeks later on March 31, 1850. Within three years, Clay and Webster would die as well.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Great Triumvirate


text:
Battle of Rennell Island

The Battle of Rennell Island (レンネル島沖海戦) took place on 29–30 January 1943. It was the last major naval engagement between the United States Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy during the Guadalcanal Campaign of World War II. It occurred in the South Pacific between Rennell Island and Guadalcanal in the southern Solomon Islands.

In the battle, Japanese land-based torpedo bombers, seeking to provide protection for the impending evacuation of Japanese forces from Guadalcanal, made several attacks over two days on U.S. warships operating as a task force south of Rennell Island. In addition to approaching Guadalcanal with the objective of engaging any Japanese ships that might come into range, the U.S. task force was protecting an Allied transport ship convoy carrying replacement troops there.

As a result of the Japanese air attacks on the task force, one U.S. heavy cruiser was sunk, a destroyer was heavily damaged, and the rest of the U.S. task force was forced to retreat from the southern Solomons area. Partly because they turned back the U.S. task force in this battle, the Japanese successfully evacuated their remaining troops from Guadalcanal by 7 February 1943, leaving it in the hands of the Allies and ending the battle for the island.

Background
On 7 August 1942, Allied forces, consisting primarily of U.S. troops, landed on Guadalcanal, Tulagi, and the Florida Islands in the Solomon Islands. The landings on the islands were meant to deny their use by the Japanese as bases for threatening the supply routes between the U.S. and Australia, and to secure the islands as starting points for a campaign with the eventual goal of isolating the major Japanese base at Rabaul while also supporting the Allied New Guinea campaign. The landings initiated the six-month-long Guadalcanal campaign.

The last major attempt by the Japanese to drive Allied forces from Guadalcanal and Tulagi was defeated during the decisive Naval Battle of Guadalcanal in early November 1942. Thereafter, the Japanese Navy was able to deliver only subsistence supplies and a few replacement troops to Japanese Army forces on Guadalcanal. Because of the threat from Allied aircraft based at Henderson Field on Guadalcanal, plus nearby U.S. aircraft carriers, the Japanese delivered these supplies at night, usually by destroyer or submarine, in operations the Allies called the "Tokyo Express." These supplies and replacements were not enough to sustain Japanese troops on the island, who by 7 December 1942, were losing about 50 men each day from malnutrition, disease, and Allied ground or air attacks. On 12 December 1942, the Japanese Navy proposed that Guadalcanal be abandoned. Despite initial opposition from Army leaders, who still hoped that Guadalcanal could eventually be retaken from the Allies, on 31 December 1942 the Imperial General Headquarters, with approval from the Emperor, agreed to evacuate all Japanese forces from the island and establish a new line of defense for the Solomons on New Georgia.

The evacuation was code-named Operation Ke (ケ号作戦), and was scheduled to begin on 14 January 1943. An important element in the plan was an air superiority campaign starting 28 January 1943, to inhibit Allied aircraft or warships from disrupting the final stage of the Ke operation, which was the actual evacuation of all Japanese troops from Guadalcanal. Allied forces misinterpreted the Ke preparations as the beginning of another Japanese offensive to try to retake Guadalcanal. At the same time, Admiral William Halsey Jr., the Allied theatre commander, was under pressure from his superiors to complete the replacement of the 2nd Marine Regiment, which had been in combat on Guadalcanal since August, with fresh U.S. Army troops. Halsey hoped to take advantage of what he believed was an impending Japanese offensive to draw Japanese naval forces into a battle, while at the same time delivering the replacement Army troops to Guadalcanal. On 29 January 1943, Halsey sent five task forces toward the southern Solomons area to cover the relief convoy and to engage any Japanese naval forces that came into range. These five task forces included two fleet carriers, two escort carriers, three battleships, 12 cruisers, and 25 destroyers.

Leading this array of task forces was Task Group 62.8, the troop convoy of four transports and four destroyers. Ahead of the troop convoy, between Rennell Island and Guadalcanal, was Rear Admiral Robert C. Giffen's Task Force 18 (TF 18), a close support group of heavy cruisers USS Wichita (CA-45), USS Chicago (CA-29), and USS Louisville (CA-28), light cruisers USS Montpelier (CL-57), USS Cleveland (CL-55), and USS Columbia (CL-56); escort carriers USS Chenango (CVE-28) and USS Suwannee (CVE-27); and eight destroyers. Giffen commanded TF 18 from Wichita. A fleet carrier task force—centered on the carrier USS Enterprise (CV-6)—steamed about 250 mi behind TG 62.8 and TF 18. The other fleet carrier and battleship task forces were about 150 mi farther back. Giffen, with Wichita and the two escort carriers, had just arrived in the Pacific after participating in Operation Torch in the North African Campaign. Also, Chicago had just arrived back in the South Pacific, after completing repairs from damage suffered during the Battle of Savo Island almost six months before.

Prelude
In addition to protecting the troop convoy, TF 18 was charged with rendezvousing with a force of four U.S. destroyers, stationed at Tulagi, at 21:00 on 29 January in order to conduct a sweep up "The Slot" through New Georgia Sound north of Guadalcanal the next day to screen the unloading of the troop transports at Guadalcanal. The escort carriers, under Commodore Ben Wyatt, and travelling at 18 kn, were too slow to allow Giffen's force to make the scheduled rendezvous, so Giffen left the carriers behind with two destroyers at 14:00 and pushed on ahead at 24 kn. Wary of the threat from Japanese submarines, which Allied intelligence indicated were likely in the area, Giffen arranged his cruisers and destroyers for anti-submarine defense, not expecting an air attack. The cruisers were aligned in two columns, spaced 2500 yd apart. Wichita, Chicago, and Louisville, in that order, to starboard, and Montpelier, Cleveland, and Columbia to port. The six destroyers were in a semicircle 2 mi ahead of the cruiser columns.

Giffen's force was tracked by Japanese submarines, who reported its location and movement. Around mid-afternoon, based on the submarine reports, 16 Mitsubishi G4M Type 1 bombers from the 705 Air Group (705AG) and 16 Mitsubishi G3M Type 96 bombers from the 701 Air Group (701AG) took off from Rabaul carrying torpedoes to attack Giffen's force. One G3M turned back with engine trouble, leaving 31 bombers in the attack force. The leader of the 705AG aircraft was Lieutenant Tomoo Nakamura and Lieutenant Commander Joji Hagai commanded the 701AG planes.

Action on 29 January

At sunset, as TF 18 headed northwest 50 mi north of Rennell Island and 160 mi south of Guadalcanal, several of Giffen's ships detected unidentified aircraft on radar 60 mi west of their formation. Having previously insisted on absolute radio silence, Giffen gave no orders about what to do about the unidentified contacts, or any orders at all, for that matter. With the setting of the sun, TF 18's combat air patrol (CAP) from the two escort carriers returned to their ships for the night, leaving Giffen's ships without air cover.

The radar contacts were the approaching Japanese torpedo bombers, who circled around to the south of TF 18 so that they could attack from the east, with the black backdrop of the eastern sky behind them. From this direction, the Japanese bombers were hidden by the night sky, but Giffen's ships were silhouetted against the twilight of the western horizon. The 705AG aircraft attacked first, beginning at 19:19. Nakamura's aircraft missed with all of their torpedoes and one was shot down by anti-aircraft fire from Giffen's ships.

Believing the attack was over, Giffen ordered his ships to cease zigzagging and continue towards Guadalcanal on the same course and at the same speed. Meanwhile, a Japanese reconnaissance aircraft began dropping flares and floatlights to mark the course and speed of TF 18 for the impending attack by Hagai's bombers.

At 19:38, 701AG attacked, hitting Chicago with two torpedoes, causing heavy damage and bringing the cruiser to a dead stop. Another torpedo hit Wichita but did not explode. Two bombers were shot down by anti-aircraft fire, including Hagai's; he was killed. At 20:08, Giffen ordered his ships to reverse direction, to slow to 15 kn and to cease firing their anti-aircraft guns. The absence of muzzle flashes concealed the ships from the Japanese aircraft, who all departed the area by 23:35. In pitch darkness, Louisville managed to take the crippled Chicago under tow and slowly headed south, away from the battle area, escorted by the rest of TF 18.

Action on 30 January

Halsey immediately took steps to try to protect Chicago, notifying the escort carriers to make sure they had a CAP in place at first light, ordering the Enterprise task force to approach and to augment the escort carrier CAP, and sending the fleet tug USS Navajo (AT-64) to take over the tow from Louisville, which was achieved at 08:00. Between daybreak and 14:00, numerous Japanese scout aircraft approached TF 18. Although they were all chased away by the CAP, they observed and reported the position of Chicago. At 12:15, Lieutenant Commander Kazuo Nishioka led a force of 11 G4M torpedo bombers from the 751 Air Group (751AG), based at Kavieng and staging through Buka, New Guinea, launched to attack the damaged U.S. cruiser. An Australian coastwatcher in the Solomon Islands warned the U.S. forces of the bombers and estimated their arrival time as 16:00. However, Halsey ordered the other cruisers to leave Chicago behind and head for Efate in the New Hebrides. They departed at 15:00, leaving behind six destroyers to protect Chicago and Navajo.

At 15:40, Enterprise was 43 mi away from Chicago, with ten of her fighters forming a CAP over the damaged cruiser. At this time, four of the CAP fighters chased and shot down a scouting G4M bomber. At 15:54, Enterprise's radar detected the incoming bombers and launched 10 more fighters. The escort carriers, however, had difficulties in getting their aircraft launched and their aircraft did not attack the bombers until the engagement was over.

At first, the Japanese bombers appeared to be trying to approach and attack Enterprise but turned toward Chicago after six Enterprise CAP fighters began to engage them. Four other CAP fighters chased the 751AG aircraft as they entered the anti-aircraft fire from Chicago's escorting destroyers. Two of the bombers were shot down before they could release their ordnance. Six more were shot down moments later, but not before they dropped their torpedoes.

One torpedo hit the destroyer USS La Vallette (DD-448) in her forward engine room, killing 22 of her crew and causing heavy damage. Chicago was hit by four torpedoes, one forward of the bridge and three others in her engineering spaces. Captain Ralph O. Davis of Chicago ordered the ship to be abandoned, and she sank, stern first, 20 minutes later. Navajo and the escorting destroyers rescued 1,049 survivors from Chicago, but 62 of her crew died. A final attack force of Japanese torpedo bombers failed to find the remaining U.S. ships. Navajo took La Vallette under tow, and all of the remaining ships of TF 18 made port at Espiritu Santo without further incident.

Aftermath
The Japanese widely publicized the results of the engagement, claiming to have sunk a battleship and three cruisers. The U.S. on the other hand, tried to conceal the loss of Chicago from the public for some time, with Admiral Chester Nimitz threatening to "shoot" any of his staff who leaked the loss of Chicago to the press. Halsey and Nimitz blamed Giffen for the defeat and wrote this in Giffen's official performance report for the period. The defeat and resulting recriminations did not affect Giffen's career; he continued to lead Allied battleship and cruiser task forces in the Pacific until 1944 and was later promoted to vice admiral.

With Japanese aircraft engaged with TF 18, the Allied transports completed their mission of replacing the remaining marines on Guadalcanal over the last two days in January 1943. During this time, the other Allied task forces, including the two fleet carrier task forces, took station in the Coral Sea, in anticipation of an expected Japanese offensive in the southern Solomons.

With TF 18 forced to retreat, very few Allied naval forces were left in the immediate Guadalcanal area, allowing the Japanese to retrieve most of their remaining ground forces from Guadalcanal over three nights between 2 and 7 February 1943. This left any remaining Allied ships in the area highly exposed to Japanese attacks. Because the Allies believed that the Japanese were not evacuating, but actually sending in more reinforcements, U.S. destroyers and troop transports were proceeding with normal amphibious operations in western Guadalcanal despite losing the heavy firepower of TF 18. The destroyer USS De Haven (DD-469) was sunk by Japanese planes with 167 men killed and the destroyer USS Nicholas (DD-449) was slightly damaged and suffered two killed. Three PT boats, PT-37, PT-111, and PT-123, were sunk by Japanese forces on the same day as the sinking of De Haven with the loss of 15 sailors. The Allies were not aware of the Japanese withdrawal until it was over, but the evacuation of 11,000 starving troops and the loss of one cruiser became a footnote to the securing of Henderson Field and Guadalcanal, which provided the air support springboard to successfully complete the Solomon Islands campaign, a major turning point in the Pacific War.

title: Battle of Rennell Island


text:
Talk:Sealing (Mormonism)

Eternal Marriage
Perhaps we should combine this page and Eternal Marriage together? I think they are duplicative. Visorstuff 07:33, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree. Should Eternal Marriage redirect here, or should it contain a short explanation?COGDEN 17:52, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Let's put the sealing info in the eternal marriage page (removes the mormonism redirect). Visorstuff 21:51, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think we should put it all in this article and redirect Eternal Marriage here. The term "sealing" just seems a bit more general---especially to people who don't already know what eternal marriage means; the people most likely to be reading the article. Bccomm 20:13, Aug 10, 2004

Nice job keeping this NPOV. That's tough to do with a religious concept. Joyous 00:44, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

The only NPOV issue I see is dealing with men being sealed to many women, women only being sealed to one man.. As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints we are taught that women are not sealed to the men, the women are sealed to the Preisthood, hence a second sealing for a women is not nessacary as she has already been sealed to the Preisthood. Brian Hartvigsen 21:52, Nov 11, 2005 [GMT -7 DST]

 * The concept of "women are sealed to the Priesthood" is only found in some fundamentalists versions (actually I am only aware of this being true for FLDS church of Hildale, Utah) of Mormonism and not the The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. As a practicing member and as a temple worker in the Salt Lake Temple, I had never heard this taught before and I was completely unware of this concept until reading the above comment. With some research I have discovered that for the FLDS, this concept, more formally called the "law of placement" allows fundamentalist leaders to reassign a man's wives and children to other more worthy men in the community because they are sealed to the priesthood and not the priesthood-holder.  In the case of an excommunication, a polygamous man and his family may be told that he no longer holds the priesthood and that he, therefore, cannot exalt them in heaven. His family is often given the choice to remarry or stay with the husband and father, which may entail excommunication of all family members.  JafarD 12:00, May 27, 2010

Sealing members of other religions
I'm surprised that there is no discussion here regarding the controversy of sealing and even baptizing non-Mormon ancestors into the church. I know that this was particularly controversial when it came to the "baptism" of Jewish victims of the Holocaust and that an agreement was reached in 1995 to stop that specific aspect of sealing. Mike Dillon 03:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

 * This is discussed in the Baptism for the dead article. Val42 04:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I may be confused about the relationship between "sealing" and "baptism". Mike Dillon 06:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Confused "Misconception"
I find the following statement in the article very confusing: "A common misconception is that a man sealed to one or more women, but civilly divorced or a widower, may be sealed to another woman assuming the couple is worthy and the union is permitted by Church authorities and that although a woman can only be sealed to one man, she can be married civilly to another man and have that marriage recognized by the Church."

Please state what the policy is. How is a currently-living man even sealed to one or more women in the first place, and which part of the long, complicated sentence that follows is false and how is it false? It sounds self-contradictory as though coming from someone trying to deny a policy without knowing what the policy really is.198.60.22.24 17:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The statement quoted is true, it is not a misconception at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.160.210.253 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * True or not, there is no supporting reference, so it should be removed. — Val42 03:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I checked this information (discussed above), and the only references for it are in the Church Handbook of Instructions. This text from that article is particularly relevant: "Neither volume of the Church Handbook of Instructions is available for sale to the general public or the general church membership, nor is an official version available on the internet. The church asserts copyright over the contents of the Church Handbook and prohibits its duplication."  Therefore, this text is inherently unreferenceable, so I removed it and other text that has (or would have) this same reference. — Val42 03:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sealing Ceremony
It would be interesting if some of the aspects of the sealing ceremony were discussed. Some examples are: A bride must not show her arms and must wear a high-neckline, guests are not allowed to be present at the sealing ceremony, etc. 96.28.105.175 22:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

 * We'll need references from reliable sources to put any of this information into the article. — Val42 (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Male-to-Male Sealings
I'm surprised this isn't discussed in the article, as there were many sealings done between males through the time of the fourth president, Wilford Woodruff. (Brigham Young called the male sealings "a great and glorious doctrine" and was sealed to Joseph Smith.) Does the page have a history of edit warring about these male-to-male sealings? Because I don't really want to get into adding it to the article if it's proven to be a contentious aspect of the sealings, and if it's just going to go back and forth forever. Thanks, to anyone who's more familiar with the article's history. Codenamemary (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 * That would be discussed in the Law of adoption article. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm...okay I will read that. But since the Law of Adoption was a sealing, shouldn't a link be provided under the SEE ALSO section? Codenamemary (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No idea why it wasn't already there; it's been added. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge
The article Sealing power should be merged into Sealing (Mormonism). Having someone with the correct authority to perform a valid sealing is an element of the ordinance, and doesn't need to be described separately. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sealer
Neither this article nor the article on the sealing power describes the calling of a temple sealer, nor the development of the sealing power being only exercised by Apostles/GAs into the modern role of temple sealer. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Secret Nature of Sealings
I think it's a little troubling that there is no mention of any criticism of the sealings as being closed ceremonies that family members cannot attend if they are not Mormons. This is a documented criticism of the church that frequently gets discussed in news sources. Right now, the article reads very pro-LDS because it does not mention the secrecy or closed nature of temple ceremonies. At the very least, the details of exactly what is happening inside the temples during a sealing need to be in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.253.18.168 (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

 * What happens in temples is not secret. It's sacred. And the temples are not "closed". There's a HUGE difference. Anyone who qualifies as worthy to enter the temples can find out what goes on in them. The articles are not biased in favor of the Church. Groups of editors work together to ensure that a neutral point of view is achieved. If you have any specific concerns, please state them. If not, then it's pointless to suggest the degree of criticism you are recommending, as this would violate the above WP policies. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

 * That's not correct at all. Temples are closed to people who don't want to convert to the LDS church, including any family members of the people getting married inside the temple. There is well-documented criticism about the practice of tearing families apart because of the closed nature of temples. What you're saying is pure apologetics for the church and is incredibly one-sided with the LDS church. To make this article balanced, it needs to mention the controversy about non-Mormon family members not being able to attend sealing ceremonies. Also, this article does not currently mention the tokens (secret handshakes) used in the sealing ceremony or any other information the church likes to keep secret. I think it's Wikipedia's job to make sure this information is public. I've made an addition with proper citations noting the existence of well-documented criticism. Jrobe011 (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Who is Hugh Pyle and what makes him a reliable source? And it is not "Wikipedia's job to make sure this information is public."  You may also want to read WP:CRITICISM about avoiding criticism sections. 72Dino (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

 * He is an author who wrote a book, which is cited, that details some valid criticism of some LDS practices. I think providing this kind of criticism is necessary to ensure the neutrality of the article. As it stood without criticism, it was very pro-LDS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrobe011 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Salt Lake Temple Garb In Sealing Room.jpg

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Mormon Wedding Sealing Ceremony.png (discussion)
 * Salt Lake Temple Garb In Sealing Room.jpg (discussion)
 * Voted speedy keep on both files. I'm going to add a notice on the top of the talk page, since the article seems to suffer from the same WP:NOTCENSORED image removals as Endowment (Mormonism). theinstantmatrix (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

====File:Mormon Wedding Sealing Ceremony.png====
 * File:Mormon Wedding Sealing Ceremony.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])

Unencyclopedic. The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia (or for any Wikimedia project). It may be violating the What Wikipedia is not policy by using Wikipedia to host excessive amounts unencyclopedic material (most commonly private photos).

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) 22:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Mormon Wedding Sealing Ceremony.png

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Salt Lake Temple Garb In Sealing Room.jpg

title: Talk:Sealing (Mormonism)


text:
Point Reyes National Seashore

'''

Point Reyes National Seashore is a 71028 acre park preserve located on the Point Reyes Peninsula in Marin County, California. As a national seashore, it is maintained by the US National Park Service as an important nature preserve. Some existing agricultural uses are allowed to continue within the park. Clem Miller, a US Congressman from Marin County, wrote and introduced the bill for the establishment of Point Reyes National Seashore in 1962 to protect the peninsula from development which was proposed at the time for the slopes above Drake's Bay.

Geography
The Point Reyes peninsula is a well defined area, geologically separated from the rest of Marin County and almost all of the continental United States by a rift zone of the San Andreas Fault, about half of which is sunk below sea level and forms Tomales Bay. The peninsula is part of the Salinian Block while across the fault is the Franciscan Complex; the difference in soil composition affects the mix of flora on either side of the fault.

The small town of Point Reyes Station, while not located on the peninsula, provides most services to it. Some services are also available at Inverness on the west shore of Tomales Bay. The small town of Olema, about 3 mi south of Point Reyes Station, serves as the gateway to the Seashore and its visitor center.

The peninsula includes wild coastal beaches and headlands, estuaries, and uplands. Parts of the park are private farms and ranches which have commercial cattle grazing. These were leased back when the park was purchased to continue these historic uses. Other parts are under the jurisdiction of other conservation authorities with the National Park Service providing signage and managing visitor impact on the entire peninsula and Tomales Bay. The Seashore also administers the parts of the Golden Gate National Recreation area, such as the Olema Valley, that are adjacent to the Seashore.

Wildlife and ecology
Point Reyes National Seashore lies at the convergence of two marine ecological provinces (southern Oregonian and northern Californian) and harbors 45% of North America's bird species and 18% of California's plant species. The National Seashore's 100 mi of coastline include estuaries, bays and lagoons which provide rich habitats including subtidal seagrasses, tidal mudflats and marshes that support a rich diversity of wildlife.

Fauna

The northernmost part of the peninsula is maintained as a reserve for tule elk (Cervus canadensis nannodes), an elk subspecies historically native to the region. Elk are readily seen there. Although they had been completely extirpated from Point Reyes by the nineteenth century, in 1978, ten tule elk were reintroduced to Point Reyes from the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge near Los Banos. By 2009, the population climbed to over 440 elk at Tomales Point's 2,600 acres of coastal scrub and grasslands. In 1999, 100 elk from Tomales Point were moved to the Limantour wilderness area of the Seashore and above Drakes Beach to Ranch A, as that ranch's long-term lease expired and was not renewed. The drought in 2012–2015 was also a threat to the elk confined north of the fence on Tomales Point, with nearly half the elk there dying from lack of water. In 2012 there were 540 elk, then only 357 in 2013, and by 2014 only 286. In August and September 2020, drought and wildfires again threaten the Tomales Point elk, leading some conservationists to illegally bring water to the elk north of the fence. The Park Service began a public review and comment period in 2023 on a proposal remove of the tule elk fence with a final decision expected in the summer of 2024.

The preserve is also very rich in raptors and shorebirds. The western snowy plover that nests here is considered "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act.

The Point Reyes Lighthouse attracts whale-watchers looking for the gray whale migrating south in mid-January and north in mid-March. Elephant seals were first observed in 1981 as they recolonized Chimney Beach, which is protected by 100. ft cliffs. In January 2019, during the federal government shutdown, park rangers were not working and the seals had pups on Drakes Beach and its parking lot. Small-group tours to view the seals from the edge of the parking lot began the following month after the shutdown ended. Docents help keep the public safe during the winter months as the colony continues to grow each year.

Flora
Point Reyes lies within the California interior chaparral and woodlands ecoregion.

In his book The Natural History of the Point Reyes Peninsula, Jules Evens identifies several plant communities. One of the most prominent is the Coastal Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) forest, which includes Coast live oak, Tanoak, and California bay and reaches across the southern half of Inverness Ridge toward Bolinas Lagoon. Unlogged parts of this Douglas-fir forest contain trees over 300 years old and up to 6. ft in diameter. But despite these large, old trees, the forest may nevertheless be a result of European settlement. The Coast Miwok people who once lived in the area set frequent fires to clear brush and increase game animal populations, and early explorers' accounts describe the hills as bare and grassy. But as the Native American settlements were replaced by European ones from the seventeenth century onward, the forests expanded as fire frequency decreased, resulting in the forests we see today.

The Bishop pine (Pinus muricata) forest is found on slopes in the northern half of the park. Many of these trees growing in thick swaths came from seeds released after the 1995 Mt. Vision fire.

Salt, brackish, and freshwater marshlands are found adjacent to Drakes Estero and Abbotts Lagoon. The other communities identified by Evens are the coastal strand, dominated by European beach grass (Ammophila arenaria), ice plant (Carprobrotus edulis, also called sea fig or Hottentot fig), sea rocket (Cakile maritima) and other species that thrive on the immediate coast; northern coastal prairie, found on a narrow strip just inland from the coastal strand that includes some native grasses; coastal rangeland, the area still grazed by the cattle from the peninsula's remaining working ranches; northern coastal scrub, dominated by coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis); and the intertidal and subtidal plant communities.

Point Reyes is home to the only known population of the endangered Sonoma spineflower, Chorizanthe valida.

Cattle ranches
The park has 28,000 acres of dairy and beef cattle ranching. Extremely high levels of fecal coliform bacteria (Escherichia coli) concentrations have been documented in streams adjacent to existing dairy operations. Cattle manure spreading areas are correlated with the increased presence of invasive and noxious weed species. Tomales Bay, Drakes Estero and Abbotts Lagoon are all affected by E. coli discharges from cattle operations in rainy winter months. A joint inspection in 2022 by the Marin County Environmental Health Services and the National Park Service found the ranches were discharging raw sewage either through leaks or missing septic systems.

Landmarks and facilities
The Point Reyes Lifeboat Station is a National Historic Landmark. It is the last remaining example of a rail-launched lifeboat station that was common on the Pacific coast.

Nova Albion, Francis Drake's 1579 campsite; Sebastião Rodrigues Soromenho's 1595 wreck; and fifteen associated Native American sites are included in the Drakes Bay Historic and Archaeological District National Historic Landmark. This encompasses 5,965 acre along the coast of Drakes Bay.

Kule Loklo, a re-created Coast Miwok village, is a short walk from the visitor center.

Lairds Landing was the site of a wharf on the southwest shore of Tomales Bay. It was named after ranchers, Charles and George Laird, who leased the site in 1858 to transport supplies and produce across the bay. The location was settled by the Felix family around 1861, a family of Filipino and Miwok heritage. After the descendants of the Felix family left in 1955, the land was zoned for development, then made part of the Point Reyes National Seashore, before becoming home to artist Clayton Lewis. In 2015, structures built by the Felix family were placed on the National Register of Historic Places.

More than 30000 acre of the Point Reyes National Seashore are designated as the Phillip Burton Wilderness, named in honor of California Congressman Phillip Burton, who wrote the legislation creating the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and was instrumental in helping to pass the California Wilderness Act of 1984.

The Point Reyes National Seashore attracts 2.5 million visitors annually. Hostelling International USA (part of Hostelling International) maintains a 45-bed youth hostel at the Seashore.

The Point Reyes National Seashore Association, formed in 1964, collaborates with the Seashore on maintenance, restoration and educational projects.

Hiking
Point Reyes has a system of hiking trails for day hiking and backpacking. Bear Valley Trail is the most popular hike in the park. It travels mostly streamside through a shaded, fern-laden canyon, breaking out at Divide Meadow before heading downward to the coast, where it emerges at Arch Rock. A portion of Arch Rock collapsed on March 21, 2015, killing one person. Three trails connecting from the west with the Bear Valley trail head upward toward Mount Wittenberg, at 1407 ft, the highest point in the park. The Earthquake Trail, a 0.6 mi loop that runs over the San Andreas Fault. The trail provides descriptions of the fault and the surrounding geology, and features a fence that was pulled 18 ft apart during the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.

At the western end of the Point Reyes Peninsula is the historic Point Reyes Lighthouse, reached by descending 308 steps. Unlike many lighthouses, that were built high so the light could be seen by ships far out to sea, the Point Reyes lighthouse was built low to get the light below the fog that is so prevalent in the area. Nearby is the short Chimney Rock hike, which is noted for its spring wildflower displays.

Point Reyes offers several beach walks. Limantour Spit winds up on a narrow sandy beach, from which Drakes Beach can be glimpsed across Drakes Bay. North Beach and South Beach are often windswept and wave-pounded. Ocean vistas from higher ground can be seen from the Tomales Point Trail and, to the south, from the Palomarin trailhead at the park's southern entrance outside the town of Bolinas. All of the park's beaches were listed as the cleanest in the state in 2010.

For backpackers, Point Reyes has four hike-in campgrounds available by reservation.

Point Reyes is a terminus of the American Discovery Trail which is the only transcontinental trail in the United States.

Marine Protected Areas
Point Reyes State Marine Reserve & Point Reyes State Marine Conservation Area, Estero de Limantour State Marine Reserve & Drakes Estero State Marine Conservation Area and Duxbury Reef State Marine Conservation Area adjoin Point Reyes National Seashore. These marine protected areas help conserve ocean wildlife and marine ecosystems.

Oyster farm

A large oyster farm was located in Drakes Estero until, under court order, it closed down at end of 2014. Court appeals to keep the operation in place were dropped in December, 2014.

The farm was purchased by the National Park Service in 1972, and the agency issued a permit to allow the previous owner to continue operations for 40 years. The business was sold to a new owner in 2004, the Drakes Bay Oyster Company, who was informed by the NPS at the time of purchase that their permit to operate would not be renewed beyond the November 30, 2012 expiration date. A federal law enacted in 2009 authorized, but did not require, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to renew the permit. The NPS and conservation groups viewed the farm as an inappropriate and environmentally-insensitive use of the estero, which was designated a "potential wilderness area" by Congress. The farm's supporters argued that it was not ecologically harmful and was important to the local economy.

On November 29, 2012, Salazar announced that he would not renew the permit, citing the original intent of the Point Reyes Wilderness Act to designate the area as wilderness upon the removal of the oyster farm. Salazar visited the farm the previous week and later personally phoned the farm's owner to give him the news.

The oyster farm closure was challenged in U.S. District Court on January 25, 2013. The challenge was rejected by a federal court judge, who ruled that the law gave Salazar unfettered discretion to approve or deny a renewal of the permit. The California Coastal Commission voted on February 7, 2013 to unanimously approve cease and desist and restoration orders for violations of the California Coastal Act. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected an appeal of the district court's decision, ruling on Sept. 3, 2013 that the oyster farm's owner had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits because Salazar had acted within his discretion in denying the permit. An attempt to have the appeals court rehear the case was rejected on January 14, 2014 and a petition to the United States Supreme Court was denied on June 30, 2014. The oyster farm closed its on site retail operation on July 31, 2014. However, controversy continued over the condition of the estero sea floor and the ongoing off shore operations. Another lawsuit challenging the closure itself was rejected in September 2014.

The work to remove the offshore racks and onshore buildings was completed in May 2017; 1,700 t of debris had been hauled away. The estero is part of the Phillip Burton Wilderness.

title: Point Reyes National Seashore


text:
Nureddin

Nureddin may refer to:
 * Nur al-Din, a given name
 * Nureddin, Iran, a village in Razavi Khorasan Province, Iran

title: Nureddin


text:
Mercury-Atlas 5

Mercury-Atlas 5 was an American spaceflight of the Mercury program. It was launched on November 29, 1961, with Enos, a chimpanzee, aboard. The craft orbited the Earth twice and splashed down about 200 mi south of Bermuda, and Enos became the first primate from the United States and the third great ape to orbit the Earth.

History
By November 1961, the Soviet Union had launched Yuri Gagarin and Gherman Titov into orbit during the Vostok 1 and Vostok 2 crewed orbital flights while the United States had managed only suborbital ones. At that time NASA was still debating placing a chimpanzee in orbit as part of the Mercury-Atlas subprogram, with NASA headquarters questioning the wisdom of the Manned Spacecraft Center launching another uncrewed Mercury mission.

The NASA Public Affairs Office issued a press release prior to the flight, stating "The men in charge of Project Mercury have insisted on orbiting the chimpanzee as a necessary preliminary checkout of the entire Mercury program before risking a human astronaut."

Launch and orbit
The flight used Mercury capsule #9 and Atlas #93-D. On February 24, 1961, spacecraft # 9 arrived at Cape Canaveral. It took 40 weeks of preflight preparation. This was the longest preparation time in the Mercury program. The mission of spacecraft #9 kept changing. It was first configured for a suborbital instrumented flight, then for a suborbital chimpanzee flight, then a three-orbit instrumented mission, and finally for the orbital flight that Enos flew.

MA-4's successful flight in September had renewed confidence in the Atlas's reliability, and although an Atlas E test carrying a monkey was lost in a launch failure that November, NASA officials assured the public that it was a different model of booster than the Atlas D used for the Mercury program and that that accident had no relevance here. Although MA-4 had performed well, there was still some concern about high vibration levels during the first 20 seconds of liftoff, so the autopilot on MA-5's booster was modified slightly to correct this problem.

Atlas 93D arrived at CCAS on August 12 and was erected on LC-14 October 6. Prelaunch preparation proceeded relatively smoothly, with a number of minor repairs, including a potentially serious problem with the vernier engines not being bolted in place tightly, which could have resulted in damage to the airframe during launch.

The Range Safety system on Atlas 93D was modified so that a manual cutoff command could be sent to the sustainer engine. This was to prevent the capsule from being accidentally boosted into a higher than planned orbit if engine over-acceleration occurred.

A more compact all-solid state telemetry unit replaced the bulky vacuum tube-based package used previously.

Atlas 93D was the second D-series Atlas to contain the new SMRD (Spin Motor Rotation Detection System), designed to ensure proper gyroscope operation prior to launch.

MA-5 was planned as a close approximation of the upcoming MA-6 crewed orbital mission. Mercury-Atlas 5 would be launched from Complex 14 at Cape Canaveral on a heading 72.51 degrees east of north. Orbital insertion of the Mercury spacecraft would occur 480 mi from Cape Canaveral. The altitude would be 100 mi and the speed would be 25695 ft/s. Retrofire was planned to take place at 4 hours, 32 minutes, and 26 seconds after launch. The spacecraft would land 21 minutes and 49 seconds after retrofire. Reentry temperatures were expected to reach 3000 °F on the heatshield, 2000 °F on the antenna housing, 1080 °F on the cylindrical section, and 1260 °F on the conical section. The spent Atlas sustainer engine was expected to reenter the atmosphere after 9⅓ orbits.

Spacecraft #9 had originally been intended to fly on MA-4, but Spacecraft #8 was used instead after having been recycled from the failed MA-3 launch. #9 was the second of the "Mark II" Mercury capsules with a larger square window and explosive bolt hatch, while the older "Mark I" capsule had small port windows and a heavy locking mechanism. Gus Grissom's flight on MR-4 had used a Mark II capsule, but it was necessary to test it on a proper orbital mission to ensure that the large window could handle the much higher heat of reentry there.

On October 29, 1961, three chimpanzees and 12 medical specialists moved into quarters at the Cape to prepare for the flight. The name given to Enos, the chimpanzee selected to fly the MA-5 mission, in Hebrew means "man". Enos's backups were (in order of possible call-up) Duane, Jim, Rocky, and Ham (the Mercury-Redstone 2 veteran). Enos was from Cameroon, Africa (originally called Chimp # 81), and was purchased by the USAF on April 3, 1960. He was about 5 years old at the time of flight and weighed just under 40 pounds (18 kilograms).

On November 29, 1961, about five hours before launch, Enos and his spacesuit-couch were inserted in the spacecraft. During the countdown, various holds took 2 hours and 38 minutes. Liftoff came at 15:08 UTC. The Atlas launched the MA-5 spacecraft into an orbit of 99 by. The modified autopilot apparently worked as vibration remained within comfortable levels and the boost phase was uneventful. All Atlas systems performed excellently and there were no performance deviations of any significance. BECO occurred at T+130 seconds and SECO/VECO at T+300 seconds, followed by capsule separation two seconds later.

The turnaround and damping maneuver consumed 6 lb of the 61.5 lb of control fuel aboard. The spacecraft used less fuel than the MA-4 did during the same maneuver. MA-5 assumed its planned 34-degree orbital attitude and after that, through the first orbit the thrusters used only 1.5 lb of fuel to maintain a correct position.

At the end of the first orbit, ground controllers noticed the capsule clock was 18 seconds too fast. As it passed over Cape Canaveral a command was sent to update the clock to the correct time. The Mercury Control Center at Cape Canaveral received information that all spacecraft systems were in good condition.

As the MA-5 passed over the Atlantic tracking ship at the beginning of the second orbit, indications were received that inverter temperatures were rising. The environmental control system malfunction was also confirmed by Canary Island trackers. Abnormal heating had occurred on earlier flights; in such cases, inverters had continued working or had been switched to standby. There was no alarm at Mercury Control. When the spacecraft reached Muchea, Australia, high thruster signals and capsule motion excursions were detected. Other data indicated that the 34° orbit mode was being maintained. When the MA-5 crossed the tracking station at Woomera, Australia, attitude control problems were not detected, so earlier reports were discounted.

Problems
As the MA-5 capsule reached the Canton Island station, Mercury Control realized that the attitude control system was malfunctioning. A metal chip in a fuel supply line had caused one of the clockwise roll thrusters to fail. The failed thruster allowed the spacecraft to drift from its normal attitude. This drift caused the automatic stabilization and control system to correct the spacecraft attitude. The spacecraft would swing back into the normal 34° orbital attitude, and the sequence would start again. The spacecraft repeated this drift and correction process nine times before retrofire. It did it once more between retrofire and the receipt of the 0.05 g (0.49 m/s²) light telemetry signal. The remaining thrusters used 9.5 lb of fuel to keep the spacecraft properly aligned during the second orbit. Each loss of attitude cost over 1 lb of fuel as compared with the entire first orbit consumption of only 1.5 lb.

In addition to the attitude control problems, the environmental control system started having problems during the second orbit. The couch-suit circuit temperature rapidly rose from 65 to 80 F. This was an indication that the heat exchanger was freezing. The rise in suit temperature caused Enos' body temperature to rise to 99 °F, then to 100 °F. The medical observers began to worry about the chimpanzee's condition. At 100.5 °F, his body temperature stabilized. This indicated that the environmental system had started to function again. The cooling system seemed to correct itself, but the attitude problems continued.

As the spacecraft neared Hawaii on its second orbit, medical monitors were willing to let Enos continue the flight for a third orbit. However, the engineering team were concerned about the stuck thruster causing high fuel consumption, so they advised terminating the flight before the capsule ran out of attitude control gas.

Flight Director Christopher Kraft alerted the Hawaii controllers to be ready to initiate retrofire to bring the spacecraft down in the Pacific, if necessary. He also alerted controllers at Point Arguello, California, to be ready to initiate retrofire as MA-5 passed over their position. He allowed the spacecraft to continue to its normal second orbit retrofire position near California. Twelve seconds before the retrofire point was reached for the normal second-orbit Atlantic primary recovery point, Kraft decided to bring Enos back to Earth. Arnold Aldrich, the chief flight controller at Point Arguello, executed the command.

There was one more attitude control excursion early in reentry; after that, the rest of reentry and recovery were uneventful. The destroyers USS Stormes (DD-780) and USS Compton (DD-705) and a P5M aircraft were waiting for the spacecraft at Station 8, the predicted landing point. Three hours and 13 minutes after launch and nine minutes before splashdown, the aircraft spotted the spacecraft at an altitude of 5000 ft descending on its main parachute, about 250 miles south of Bermuda. The information was relayed to Stormes and Compton, who were 30 mi away. The spacecraft recovery aids were all functioning, except for the SARAH beacon. During the descent, the aircraft continued to circle and report landing events. It remained in the area until Stormes arrived, an hour and 15 minutes after the landing. Stormes hauled Enos and his spacecraft aboard. On the deck of Stormes, the MA-5 hatch was blown explosively. It was released from outside the capsule by pulling a lanyard. Blowing the hatch caused the spacecraft "picture" window to crack.

Post-landing
The spacecraft and Enos were both found to have survived the mission in good condition, although the chimpanzee had removed all of the medical electrodes and the urine collection device from his body.

On November 4, 1962, Enos died of dysentery caused by shigellosis, which was resistant to antibiotics of the time. He had been under constant observation for two months before his death. Pathologists at Holloman reported that they found no symptom that could be attributed or related to his space flight a year before.

The Mercury spacecraft and Atlas booster had now been qualified to carry a human into orbit.

title: Mercury-Atlas 5


text:
Talk:Mercury-Atlas 5

Redirect: Mercury 5, Mercury Atlas 5

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mercury-Atlas 5. 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/20090503071731/http://web.mac.com/jimgerard/AFGAS/pages/mercury/MA-5.html to http://web.mac.com/jimgerard/AFGAS/pages/mercury/MA-5.html

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) 07:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Reassessment
This is definitely up to C class now. The prose is a bit dense, and I'd love a few more references. It'd take very little touch-up to make B. I like the format. --Neopeius (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mercury-Atlas 5


text:
Mercury 5

Mercury 5 or variants may refer to:

 * Mercury 5, a spacecraft of Project Mercury
 * Mercury V, a version of the Bristol Mercury aircraft engine

title: Mercury 5


text:
Brunei dollar

The Brunei dollar (sign: B$, Malay: ringgit Brunei, currency code: BND), has been the currency of the Sultanate of Brunei since 1967. It is normally abbreviated with the dollar sign $, or alternatively B$ to distinguish it from other dollar-denominated currencies. It is divided into 100 sen (Malay) or cents (English). The Brunei dollar is issued by the Brunei Darussalam Central Bank.

Under a Currency Interchangeability Agreement in 1967, the Brunei dollar is interchangeable with the Singapore dollar at par. As such, the Brunei dollar is accepted in Singapore as "customary tender"; likewise, the Singapore dollar is accepted in Brunei.

History
Early currency in Brunei included cowrie shells. Brunei is also famous for its bronze teapots, which were used as currency in barter trade along the coast of northern Borneo. The Spanish-American silver dollar brought over by the Manila galleons was in wide use for Brunei's international trade from the 16th to 19th centuries; the 19th century Straits dollar was itself derived from the same coin.

Brunei issued tin coins denominated in pitis in AH1285 (AD1868). These were followed by a one cent coin in AH1304 (AD1888). This cent was one hundredth of a Straits dollar.

As a protectorate of Britain in the early 20th century, Brunei used the Straits dollar from 1906, the Malayan dollar from 1939 and the Malaya and British Borneo dollar from 1953 until 1967, when it began issuing its own currency.

The Brunei dollar replaced the Malaya and British Borneo dollar in 1967 after the formation of Malaysia and the independence of Singapore. Until 23 June 1973, the Malaysian ringgit was exchangeable at par with the Singapore dollar and Brunei dollar. The Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Brunei Currency and Monetary Board (now the Authoriti Monetari Brunei Darussalam (Monetary Authority of Brunei Darussalam)) still maintain the exchangeability of their two currencies. The dollar is accepted as "customary tender" in Singapore according to the Currency Interchangeability Agreement, although it is not legal tender there.

History of coins used in Brunei
Coins were used in Brunei from the 10th century. The Straits dollar was also used in Brunei from 1906.

Due to the close ties between China and Brunei, the first type of coins used in Brunei were Chinese coins. This was initially called ‘Pitis’. They were later known as ‘Kue’ when local ‘Pitis’ were introduced. The local ‘Pitis’ coins had ‘Sultanate of Brunei’ stamped in front of the coin and the royal umbrella was imprinted at the back. These were issued from the 16th to the 19th century. Previous Islamic coins were also called the ‘Pitis’. Another type of coin that was used in Brunei were ‘Duit besi’ (which roughly translates to ‘Iron money’). Iron was considered valuable those days that it was used as money. 100 one-square inch pieces were valued at 1 dollar.

The last coin to be issued before the introduction of the Straits Settlements currency was the ‘Duit Bintang’, otherwise known as the ‘Star coin’ or the 'Star Cent'. It is called the Star coin because of the star imprinted on the obverse of the coin. It was minted in Birmingham, England, in 1887. It was made from copper.

With the introduction of the Straits Settlements currency, the previously used coins were taken out of circulation. They were, however still used with certain exchange rates.

Prior to 1984, the coins were made by the Royal Mint of the United Kingdom.

In 1984, Brunei Currency Board ordered four million circulation coins from the Singapore Mint. The circulation coins consisted of one cent coint in bronze and five, ten, twenty and fifty cents coins in cupro-nickel. The 50 cents has an additional security feature with a reeded edge with dots between lines at regular interval while other countries' circulation coins are mill-edged.

History of banknotes used in Brunei
The Straits dollar was introduced in Brunei in 1906. It was later replaced by the Malayan dollar which was introduced to British colonies and Brunei in 1939. It replaced the Straits dollar at par with a 1:1 exchange rate. The Malayan dollar was issued by the Board of Commissioners of Currency, Malaya. The board stopped issuing the Malayan dollar during the Japanese invasion during World War II. The Malayan dollar had the portrait of King George VI in front of the note.

In 1952, the board was renamed the Board of Commissioners of Currency, Malaya and British Borneo. The board then began to issue notes to Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak, British North Borneo, and Brunei in 1953. This was known as the Malaya and British Borneo dollar. In 1967, the Malaya and British Borneo dollar was replaced by three new currencies: the Malaysian dollar, Singapore dollar and the Brunei dollar, all at par. The Interchangeability Agreement which the three countries adhered to as original members of the currency union meant the Brunei dollar was exchangeable at par with the Singapore dollar and Malaysian dollar. This ended on 8 May 1973, when the Malaysian government withdrew from the agreement.

The Singapore dollar is still interchangeable with the Brunei dollar today.

Coins
In 1967, coins were introduced in denominations of 1, 5, 10, 20 and 50 cents. Except for the bronze 1 cent, the coins were struck in cupro-nickel.

In 1986, copper-clad steel replaced bronze. Later, in 2008, the 1 cent coins switched compositions to brass.

Banknotes
On 12 June 1967, the government (Kerajaan Brunei) introduced notes in denominations of 1, 5, 10, 50 and 100 dollars. Notes for 500 and 1,000 dollars followed in 1979. In 1989, the title on the paper money was changed to Negara Brunei Darussalam, the official name of the country, and the Malay term for “State of Brunei, Abode of Peace.” 10,000 dollar notes were introduced the same year. All notes bear the denomination in Malay (in both Rumi and Jawi) and in English. The English denomination appeared on the obverse below the denomination in Malay on the earlier series, but now appears on the reverse together with the Jawi.

Five series of notes have been issued. The colours of $1, $5, and $10 notes have been the same for all the series of banknotes.

1967 series
First series (1967) – currency with the portrait of Sultan Omar Ali Saifuddin III, the 28th ruler of Brunei.
 * $1 – blue
 * $5 – green
 * $10 – red
 * $50 – brown
 * $100 – purple

1972 series
Second series – This series was the same as the first series with exception that the portrait of Sultan Omar Ali Saifuddin was replaced by the portrait of Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah, the 29th and current ruler of Brunei. All subsequent currency has the portrait of Hassanal Bolkiah. In addition, two new higher denominations were issued in 1979.
 * $1 ~ $100 like 1967 series
 * $500 – pink
 * $1,000 – yellow

1989 series
Third series – the post independence series. This series was gradually being replaced by the fourth series.
 * $1 – blue
 * $5 – green
 * $10 – red
 * $50 – brown, green, orange
 * $100 – purple
 * $500 – orange
 * $1,000 – red-violet, purple, olive
 * $10,000 – green, orange

1996–2000 polymer and paper series
Fourth Series (1996–2000) all notes except for the polymer issues are no longer printed.

2004–2007 (polymer) series
Polymer banknotes were introduced in (2004) due to high cases of banknote forgery. All of them are polymer. The $100 note of this series has won a gold medal award for its security features in the 22nd National Print Award in Australia in May 2005. The S$10,000 and B$10,000 notes are the world's most valuable banknotes, (worth US$7,375 as of May 2024) that are officially in circulation. They are worth eight times as much as the next most valuable, the 1,000 Swiss franc note (US$1,100). From 6 November 2020, AMBD has announced it will stop printing B$10,000 notes to reduce the risk of money laundering. Brunei has also stopped the issuance of B$10,000 and is in the process of withdrawing it from active circulation.

2011 polymer series

 * $1 – blue (2011)
 * $5 – green and yellow (2011)
 * $10 – red, yellow and brown (2011)
 * To commemorate the 65th birthday of Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah. Shortly after the notes were issued, the Braille dots on the upper left front corner of the new polymer notes are not raised. The Braille dots cannot be felt tactilely, and they are not accurately rendered as Braille numbers corresponding to the denominations. Specifically, the spacing of the dots is wrong, and they lack the lead-in character that indicates that numbers follow.

Commemorative banknotes

 * $25 – purple and beige (1992)
 * This was issued during the silver jubilee (25th anniversary) of Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah acceding to the throne. The design is of the 1989 series of currency.

 * $20 – yellow (polymer, 2007)
 * On 27 June 2007, Singapore and Brunei celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Currency Interchangeability Agreement (since 12 June 1967) by joint-issuing commemorative $20 notes.

 * The two authorities issue distinct versions of the new $20 notes. They are both yellow, 149 × 72 mm in size, and made of polymer. The reverses are almost identical except that the Brunei version has their state title in Jawi script, while the Singaporean version has the state title of Brunei in Latin script. The obverse of the Singaporean version is similar to the current Portrait Series, whereas the obverse of the Brunei version is similar to the $50 and $100 of the 2004 series.

 * There is a limited edition set, which consists of both versions in a folder, with matching serial number. The notes have "40th Anniversary Currency Interchangeability Agreement" overprinted on obverse. In addition, the Singaporean version has the two countries' state crests above the commemorative text. Only 12,000 sets are available, 10,000 from the Monetary Authority of Singapore, and 2,000 from the Brunei Currency and Monetary Board.

 * The circulation version has been available since 16 July 2007.

 * $50 - yellow (polymer, 2017)
 * In 2017, both Brunei and Singapore issued $50 polymer banknotes in commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of its Currency Interchangeability Agreement.

 * $50 - yellow (polymer, 2017)
 * In 2017, the Autoriti Monetari Brunei Darussalam issued a $50 polymer banknote, alongside a 50 cent coin, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Sultan Hassan al-Bolkiah's accession to the throne. On the front it depicts the monarch's coronation alongside a portrait of Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah. One notable security feature of the note is the use of an optically variable ink called "spark live"

title: Brunei dollar


text:
List of members of the Comintern

The Comintern had, at the first Congress, voting delegates from the following groups:

title: List of members of the Comintern


text:
Royal Scots Dragoon Guards

The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (Carabiniers and Greys) is a cavalry regiment of the British Army, and the senior Scottish regiment. The regiment, through the Royal Scots Greys, is the oldest surviving Cavalry Regiment of the Line in the British Army. The regiment is based at Waterloo Lines, Leuchars Station, as part of 51st Infantry Brigade and Headquarters Scotland, a light adaptable force brigade.

History
The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards were formed on 2 July 1971 at Holyrood, Edinburgh, by the amalgamation of the 3rd Carabiniers (Prince of Wales's Dragoon Guards) (themselves the product of the amalgamation in 1922 of 3rd Dragoon Guards (Prince of Wales's) and 6th Dragoon Guards (Carabiniers)), and The Royal Scots Greys (2nd Dragoons).

Soon after, the regiment deployed on four tours of Northern Ireland in 1972, 1974, 1976 and 1980, suffering one fatality in 1972, when Trooper Ian Hunter Caie was killed by a bomb in a beer barrel that exploded in the path of his Ferret scout car in Moybane, near Crossmaglen County Armagh.

The regiment saw active service during the Gulf War in 1991 deploying 57 Challenger tanks and in Bosnia as part of SFOR in 1996–97. In 1998, it became the first regiment in the British Army to operate the Challenger 2 main battle tank. It deployed to Kosovo, as part of KFOR, in 2000.

The regiment deployed to Iraq for Operation Telic, the British element of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The bulk of the regiment deployed as part of the Scots Dragoon Guards Battle Group with a single squadron (A Squadron) detached to the First Battalion The Black Watch Battle Group. All deployed elements of the regiment took part in the advance on Iraq's second largest city, Basra. Prior to reaching Basra, A Squadron fought in and around Az Zubayr and C Squadron was detached from the SCOTS DG BG to fight with 3 Commando Brigade in actions south of Basra that included Britain's largest tank engagement since the Gulf War, when 14 Challenger 2 tanks engaged and destroyed 14 Iraqi tanks (the so-called '14–0' engagement).

The regiment saw more deployments to Iraq in 2006 and 2008, where it suffered two casualties, Lieutenant Richard Palmer and Corporal Gordon Pritchard. In 2008, 2011 and 2013/14 the regiment deployed to Afghanistan. The pipes and drums distinguished themselves, winning the award for Album of the Year at the 2009 Classical Brits for Spirit of the Glen: Journey, recorded on active service.

In November 2013, the unit was converted to a light cavalry unit, armed with Jackal vehicles. Under the Army 2020 plan, it was re-roled as a light cavalry unit, and moved to Leuchars Station in summer 2015. On 29 September 2015, Queen Elizabeth II visited Leuchars, where she named the north part of the camp 'Waterloo Lines' in celebration of 200 years since the Battle of Waterloo.

The Regiment deployed to Cyprus with the United Nations on Operation TOSCA 27, where they conducted peace-keeping for six months from September 2017.

The Regiment deployed to Poland in 2019 and 2020 on Operation CABRIT as part of the NATO Enhanced Forward Presence Poland Battlegroup on two separate six month deployments with the A Squadron lead contingent named "Dragoon Troop" and the C Squadron lead Contingent named "Balaklava Troop".

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the unit deployed on Operation RESCRIPT where they assisted the NHS and local authorities across the UK.

In 2022, the unit resubordinated to 7th Brigade Combat Team as part of Future Soldier and deployed to Mali on Operation Newcombe.

Current organisation
The regiment converted to the role of light cavalry as part of restructuring in the army under Army 2020. It is equipped with Jackal armoured fighting vehicles. The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards is paired with the Scottish and North Irish Yeomanry, an Army Reserve light cavalry regiment.

The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards is broken into the following structure:

In common with other cavalry regiments of the British Army, all soldiers with the rank of OR-2 are called 'Troopers'.
 * Regimental Headquarters based at Edinburgh Castle
 * Armoured Regiment Headquarters
 * Headquarters Squadron - MAN Support vehicles, Land Rovers and Panther CLV equipped
 * Pipes and Drums of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards
 * A Squadron - Jackal equipped
 * B Squadron (Mutants) - Jackal equipped
 * C Squadron - Jackal equipped

Regimental museum
The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards Museum is situated at Edinburgh Castle. Opened in 2006, the exhibits include uniforms, medals, weapons, regalia, music and the French Imperial Eagle that was captured by Sergeant Charles Ewart of the Royal Scots Greys from the French 45th Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne at the Battle of Waterloo.

Official abbreviation
The regiment's official abbreviation (as listed in Joint Service Publication 101 (Service Writing)) is SCOTS DG, the format of which follows the traditional Cavalry line.

Accoutrements and uniform
The cap badge features an eagle, which represents the French Imperial Eagle that was captured by Sergeant Charles Ewart of the Royal Scots Greys from the French 45th Regiment of Foot at the Battle of Waterloo. It is always worn with a black backing in mourning for Tsar Nicholas II, the last Tsar of Russia, who was their Colonel-in-Chief at the time of his execution. The cap badge also has the crossed carbines of the 3rd Carabiniers at the rear of the eagle.

The Plume of The Prince of Wales with its motto Ich Dien is worn by all members of the Regiment embroidered on the upper part of the left sleeve. The right to wear this badge was granted to the 3rd Dragoon Guards in 1765; it subsequently became the regiment's cap badge and later, with the crossed carabines, formed the badge of the 3rd Carabiniers (Prince of Wales's).

The distinctive yellow zigzag (or "vandyke") cap band was inherited from the Royal Scots Greys, who had worn it since the mid-19th century.

As a royal regiment, the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards is permitted to wear the Royal Stewart tartan, which was a privilege granted by King George VI, and is worn by the regiment's pipers.

Regimental mottos

 * The regimental motto is Nemo Me Impune Lacessit (No one provokes me with impunity), also the motto of the Order of the Thistle, to which it refers.
 * The regiment also uses the motto "Second to None".

Traditions

The Loyal Toast is drunk at formal dinners in the Mess and is always taken seated, except when Royalty is present. On evenings when a military band is present, besides playing God Save the King the band also plays "God Bless the Prince of Wales", an old 3rd Dragoon Guards custom, and the "Imperial Russian Anthem" in memory of Tsar Nicholas II, the Colonel-in-Chief of the Scots Greys, killed with his family during the Russian Civil War (1918).

Pipes and drums

The regiment has its own pipe band, who were first formed in 1946 and tour widely, performing in competitions, concerts and parades. It was the first official organized pipes and drums in the history of the regiment. Their most famous piece is "Amazing Grace", which reached number one in the charts in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa in 1972. The track sold over seven million copies by mid 1977, and was awarded a gold disc. The track was also featured in the 1978 version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. In Canada, the originating LP, Farewell To The Greys, was number nine for four weeks, beginning 24 June 1972.

The band released a new CD in late November 2007 through Universal Music, featuring a number of classic pipe tunes along with some modern arrangements, which was recorded while the regiment was based in Iraq. The album Spirit of the Glen was produced by Jon Cohen and released by Universal on 26 November 2007. It was a remake of their most popular song "Amazing Grace" and featured the Czech Film Orchestra. Spirit of the Glen was officially launched at Edinburgh Castle and won Album of the Year at the 2009 Classical Brits. They have also made regular appearances at the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo over the years.

The bass drummer parades with a distinctive white bearskin cap with red plume. Adopted in 1887 for the jubilee of Queen Victoria, it was originally worn by the mounted kettle drummer of the band. At some point, the cap passed to the pipes and drums of the regiment. Folklore has it that the white bearskin was presented to the regiment by Tsar Nicholas II, the Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Scots Greys, however this is incorrect according to the regimental history. Additionally, pictures exist of this cap in use by the regimental kettle drummer prior to 1894 when Tsar Nicholas II was crowned.

Band
Following the formation of the new regiment, the regimental bands of the 3rd Dragoon Guards and The Royal Scots Greys merged to form the Band of The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards. The band deployed with the regiment on all operations, including during the Gulf War. Following significant reductions to the army in 1994, the band amalgamated with the Band of the Queen's Dragoon Guards and Band of the Royal Dragoon Guards to form the new, smaller, Band of the Dragoon Guards. The percussion section of the new band, as an ode to The Royal Scots Greys, wore bearskins with a large crimson plume extending over the crest of the cap and black pants lined with yellow stripes. This was a direct copy of The Royal Scots Greys band's old uniforms. In addition, the Drum Major's uniform consisted of a black bearskin with large crimson plume over the crest of the cap and yellow pants, with the tunic of the Royal Dragoon Guards.

In 2006, this band amalgamated with the Cambrai Band of the Royal Tank Regiment to form the Heavy Cavalry and Cambrai Band, maintaining the percussion uniforms of the old band. Following the formation of the Band of the Royal Armoured Corps, the bearskin cap was lost, but the black and yellow pants were carried over.

Commanding Officers
The Commanding Officers have been:
 * 1971–1972: Lt.-Col. Anthony J. Bateman
 * 1972–1974: Lt.-Col. John Norman Stewart Arthur
 * 1974–1977: Lt.-Col. Stephen R. A. Stopford
 * 1977–1979: Lt.-Col. Charles A. Ramsay
 * 1979–1982: Lt.-Col. C. Roland S. Notley
 * 1982–1984: Lt.-Col. Marcus E. C. Coombs
 * 1984–1986: Lt.-Col. Jonathan Michael Francis Cooper Hall
 * 1986–1988: Lt.-Col. Melville Stewart Jameson
 * 1988–1991: Lt.-Col. John F. B. Sharples
 * 1991–1993: Lt.-Col. Nicholas D. A. Seymour
 * 1993–1995: Lt.-Col. Simon R. B. Allen
 * 1995–1997: Lt.-Col. R. Austen B. Ramsden
 * 1997–2000: Lt.-Col. Andrew M. Phillips
 * 2000–2002: Lt.-Col. H. David Allfrey
 * 2002–2004: Lt.-Col. Hugh H. Blackman
 * 2004–2006: Lt.-Col. Benjamin P. Edwards
 * 2006–2009: Lt.-Col. Felix G. Gedney
 * 2009–2011: Lt.-Col. Jonathan U. Biggart
 * 2011–2013: Lt.-Col. Jonathan G. E. Bartholomew
 * 2013–2016: Lt.-Col. Benjamin J. Cattermole
 * 2016–2018: Lt.-Col. Dominic C. D. Coombes
 * 2018–2021: Lt.-Col. J. Fraser S. McLeman
 * 2021–2022: Lt.-Col. Graeme G. Craig
 * 2022–present: Lt.-Col. Ben Parkyn

Alliances

 * 🇦🇺 – 12th/16th Hunter River Lancers
 * 🇨🇦 – The Windsor Regiment (RCAC)
 * – Ingobamakhosi Carbineers

Bonds of Frendship

 * – HMS Vengeance
 * – HMS Glasgow

Affiliated yeomanry

 * – Scottish and North Irish Yeomanry

Former

 * 🇳🇿 – The New Zealand Scottish Regiment (disbanded in 2016)

Battle honours
The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (Carabiners and Greys) inherited all of its antecedent regiments' battle honours when it was formed in 1971. These consist of:

3rd Dragoon Guards (Prince of Wales's) Carabiniers (6th Dragoon Guards) 3rd Carabiniers (Prince of Wales's Dragoon Guards) Royal Scots Greys (2nd Dragoons) Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (Carabiniers and Greys)
 * Early Wars: Blenheim, Ramillies, Oudenarde, Malplaquet, Warburg, Beaumont, Willems, Talavera, Albuhera, Vittoria, Peninsula, Abyssinia, South Africa 1901–02.
 * The Great War: Ypres 1914, 1915, Nonne Bosschen, Frezenberg, Loos, Arras 1917, Scarpe 1917, Somme 1918, St. Quentin, Avre, Amiens, Hindenburg Line, Beaurevoir, Cambrai 1918, Pursuit to Mons, France and Flanders 1914–18.
 * Early Wars: Blenheim, Ramillies, Oudenarde, Malplaquet, Warburg, Willems, Sevastopol, Delhi 1857, Afghanistan 1879–80, Relief of Kimberley, Paardeberg, South Africa 1899-1902
 * The Great War: Mons, Le Cateau, Retreat from Mons, Marne 1914, Aisne 1914, Messines 1914, Armentières 1914, Ypres 1915, St. Julien, Bellewaarde, Arras 1917 Scarpe 1917, Cambrai 1917 '18, Somme 1918, St. Quentin, Lys, Hazebrouck, Amiens, Bapaume 1918, Hindenburg Line, Canal du Nord, Selle, Sambre, Pursuit to Mons, France and Flanders 1914-18
 * The Second World War: Tamu Road, Nunshigum, Imphal, Bishenpur, Kanglatongbi, Kennedy Peak, Shwebo, Sagaing, Ava, Mandalay, Yenangyuang 1945, Irrawuddy, Burma 1944-45
 * Early wars: Blenheim, Ramillies, Oudenarde, Malplaquet, Dettingen, Warburg, Willems, Waterloo, Balaklava, Sevastopol, Relief of Kimberley, Paardeberg, South Africa, 1899-1902
 * The Great War: Mons, Retreat from Mons, Marne 1914, Aisne 1914, Messines 1914, Ypres 1914 '15, Gheluvelt, Neuve Chapelle, St. Julien, Bellewaarde, Arras 1917, Scarpe 1917, Cambrai 1917 '18, Lys, Hazebrouck, Amiens, Somme 1918, Albert 1918, Bapaume 1918, Hindenburg Line, St Quentin Canal, Beaurevoir, Pursuit to Mons, France and Flanders 1914-18
 * The Second World War: Caen, Hill 112, Falaise, Venlo Pocket, Hochwald, Aller, Bremen, North-West Europe 1944–45, Merjayun, Syria 1941, Alam El Halfa, El Alamein, El Agheila, Nofilia, Advance on Tripoli, North Africa 1942–43, Salerno, Battipaglia, Volturno Crossing, Italy 1943
 * Recent wars: Wadi Al Batin, Gulf War 1991, Al Basrah, Iraq 2003

Colonel-in-Chief

 * 2 July 1971 – 8 September 2022: Queen Elizabeth II
 * 10 August 2023 – present: King Charles III

Regimental Colonels
Colonels of the Regiment have been:
 * 1971–1975: Major General Ralph Younger
 * 1975–1979: Colonel Hugh Brassey
 * 1979–1984: Field Marshal Sir John Wilfred Stanier
 * 1984–1998: Lieutenant General Sir Norman Arthur
 * 1998–2003: Major General Jonathan Michael Francis Cooper Hall
 * 2003–2008: Brigadier Sir Melville Stewart Jameson
 * 2008-2013: Brigadier Simon Allen
 * 2013-2021: Brigadier David Allfrey
 * 2021–Present: Brigadier Ben Edwards

title: Royal Scots Dragoon Guards


text:
Regional park

A regional park is an area of land preserved on account of its natural beauty, historic interest, recreational use or other reason, and under the administration of a form of local government.

Definition
A regional park can be a special park district covering a region crossing several jurisdiction boundaries, or a park system of a single jurisdiction, such as a province, county, or city.

Saskatchewan
There are 101 regional parks in Saskatchewan. All parks are operated by volunteer boards.

Italy
Regional parks in Italy are administered by each region in Italy, a government unit like a U.S. state.

Ireland
Distinguished from National Parks in the Republic of Ireland, which are owned and run centrally by the state's National Parks and Wildlife Service, Ireland's regional parks are managed and operated by individual local authorities in Ireland. Examples include Ballincollig Regional Park (managed by Cork City Council), Millennium Regional Park (Fingal County Council), and Malahide Demesne Regional Park (also Fingal County Council).

Lithuania
A law to establish regional parks in Lithuania took effect in 1992. As of 2022, there were 30 such regional parks (regioniniai parkai).

New Zealand
In New Zealand, regional parks are administered by regional councils rather than the Department of Conservation or territorial authorities.

Definitions
In the United States, a regional park is sometimes referred to as a 'Metropolitan Park (Metropark)' or as an open space reserve. The terms region and metropolitan can have different meanings in U.S. local government agencies. Regional parks can be administered by a regional park board, a state, county or other units of local government. A special authority can be set up, under the joint jurisdiction of two or more government bodies or as an independent park district to administer parks. Individual parks may or may not cross governmental boundaries. The park district holds the authority, similar to fire protection districts, to manage and raise taxes to cover park acquisition and management costs.

Midwest
Examples of large regional park systems are the Cleveland Metroparks in Northeast Ohio, Huron-Clinton Metroparks in Southeast Michigan; and the Three Rivers Park District in Minnesota. In Ohio, under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1545, metroparks such as the Cleveland Metroparks Park District, Columbus and Franklin County Metro Parks have their own Police Departments with sworn police officers. The Toledo Metroparks, and Dayton Five Rivers Metroparks are also in the state.

California
The East Bay Regional Park District and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District have extensive parklands in the San Francisco Bay Area, protecting habitat and offering recreation.

Scotland
In Scotland, regional parks are defined to co-ordinate the management of areas of attractive countryside that are of importance for recreation due to their proximity to population centres. The parks have been defined and are managed by local authorities. As of 2018, Scotland had three regional parks:
 * Clyde Muirshiel Regional Park
 * Lomond Hills Regional Park
 * Pentland Hills Regional Park

England

 * Lee Valley Regional Park

Northern Ireland Lagan Valley Regional Park

title: Regional park