text:
M-89 (Michigan highway)

M-89 is an east–west state trunkline highway in the US state of Michigan that runs from near Ganges to Battle Creek. M-89 starts at an interchange with Interstate 196/US Highway 31 (I-196/US 31) and passes through Allegan, Kalamazoo County, Michigan, and Calhoun counties. The highway also briefly crosses the southwest corner of Barry County before it terminates an at intersection with Business Loop I-94 (BL I-94) on the northwestern side of downtown Battle Creek. In between the trunkline runs parallel to the Kalamazoo River through rural southwestern Michigan farmlands while also running through the middle of several smaller towns in the area.

Dating back to 1919, M-89 was originally just a segment of the current highway between the Ganges area and Martin. Changes through the 1920s and 1930s moved the eastern end to Calhoun County. The last section was paved in the 1950s before the highway was rerouted in the Allegan, Michigan area. The last extensions into Battle Creek came in the 1960s and 1998.

Route description
M-89 begins at an interchange with I-196/US 31 near Ganges, just a half mile (0.8 km) from Lake Michigan. The highway travels east on 124th Street from there through farmlands and small communities like Fennville. The trunkline passes wetlands just north of Swan Creek Marsh and crosses the Kalamazoo River about 2 mi west of an intersection with M-40. M-89 and M-40 run concurrently to the southeast for 6.5 mi through more farms and across Lake Allegan on the Kalamazoo River on the way into Allegan. Just two blocks before M-89 splits from M-40, the concurrent highways have a junction with M-222. After M-89 splits from M-40, it continues out of Allegan to the southeast, again crossing over the Kalamazoo River.

After leaving Allegan, M-89 runs roughly parallel with the Kalamazoo River for approximately 12 mi, passing through mostly rural areas with residences and agricultural fields. The highway curves to the east and crosses the Kalamazoo River again just west of the city of Otsego. The trunkline curves to the south in the city then again runs east to junction with US 131/M-43 at exit 49 on the west side of Plainwell. At this interchange, the M-43 designation transfers from the freeway to run concurrently with M-89 eastward. After the freeway, M-43/M-89 passes through the city of Plainwell and crosses the Kalamazoo River again before continuing into rural areas again. The trunkline continues to the southeast on towards the village of Richland.

Just north of Richland, M-89 parts ways with M-43. M-89 heads south through town and intersects M-343, before turning eastward and passing to the south of Gull Lake. After passing the lake, the highway turns southeast towards Battle Creek. As M-89 begins to enter the outskirts of Battle Creek it follows Michigan Avenue. It passes through the neighborhoods of Level Park-Oak Park and Urbandale, the first residential areas of the city. As the highway continues towards Battle Creek it has a junction with M-37. M-89 continues on Michigan Avenue until an intersection with Washington Avenue where the route turns to the southwest where it crosses the Kalamazoo River one last time. The trunkline terminates a few blocks later at Dickman Road, otherwise known as the Business Loop I-94 (BL I-94).

M-89 is maintained by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) like other state highways in Michigan. As a part of these maintenance responsibilities, the department tracks the volume of traffic that uses the roadways under its jurisdiction. These volumes are expressed using a metric called annual average daily traffic, which is a statistical calculation of the average daily number of vehicles on a segment of roadway. MDOT's surveys in 2010 showed that the highest traffic levels along M-89 were the 26.470 vehicles daily between Otsego and Plainwell; the lowest counts were the 2,879 vehicles per day between Fennville and the I-196/US 31 interchange. No section of M-89 has been listed on the National Highway System, a network of roads important to the country's economy, defense, and mobility.

History
The July 1, 1919, incarnation of M-89 was much shorter relative to today's road. Its western terminus was at a junction with M-11 (later US 31, now A-2) near Ganges. It traveled east to Fennville then turned south to Pearl before turning back to the east towards Allegan on an alignment that is a few miles south of the present day configuration. The highway then left Allegan on present day M-222 and terminated at M-13, which is now A-45 east of the US 131 freeway.

In 1926, when M-40 was extended, M-89 was rerouted out of Allegan to the southeast along its present-day alignment to terminate at US 131 in Plainwell. Just a few years later, the road was extended further to the southeast to Richland then east along its present-day routing to end at M-96 in Augusta. In 1931, the route was realigned to run east, rather than south into Augusta, where it then met up with M-96 just inside the Calhoun County line. The road remained in this fashion for the next 20 years.

In late 1951 or early 1952, the last section of M-89 was paved, a segment south and east of Fennville in Allegan County. Just months later, the highways was realigned to run east from Fennville, rather than south to Pearl, to intersect M-40. From there it was rerouted to run concurrently into Allegan.

In 1963, when the I-196/US 31 freeway opened, the western terminus of M-89 was extended to meet the new freeway. A few years later, when M-96 was realigned onto a route that took it into Battle Creek, M-89 was extended southeasterly along Michigan Avenue (the old M-96) and terminated at M-37. The highway was extended further southeasterly into Battle Creek to replace the old routing of M-37 along Michigan Avenue; it then turned south on Washington to the BL I-94 where it terminated, thus bringing the route to its current alignment.

The City of Kalamazoo accepted jurisdiction of the trunklines within the city's downtown from MDOT in January 2019; M-43 was rerouted out of the city as a result. After the change, M-43 ran concurrently along M-89 between Plainwell and Richland instead of overlapping M-89 within Richland.

title: M-89 (Michigan highway)


text:
Talk:WUBL

WPCH
It appears that someone made "WPCH-FM" get redirected to this article. But, what if one day several years from now a new radio station anywhere in the United States has call letters WPCH and someone wants to create a Wikipedia article for that station?? (This is always possible. It might not be until 2032 or so, but it is always possible.)

 * Then it is possible to edit the redirect page so that it is no longer a redirect page. When you click the link and are redirected to (wherever), go to the top of the page and click the "Redirected from (wherever)" link, that'll take you to the redirect, and you can edit that. Have a look at the welcome messages on the main page for tutorials. -- Graham  :) 21:17, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WUBL ATL.png
Image:WUBL ATL.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WLTM-FM.gif
Image:WLTM-FM.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Grandma song
You have overplayed this song. I'm sick of hearing it. 2600:1700:38A0:4A60:25BF:ED69:E329:62C (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:WUBL


text:
Dixon's Q test

In statistics, Dixon's Q test, or simply the Q test, is used for identification and rejection of outliers. This assumes normal distribution and per Robert Dean and Wilfrid Dixon, and others, this test should be used sparingly and never more than once in a data set. To apply a Q test for bad data, arrange the data in order of increasing values and calculate Q as defined:

 * $$ Q = \frac{\text{gap}}{\text{range}} $$

Where gap is the absolute difference between the outlier in question and the closest number to it. If Q > Qtable, where Qtable is a reference value corresponding to the sample size and confidence level, then reject the questionable point. Note that only one point may be rejected from a data set using a Q test.

Example
Consider the data set:
 * $$0.189,\ 0.167,\ 0.187,\ 0.183,\ 0.186,\ 0.182,\ 0.181,\ 0.184,\ 0.181,\ 0.177 \,$$

Now rearrange in increasing order:

 * $$0.167,\ 0.177,\ 0.181,\ 0.181,\ 0.182,\ 0.183,\ 0.184,\ 0.186,\ 0.187,\ 0.189 \, $$

We hypothesize that 0.167 is an outlier. Calculate Q:

 * $$Q=\frac{\text{gap}}{\text{range}} = \frac{|0.177-0.167|}{0.189-0.167}=0.455.$$

With 10 observations and at 90% confidence, Q = 0.455 > 0.412 = Qtable, so we conclude 0.167 is indeed an outlier. However, at 95% confidence, Q = 0.455 < 0.466 = Qtable 0.167 is not considered an outlier.

McBane notes: Dixon provided related tests intended to search for more than one outlier, but they are much less frequently used than the r10 or Q version that is intended to eliminate a single outlier.

Table
This table summarizes the limit values of the two-tailed Dixon's Q test.

title: Dixon's Q test


text:
Talk:Axonometric projection

Shouldn't Axonometric view be a subheading of auxiliary view
Axonometric view seems pretty much a particular type of auxiliary view where one axis is usually shown as vertical. Shouldnt this be categorized as a type of auxiliary view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.14.76 (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure, do we even need the categorization into "main-axis" and "auxiliary" view? E.g. for round objects those make not much sense. In the end, we simply should use whatever is used in other literature. --Allefant (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Axonometric projection at Orthographic projection
Axonometric projection is addressed at Orthographic projection, under Pictorials ... suggest present site might be discontinued Pat Kelso 21:16, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

 * I have incorporated the info from orthographic projection into this article. Warofdreams 17:20, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

re: "Axonometric projection is a form of orthographic projection. It is a method for the visual representation of three-dimensional objects in which there are no vanishing points, objects are drawn to the same scale regardless of distance, and all line which are parallel in three-dimensional space are parallel in the two-dimensional picture."

The reference to no vanishing points and the scale being independent of distance is implicit in the definition of orthographic projection and therefore perhaps redundant. The mention of these, however, suggests a comparison with Perspective projection which may be an excellent point of departure for the entire article as it is not strictly addressed else where, to my knowledge.

The "Longer explanation of axonometric projection" is frought with misstatements and technical errors.... suggest it be discontinued.....

...... Pat Kelso 22:01, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

New image
I made a new image and put it in the article. I had some issues with the placement, could someone handier with wiki markup fix the placement? Thanks. Phasmatisnox 12:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Placement looks good enough The problem is the navigation box to the right, it takes up the space normally used for images. I at some point moved it down to the bottom, but someone else moved it back up, so would need to first find a consensus to move it down - but the field of descriptive geometry seems somewhat abandoned currently. --Allefant 09:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Header
I think this sentence in the header is wrong. "in which the three coordinate axes appear equally foreshortened." You can have an axonometric view from the top, don't you? and then the scale of the z axis is 0.

I'd say that the common idea to all axonometric projections is that the scale of objects does not change with their distance to the observer, or, in other words, that the drawer is at infinite distance. Please, some specialist take care of this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaianauta (talk • contribs) 09:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, it seems that the previous edit, while improving quite a few stuff, moved this sentence to the wrong place. I reverted it for now, someone indeed should take care of this. I may when I find time, but probably won't. --Allefant (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I tried to fix the problem here. If there is more please let me know. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Dimetric projection and Trimetric projection here
I would like to propose to merge Dimetric projection and Trimetric projection articles here. In it's current shape they have hardly anything offer anything more, then in the article already explained. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds OK. Just make sure to move the video game related stuff in these articles to Video games with isometric graphics. SharkD (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Because there were no further objections in the past two weeks I have merged both articles here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I’ve restored the video-game relation information lost during the merge. As an aside, I don’t think Diablo used Dimetric projection; it looks isometric to me (each tile is a symmetrical rombic rectangle).  Samboy (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted your changes. Use of axonometric projection in video games is discussed in Video games with isometric graphics. SharkD   Talk  05:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved a lot of content from Isometric projection to here, so maybe we should merge it as well. SharkD   Talk  09:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the Isometric projection article should be a separate article, because it is by far the most important projection method in technical drawing. -- Mdd (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but minus the (now) duplicated content, it's basically a stub article. SharkD   Talk  23:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is important for Isometric projection to exist as a separate article. I would never have found the isometric information if it were merged into Axonometric projection. I was specifically looking for isometric projection, and have never heard of axonometric before, so I would never have looked at it or even guessed that it contained isometric information. --AridWaste (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The search feature would still have led you here via a redirect. SharkD   Talk  00:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I like most of your changes, but there a couple of issues:
 * The cabinet image is helpful. There is no reason to remove it.
 * OK, I see why you did this. Took me a while to find a good place to put it on the page.  We really need to add more text from the Isometric projection article.  Samboy (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The same projections are compared/depicted in the other image. See Talk:Video games with isometric graphics for discussion regarding the images. SharkD   Talk  23:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Some sections still do not have references. Please find and add references. Samboy (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I had added some references to Parallel projection previously (which is very similar to this article). I copied them over to here. The "Limitations" section is missing some refs, but it uses diagrams that readers can easily refer to. SharkD   Talk  03:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding User:Mdd's deleted comments: While the "History" section begins solely with a discussion of isometry, it ends by discussing axonometry in general. Also, the limitations discussed in the "Limitations" section apply equally well to axonometric projection (or any type of parallel projection for that matter) as to isometric projection. For instance, M. C. Escher's Waterfall (1961) used in the section as an example is drawn in dimetric projection, not isometric projection. SharkD  Talk  03:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Any more support/objections to the merger of isometric projection? I don't think we've reached consensus quite yet. (One for the merger, two against, one unspecified.) SharkD   Talk  01:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm against the merger as it tends to hamper expansion. Specifically, for the last couple of months I've been working on one of the methods of creating axonometric projections which involves using vector graphic software. This is where you, in the simplest case, take the face on views of the sides of a cube, and squeeze and skew them appropriately. At this point I have several images and animations describing the more general process. I have also created a spreadsheet where you type in your desired downward viewing angle, horizontal viewing angle, tilt of the wall/plane and horizontal rotation of the wall/plane and then the spreadsheet calculates the necessary squeezes and skews and a 2x2 transformation matrix. I am planning to create in each of the isometric, dimetric and trimetric projection articles, a section devoted to how to create these projections. From my point of view it would not work well to jam it all into a single article. By the way, it is my understanding that there is no way to store and then link to a spreadsheet file in the same way that one can store and then link to a image file in Wikipedia. Am I correct in this view and if so does anyone have any suggestions about the best way to provide access to a spreadsheet file? Dave3457 (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a few hours ago I wrote the above comment but have since began writing the text for the images I created and have begun to have second thoughts about my position because I have found myself repeating things more often than I thought I would. I'll hold off on a position until I'm further along.
 * As the two relevant pages still have merge banners it would be nice for me if this issue could be settled one way or the other before I get to far along in my text. Dave3457 (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to say that I agree that the three axonometric projections, trimetric, dimetric, and isometric, should be in this page for the fundamental reason that that is the order that is presented and taught in any proper technical drawing book. Miguelmadruga (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, the title Isometric seems more familiar to a reader, nevertheless who is reading, rather than Axonometric projection--Dr.pragmatist (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

History
The history section seems to be based almost exclusively on this purile article by Krikke which is absolutely ludicrous. Axonometry had been used for centuries before Jesuits came back from China, since most military engineers used them for their drawings at least since the 14th century. Farish might have been the first who explained axonometries in english but Gaspard Monge preceded him undoubtedly and I bet most axonometries had been already described mathematically by Italian geometers (but i'm not sure of that). 93.67.104.181 (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Athanasius

Op Art & Escher
The concluding section of the article mentions Op Art and then M C Escher. Escher's work is not usually classed as Op Art (typified by Riley and Vasarely). And the example of his work given (The Waterfall) does not use axonometric projection: it uses true linear perspective, though with weak convergence (the vanishing points are well outside the picture margins) which might not be evident at first glance. It may be true that axonometric projections make this sort of thing more straightforward to devise, but they are not essential. Dayvey (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the current wording better? SharkD   Talk  01:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Oblique projection?
Why is oblique projection listed here as a type of axonometric projection? I thought it was separate from these. SharkD  Talk  01:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Types of axonometric projections
I am not familiar how the axonometric projection is dealt in English literature. Here some statements common in German literature (see the German version of axonometric projection): In order to get a nice picture You have to be careful while choosing the free parametrs.--Ag2gaeh (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) An axonometric projection is a scaled parallel projection (Theorem of Pohlke), mostly oblique (for example: military view, cabinet view), in special cases an orthographic projection, sometimes a scaled orthographic projection (Ingenieur-Axonometrie, standard isometry).
 * 2) An axonometric projection is determined by 5 parameters: the 3 forshortenings vx.vy,vz and the 2 angles alpha, beta between the x- and z-axis and between the y- and z-axis.
 * 3) An axonometric projection is called a) isometric, if vx=vy=vz, b) dimetric, if 2 of the vx,vy,vz are equal and 3) trimetric, if vx,vy,vz are all different. For the popular standard isometry we have besides vx=vy=vz that  alpha=beta=120 degree. The standard isometry is a scaled orthographic projection. For the parameters for the military view and the cabinet view see the picture.
 * This is weird, because I thought axonometric perspective implied that none of the faces of the object should be parallel to the viewing plane, whereas in oblique projection usually there is one object face which is parallel to the viewing plane. For instance, in military perspective the top face of the object is parallel to the viewing plane, and in cavalier perspective it is the front face. SharkD   Talk  21:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I misused the word oblique. I used it in the sence of non orthogonal parallel projection. In German I would say schiefe Parallel-Projektion. By the way, You may draw an axonometric picture of any curve or surface/body, for example a sphere, which has no plane faces.  -- Ag2gaeh (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a PDF from a textbook of some sort. On page 515 there is a graphical comparison of the different views as I also understand them. The term oblique here means that the viewing direction and viewing plane are not orthogonal to each other, irrespective of what is being looked at. But it also says that multiviews and axonometric are both sub-types of orthographic projection, which is confusing. Maybe a thorough survey of sources is needed. SharkD   Talk  23:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To the page 515: The subscripts (a) multiview projection and (b) axonometric projection are wrong. The texts within the pictures desribe in both cases an orthographic projection. (c) and (d) are correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ag2gaeh (talk • contribs) 12:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (a) multiview projection refers to multiview orthographic projection. I think the pictures are correct. It is the chapter text below the pictures that I think may be problematic. SharkD   Talk  21:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Survey of sources
I'm going to start listing sources and notes here. Please add any that you find as well. SharkD  Talk  22:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Others

 * Thank You for the table and the links in it. At a first glance: Axonometric projection is nowhere defined correctly. Here the definition (used in German literature, see the German site on Axonometrie):

Definition of an axonometric projection
Axonometric projection is a procedure of descriptive geometry to generate 2d-images of 3d-objects using coordinateaxes and coordinates of single points:
 * 1) Choose the images of the coordinate axes in the drawing plane (no two of them on the same line).
 * 2) Choose forshortenings $$v_x,v_y,v_z$$.
 * 3) You get the image of a point P=(x,y,z) by: 1) go from the origin $$v_x\cdot x$$ in x-direction, then 2) $$v_y\cdot y$$ in y-direction then 3) $$v_z\cdot z$$ in z-direction and mark the final point.

Pohlke's thorem says: The image of an object produced by this procedure is a scaled parallel projection. The image is mostly a scaled oblique projection. If You chose the parameters of the axonometric projection suitable, You get an exact orthographic projection (see the German site orthogonale Axonometrie). For special cases see the table. A popular axonometric projection with engineers (in Germany) is the Ingenieur- Axonometrie. It uses simple forshortenings ($$v_x=0.5,v_y=1,v_z=1$$) and delivers nearly an orthographic projection (scale factor is near 1). Cabinet projection, military projection are always oblique projections. The standard isometric projection with $$ \alpha=\beta=120^\circ,v_x=v_y=v_z=1 $$ is a scaled orthographic projection (scale factor 1.225).--Ag2gaeh (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The German and English literature seem to have different definitions. SharkD   Talk  19:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

 * But what is the mathematicaly exact English definition ? I found a correct English definition of an axonometric projection here on page 38. But it seems to be a Hungarian source. --Ag2gaeh (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * By mathematical, do you mean in that it includes formulas? You do know that mathematics can be expressed without formulas, don't you? SharkD   Talk  05:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since G. Monge descriptive geometry is founded mathematicaly exact without formulas. It is typical for descriptive geometry to solve gemetric 3d-problems without formulas. By the way: Thank You yery much for Your great effort on this topic. --Ag2gaeh (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

After looking into the links above and considering Your comments, I would say, an English definition of an axonometric projection may be as follows: This definition is rather different from the German one and does not contain cabinet and military projection. The last ones are oblique axonometric projections. The German definition is more general and independent of any object. It depends only on the coordinate axes, and the image of the unit cube (angles,forshortenings) which all can be chosen (nearly) abitrarily. So the German definition comprises scaled orthographic and scaled oblique projections.--Ag2gaeh (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * An axonometric projection is an orthographic projection that shows the picture of a cartesian coordinate system, which is related suitably to the object (cube, building, ...) to be projected, in general position (no two pictures of the axes are contained in a common line).

Hence: The English axonometric projection is the German orthogonale Axonometrie. --Ag2gaeh (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Here are the qualities which most of the sources ( and others) above agree on:
 * 1. The projected rays are parallel to each other. Hence, axonometric projection is a form of parallel projection (or paraline projection).
 * 2. The projected rays are perpendicular (orthogonal) to the projection plane (or picture plane).
 * However, several sources also say that axonometric projection is a form of orthographic projection. I would disagree with them, and several of the sources agree with me, and instead say that:
 * 3. Orthographic projection is limited to top, bottom and side views (or plans and elevations) where the projected rays are perpendicular (or orthogonal) to the faces of the object. Axonometric projection, on the other hand, deals with auxiliary views, or views not parallel to the coordinate axes. SharkD   Talk  19:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't find Your restriction of orthographic projcetion in the sources 6,7,8. And the article orthographic projection says it is equivalent to orthogonal parallel projection and not restricted to principle projections (bottom, elevation and side view). So my English definition of axonometric projection (above) complies with the sources. I tried to understand other language sites and think the French and Spanish definitions are equivalent to the German one.--Ag2gaeh (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 6: "Orthographic projections show views of the object as seen from the principal directions named as front, top and side view."
 * 7: "...the design-drawing process usually begins with two-dimensional expressions in the form of orthographic sketches and drawings. These multiview drawings are the plan, elevation, and section vocabulary that an architect/designer uses."
 * 8: "When principal orthogonal views (Top, Front, Side, etc.) are rotated, a User view is created. This is 3D Studio's description of an axonometric view."
 * Also, I don't understand the rest of your comment. What is "it" in your second sentence? How does orthographic projection relate to your definition? Sorry, I was looking at the wrong definition. You are correct. However, it is curious that originally the article did not mention axonometric projection, and limited the views to ones with increments of 90 degree rotation.
 * SharkD  Talk  03:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

OK! If You are right, one should clarify the defintion of orthographic projection. But this is another issue. I still think that the English axonometric projection is equivalent to the German orthogonale Axonometrie. A better English name would be orthogonal axonometric projection. So, there would be space for oblique axonometric projection, which would comprise cabinet, cavalier and military projections. The last ones deal with coordinates and coordinate axes,too, and should bear the name axonometric, too. In both cases (orthogonal and oblique) there exist the three types: isometric, dimetric and trimetric projections.--Ag2gaeh (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place to go making up terminology. We have to go by what the sources tell us. How we feel on that matter is not a concern. I am okay with mentioning in the article that German terminology differs, maybe because Karl Pohlke was himself German. SharkD   Talk  14:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion
A third opinion has been requested. Due to the highly technical nature of the subject and the lengthy exchange, it is hard to tell what the question is. I can see that terminology is used differently in English than in German. I will leave the Third Opinion request up for another editor, but would advise the two editors to formulate a concise question. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * One question might be, "Which definition of axonometric projection should we use in the article? German or English?" SharkD   Talk  18:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If the definitions in English and in German are different, we should state what both definitions are, precisely because this linguistic discrepancy in scholarship can cause confusion. Since this is the English Wikipedia, we should focus on the English definition, but should clarify what the differences are.  If that is the question, that is the third opinion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed this entry from 3O because it was listed for longer than six days.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 03:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi &, While the third opinion request has expired without anyone picking it up, I'm happy to have a look at the issue and provide an opinion if you think it would be helpful. To assist, could you each put a brief summary of your thoughts in the sections below? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion
wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

 * Viewpoint by (Ag2gaeh): A) The German/French definition of an axonometric projection (Axonometrie) is rather general and covers orthogonal, oblique and scaled parallel projections. Because the definition is done by a procedure to construct images, it is necessary to prove that it delivers scaled parallel projections. This was done by Pohlke (Pohlke' theorem). The German definition comprises oblique axonometric projections (like cavalier, cabinet and military projection) and scaled projections ( like the Standard-Isometrie, Ingenieur-Axonometrie).
 * B) The English definition is: an axonometric projection is an orthogonal parallel projection which uses coordinate axes. It does not cover oblique projections (like cavalier,...) or scaled projections ! The English definition needs not Pohlke's theorem, because an axonometric projection is per definition a parallel projection.
 * I think these essential differences should be mentioned in order to prevent any confusion. --Ag2gaeh (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

 * Viewpoint by (SharkD): I'm okay with noting the difference between English and German usage in the article. But I'm having trouble understanding Ag2gaeh's definitions. It seems he is simply translating terms from the literal German. It doesn't help that Pohlke is not a well-known mathematician. SharkD   Talk  03:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

 * Third opinion by Ryk72: ....

German Definition\Illustrations
I disagree with these images. In the isometric example, $$v_x,v_y,v_z$$ should not equal 1 if $$v$$ equals 1. In isometric projection, the axes are foreshortened, so they should equal less than 1. The same is true for Ingenieur-Axonometrie; all three axes are foreshortened by some amount. The other two images are okay. Also, I am looking again at the definition you provided. It says, "Choose forshortenings $$v_x,v_y,v_z$$" However, military and cavalier perspectives violate this rule; in these perspectives there is no foreshortening for two of the three axes. SharkD  Talk  16:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, in the Ingenieur-Axonometry graphic, why is $$v_x$$ equal to 0.5, yet drawn as if it is equal to 1? SharkD  Talk  19:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

 * The first image is in accordance with the German/French/Spanish definition. It does not reflect the English definition. The definitions of cavalier, cabinet and military projection differ slightly in literature, but are in any cases oblique dimetric projections. The simplest case of an isometric projection, named Standard-Isometrie ($$v_x=v_y=v_z=1, \alpha=\beta=120^\circ$$), delivers a scaled orthogonal projection. Scaling is omitted in English literature by choosing the common forshortening 0.816. The Ingenieur-Axonometrie seems not to appear in English literature. It is also a slightly scaled orthogonal projection. Standard-Isometrie and Ingenieur-Axonometrie are very popular, because the forshortenings are so simple. In English literature axonometric projection is always an orthogonal (non scaled) projection and does not contain cabinet, cavalier and military projection in contrary to the more general German definition. Pohlke's theorem is a statement on generaly (German) defined Axonometrie and not on (English) axonometric projections.To the German forshortenings: any positve real number is allowed. So, the word shortening should not be taken literally.--Ag2gaeh (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Survey of sources 2
I'm going to go through the same sources as earlier into more detail to find out exactly what is going on. SharkD  Talk  20:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Other sources

 * Later on: The word "Multiview" might not have actually been used in several of those sources. Confusion on my part. Sorry. ➧ datumizer   ☎  01:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Lemchastain
1/13/2022 -- just replied to Nje-de at _bottom_ of this section; will go there to edit that reply.

Dec. xy, '21 --I would like to hear from someone that has studied higher dimensions about my generalization. I define a Axonometric Projection of an N-dimensional cube as its (N-1) dimensional image. The general equation that I need feedback on -- from a qualified person will be briefly described below.

22 December 2021 update of my 28 February 2021 comment below. Basically, if this gets printed, then most of the earlier comment can be ignored. I'm back to report some progress on corrections to my Spring 1989 article, "Axonometric Projections". From I brief scan of the article, I am using the English definition; not previously knowing of a German one. [As an aside, I think this topic should refer to the English definition; since German does not have these two words. Their definition is for a similar term in 'Deutshe worten': you can't just translate a term, and expect to carry the precise meaning in the other language to be translated into the English meaning.] & Now, to my reason to struggle back into this article; to report that "Engineering Design Graphics Journal has published a "Correction' to my 1989 article as a D.O.I. on the Internet, in APA style. Since it took 32 years to get to it, I'm glad to catch more than just the old typos. & Please see, http://www.edgj.org/index.php/EDGJ/issue/view/237 and click on the "EDGJ Vol 53 No 2 Spring 1989" button. That will take you to the Correction page. Read this before the actual article, and perhaps print it out for reference when reading that article. Below the Correction, ou should find the full issue. The "Axonometric Projections" article appears on pages 19 - 25.

 * 8 January 2022: I am interested in extending this term into N dimensions, with N from 1 to as high as you need.  See the 1989 article for the 3-D case (Digital Object Identifier in paragraph 3 of 22 Dec. '21 entry.  Last year I worked on the 4-D case, but believe the findings generalize to higher dimensions.  [2-d is equivalent to the Pythagorean Theorem, and 1-d is trivial, but consistent.]  At that time someone mentioned Laplace's Four Square Theorem, not as a contradiction, but as indicating that my  "all integer" solutions should not be a surprise.   Time for dinner;  more later, when notation developed. Lemchastain (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Hello Lemchastain, just noticed you mentioned my name here but didn't WP:PING me. That's why I only saw it as you edited the page again and it showed up in my watchlist. Anyway, I am not sure how I can be of assistance here. I reverted your edits back in February 2021 as they came without any references to reliable sources. I am not a professional in axonometric projection though. – NJD-DE (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

 * 13 Jan 2022 Dear Njd-de,     I'm sorry: I don't know what WP:PING is -- some way to "ping" you?   Anyway, the problem (with a source) was that I was talking about _my_ published article, from 1989, but I didn't count as a reliable source.  The last paragraph of my 22 Dec. 2021 entry lists the new DOI that EDGJ has since published.  Yes, it refers to the 'Correction' they allowed _me_ to make (in APA style), but the "source" is EDGJ, not the author (i.e. me, again).
 * I've also just dropped a comment at the bottom of the talk section of the "Pythagorean Triplets" topic; in case you want to see how little progress I make there. In scanning other sites on that topic, I thought someone would also have come up with my approach by now, but no one seems to want to raise any issues with Euclid.  Lobachevsky, Hilbert, et al were brave to question anything in Euclid's marvelous (no sarcasm) books.   [Aside:  My impression, from the English translation by Heath -- including the Fairplay version of Prop. V -- was that Euclid did not make a mistake that ruled out hyperbolic space:  he said, "...if the sum of the two angles is less than 180 degrees, then the lines extended to that side intersect..." -- approximately.  He made no claim about what happens if the sum of the angles is not less than 180 degrees.  So, he was not wrong; just sticking to planar 2-D geometry.
 * If you have my e-mail address, please give that a try. I check it daily, but rarely look at my own 'Talk' section.
 * If not leave a note here, but be patient. I might consider putting my address up again (for you), and then editing it out later.  Would that work?Lemchastain (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have my e-mail address, please give that a try. I check it daily, but rarely look at my own 'Talk' section.
 * If not leave a note here, but be patient. I might consider putting my address up again (for you), and then editing it out later.  Would that work?Lemchastain (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Hi Lemchastain, pinging is a way of notifying people here that there's a message for them on a talkpage. Unfortunately I really can't make any comments of benefit on the subject. Honestly I know nothing about axonometric projection.
 * Back in February last year I only reverted your edit because there weren't any references to reliable sources, and also the text style was rather unusual for a Wikipedia article. Citing yourself as a subject-matter-expert would possible, however sometimes quickly reverted as it can look like a form of spamming.
 * Maybe people at the WikiProject Technology can be of some assistance to you. – NJD-DE (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Lem 18 Jan 2022 -- Dear NJD, I get those in the Alert section; so I may not need to duplicate that for others.
 * There seems to be a good deal on Axonometric Projections on Wiki-pedia, if you get curious. However, none of those writer's covered my 1989 article;so look for Digital Object Identified, DOI, for it and my recent correction in (what was) last section of Axo. Proj. 'Talk' page.   I finally get that an encyclopedia is not the place for new work (32 years vs. 2,000 for Euclid, etc.), but a good place to summarize prior work.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemchastain (talk • contribs) 01:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Yes you are right, you get the notifications there. But in order to receive them, the one posting a message needs to "ping" them by adding link to their userpage as part of the message, e.g. , and signing the post with four tildes.
 * I might have a look at article on that topic at some time. Wikipedia also covers more recent content of course. The important thing needed is though that references to reliable sources are added. A reliable source could be your work, but as mentioned earlier I am not the right person to say anything about it.– NJD-DE (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation, but "tlx"? Meanwhile, someone couldn't let my note in the 'History' section of the 'Article' page stay up even a couple of hours; even though I expressly ask them to let it stay a day or so -- knowing that I might have used a comma instead of a semi-colon, or indented one space too much. Is the objective to be the first one to "get' someone? PS  They missed the reference below however -- so far 17:29 EST.   Lemchastain (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 * You should never add personal comments to article space. They correctly removed that as soon as they saw it. This talk page is the place for discussions about the article or suggestions for improvement. Please don't add such comments to article space again. MrOllie (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I just attempted to get a 'further reading' citation correct this time. It definitely concerns this 'Axonometric Projection' topic. I don't know what was wrong with it last time, and don't know how to get to those archived edits. I don't expect it to stay up long, but some things last for hours. (I did not even try to explain what to do on the the cover page to get to the article, and I noticed the dot at the beginning: click on the Spring issue button on lower left.  Oh, the DOI is above, in the paragraph just before the 8 Jan 2022 comment.    Lemchastain (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

PS Following GoingBatty pointing out a Tearoom mistake in the address of the DOI, I corrected it (added ".org" to "edgj"); then decided to check entry above, and had to change "hppp://" to "http://". I apologize to anyone that had a problem due to either of my errors. Lemchastain (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Per WP:COI you shouldn't be adding your own work to further reading, particularly after multiple other editors have removed it. - MrOllie (talk) MrOllie (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

&?? My recent addition to 'Other Reading' on the article page was immediately 'reverted'. I won't even put it there again, but why not _here_ so readers can test their 'reverting'skills: "Never mind!" -- see Whoops below. Giesecke, F. E., Mitchell, A., Spencer, H. C., and Hill, I. L., "Technical Drawing", Sixth Edition, Macmillan, New York, NY 1974   (talk) Ljc 23:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Whops! That is how it should look, but there are formatting symbols (i.e. {{ | = etc. )  that I didn't see when I first tried to edit "Other Readings".  The "references" section in another topic did show them when I added a book there.   I also had a problem seeing any references but the first one for this topic on the article page. (talk) Ljc 00:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Strange header image and description
I am using the mobile app. I just edited the page description; previously it was "consumption of feces", and the main image was a close up photograph of a fly.

Either this was vandalism, or a caching error, as there was nothing in the page history about this. Feel free to revert my change if it was just an issue with my device. Krackpipe (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Axonometric projection


text:
STS-40

STS-40, the eleventh launch of Space Shuttle Columbia, was a nine-day mission in June 1991. It carried the Spacelab module for Spacelab Life Sciences 1 (SLS-1), the fifth Spacelab mission and the first dedicated solely to biology. STS-40 was the first spaceflight that included three women crew members.

Mission highlights

The launch was originally set for May 22, 1991. The mission was postponed less than 48 hours before launch when it became known that a leaking liquid hydrogen transducer in the orbiter's main propulsion system, which was removed and replaced during leak testing in 1990, had failed an analysis by a vendor. Engineers feared that one or more of the nine liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen transducers protruding into fuel and oxidizer lines could break off and be ingested by the engine turbopumps, causing engine failure.

In addition, one of the orbiter's five general purpose computers failed completely, along with one of the multiplexer demultiplexers that controlled the orbiter's hydraulics ordinance and Orbital Maneuvering System / Reaction Control System functions in the aft compartment.

A new general purpose computer and multiplexer demultiplexer were installed and tested. One liquid hydrogen and two liquid oxygen transducers were replaced upstream in the propellant flow system near the 43 cm disconnect area, which is protected by internal screen. Three liquid oxygen transducers were replaced in the engine manifold area, while three liquid hydrogen transducers here were removed and the openings plugged. The launch was reset for 8:00 a.m. EDT, June 1, 1991, but postponed again after several attempts to calibrate inertial measurement unit 2 failed. The unit was replaced and retested, and the launch was rescheduled for June 5, 1991. The mission launched successfully on June 5, 1991, at 9:24:51 a.m. EDT and the mission had a launch weight of 114290 kg. The launch was also captured on IMAX cameras, and used in the 2015 documentary film Journey to Space.

It was the fifth dedicated Spacelab mission, Spacelab Life Sciences-1, and first dedicated solely to life sciences, using the habitable module. The mission featured the most detailed and interrelated physiological measurements in space since the 1973-1974 Skylab missions. The subjects involved were humans, 30 rodents and thousands of tiny jellyfish. Primary SLS-1 experiments studied six body systems; of 18 investigations, ten involved humans, seven involved rodents, and one used jellyfish.

Six body systems investigated were cardiovascular/cardiopulmonary (heart, lungs and blood vessels); renal/endocrine (kidneys and hormone-secreting organs and glands); blood (blood plasma); immune system (white blood cells); musculoskeletal (muscles and bones); and neurovestibular (brains and nerves, eyes and inner ear). Other payloads included twelve Getaway Special (GAS) canisters installed on GAS bridge in cargo bay for experiments in materials science, plant biology and cosmic radiation (see G-616); Middeck Zero-Gravity Dynamics Experiment (MODE); and seven Orbiter Experiments (OEX).

Columbia landed on June 14, 1991, at 8:39:11 a.m. PDT, on Runway 22, at Edwards Air Force Base, California. It returned to KSC on June 21, 1991.

Wake-up calls
NASA began a tradition of playing music to astronauts during the Project Gemini, which was first used to wake up a flight crew during Apollo 15. Each track is specially chosen, often by the astronauts' families, and usually has a special meaning to an individual member of the crew, or is applicable to their daily activities.

title: STS-40


text:
Thráin

Thráin can refer to:
 * Thráin, a barrow-wight from the Norse legend Hrómundar saga Gripssonar
 * Thráin I or Thráin the Old, founder of the Kingdom under the Mountain in Tolkien's Middle-earth
 * Thráin II, father of Thorin Oakenshield in Tolkien's Middle-earth

People
"Thráin" is also a transliteration of the Icelandic name "Þráinn" (also rendered as "Thrainn" in some cases). This may refer to:
 * Þráinn Bertelsson an Icelandic film director, writer, politician, journalist and newspaper editor
 * Þráinn Hjálmarsson an Icelandic composer.
 * Þráinn Orri Jónsson an Icelandic handball player

title: Thráin


text:
Flag of Washington, D.C.

The flag of Washington D.C. consists of three red stars above two red bars on a white background. It is an armorial banner based on the coat of arms granted to Lawrence Washington (George Washington's great-grandfather) of Sulgrave Manor Northamptonshire, England, in 1592. This coat of arms was used privately by the president in his home at Mount Vernon. In heraldry, the stars are called mullets and the coat of arms is blazoned as argent two bars gules, in chief three mullets of the second.

In 1938, the District Flag Commission was created by an Act of Congress "to procure a design for a distinctive flag for the District of Columbia". The District Flag Commission was composed of three non-elected federally-appointed members: the president of the Board of Commissioners, the secretary of war and the secretary of the Navy. The flag was selected by the commission with the help of the Commission of Fine Arts. Since no local group was involved in the selection process, Washingtonians saw the flag as a symbol of their lack of representation. More recently, it has been embraced by most DC residents and businesses, as well as the DC Statehood Movement as a symbol of their local identity in the 21st century.

Washington family coat of arms

The Washington family traces its roots to England in the 13th century to Wessyngton, a small rural estate in the northeastern county of Durham where Sir William de Hertburn received a lordship. The original coat of arms evolved drastically over the next 150 years through alliances, land acquisitions and conflicts. In 1346, the first appearance of the family coat of arms as we would recognize it was recorded for Sir William de Wessyngton's great-grandson, but with argent (silver) horizontal bars and mullets on a gules (red) field. By the end of the 14th century, the current design was recorded for the family. After various events, the family was dispersed around England in Buckinghamshire, Kent, Warwickshire and Northamptonshire. In 1592, Robert Cooke, Clarenceux King of Arms confirmed the coat of arms upon Lawrence Washington (1566/68-1616) of Sulgrave Manor in Northamptonshire during the reign of Elizabeth I.

Two grandsons of Lawrence Washington immigrated to English North America in the 1660s. One of them was John Washington, who immigrated to the colony of Virginia in 1656. His great-grandson was George Washington who would become the first president of the United States. George used the coat of arms extensively on his Mount Vernon plantation, including on personal objects and on the livery of his enslaved servants. This was a common practice among the American planter class.

After the United States became independent from Britain in 1783, George Washington started a communication by mail with Sir Isaac Heard, Garter Principal King of Arms of the College of Arms in London on the matter of the coat of arms. This correspondence took place between 1791 and 1796 and appears to have been genealogical and probably also heraldic in nature. The president and the Garter appear to have been working together to trace George Washington's ancestors and the link to the British Isles. Mr. Heard confirmed the events that took place in England regarding his ancestors in a letter dated December 7, 1791. George Washington acknowledged that this was the same coat of arms used in the Colony prior to Independence.

Early history
Since its creation by Congress on July 9, 1790, by the Residence Act and for over a century, the District of Columbia was without an official flag and flew several unofficial banners, usually the flag of the D.C. National Guard.

In the early 20th Century, the Thompsen-Bryan-Ellis Company was a firm of printers working on a flag book under the direction of Lieutenant Commander Byron McCandless who had a great interest in vexillology. The work was then taken over by the National Geographic. It became the now well known "Our Flag Number" (Volume XXXII - Number 4) which contained 1197 flags in full colors and an additional 300 in black and white. On page 335, the National Guard's flag is shown as the representation of the District of Columbia. It showed a blue flag with two banners on it: one above with the word "Headquarters" and one below with "District of Columbia Militia" written on it. In between was an axe.

One of the artists working on the project was Charles A. R. Dunn. While drawing some of the flags, he noticed the lack of good design for many of the state flags with many simply being the state seal on a blue field. He also realized that the District of Columbia did not have a flag. He started thinking about designing a flag for the capital. He was very attracted to the design of the neighboring state flag of Maryland which used the arms of Lord Baltimore. It was only natural that he would remain in the field of heraldry for the inspiration of his design.

Early designs
In 1921, Dunn had moved on to work for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. While working in the Mills Building, he drew a design for the flag in the office studio. He took the design directly from the coat of arms which belonged to the Washington family with no change to the design but did not release it at the time.

On February 8, 1924, the Daughters of the American Revolution managed to get a bill introduced in Congress to set up a commission to select a design. It was introduced by Chairman Reed of the House District Committee. The commission would be composed of the president of the United States, the secretary of war and the president of the board of commissioners of the district. It would have an appropriation of $1,500. On February 20, 1924, the Evening Star published a proposed design by John Mackaye Dunbar. It featured the shield portion of the coat-of-arms on a red field with a blue cross. While this design was not endorsed by the D.A.R., they appreciated its display of "simplicity" in their February 24 meeting. They confirmed that their research that the Militia flag with an ax had been used as a flag but was not an appropriate flag for the district. They further rejected the idea of having the seal of the District of Columbia be part of the design for a flag due to its complexity. Charles Moore, the chairman of the Fine Arts Commission who had been consulted on the drafting of the bill, also agreed that the design should be simple and should emphasize in some way that the district is the seat of the central government of all the states.

In February of that year, Charles Dunn submitted a set of drawings in black and white and in color to the Evening Star which was published on March 16, 1924. While the charges remained the same (two bars and three mullets) the tinctures had changed from all gules (red) to cobalt blue for the stars and vermilion for the bars. However, the enthusiasm died down soon after and the issue of a District of Columbia flag was not raised again until 1937.

However, some opposition arose from the Southeast Citizens' Association. On March 26, 1924, they adopted a resolution opposing the adoption of a special flag for the District of Columbia. This resolution was apparently adopted after Capt. W.E. Luckett declared "that the only flag the District of Columbia should cherish as its own is the one flag for every American — the Stars and Stripes".

On May 12, 1924, at a gathering of the Federation of Citizen's Associations, an imitation meeting of the federation was staged for the purpose of entertaining the guests present at the event. Meetings were known for their fiery debates and the topic of choice in this piece was the adoption of a flag for the District of Columbia. The "special committee" was headed by Fred S. Walker and James W. Murphy who came forward with the emblem with Jesse C. Suter as a member: "a goat on a field of yellow. In one corner was a pair of manacles for a coat-of-arms denoting the condition of the people of the District. In another corner was drawn a double cross."

The design which would become known as the Jest Flag and was made public again on June 14, 2019 as part of #DCFlagDay as part of a discussion on the history of the DC flag. It is currently in the holdings of the Historical Society of Washington, D.C., and was last displayed in 1960 according to Josh Gibson who found the flag.

On May 2, 1924, the Evening Star published a new designed proposed by the Army. It was designed by the Office of the Quartermaster General and was the joint work of Capt. J. Moultrie Ward, Q.M.C. and Flora F. Sherwood, the Quartermaster Corps civilian artist. While they used the arms of George Washington in part of the flag and its two colors, it was very different. The first third, next to the hoist, consisted of a broad red strip with three white five-pointed stars aligned vertically in its center. They represented the three cities originally in its boundaries: Washington City, Georgetown and Alexandria. The remainder of the flag was composed of four stripes aligned veritably and alternating white and red ending with red on its edge.

The Senate passed the bill on May 5, 1924, and it made its way to the House of Representatives. On May 7, 1924, the Native Washingtonians for a Banquet for the organizations fifth anniversary. During his presentation, the president of the society Jesse C. Suter showed the audience the version of the district flag that was presented a few weeks later and explained its meaning:

"a yellow border and on it a goat, a pair of handcuffs and a double cross. [...] The handcuffs were symbolic of the freedom enjoyed by the District. The goat and double cross [...] speak more or less for themselves, while the yellow is symbolic of the lemon which the District is continually having handed it under the present system of government.""

However, it seems the bill never made it through to become law. A decade later, the question reappeared. On September 16, 1934, Frederic Adrian Delano, chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission and the uncle of President Franklin D. Roosevelt unveiled his design for a district flag. His version was based on the American flag with the same 13 stripes. In place of the stars a map of Washington when the city was first projected in 1792 was added and was surrounded by pictures of the Capitol, the White House, the Lincoln Memorial, Mount Vernon, the Supreme Court Building, the Lee Mansion and the Amphitheater at Arlington, the Dumbarton House in Georgetown and the Masonic Memorial and Christ Church in Alexandria. In the four corners were four American eagles. The map design was originally drawn by Mildred G. Burrage at his suggestion and was known as the handkerchief map. The design was copyrighted by the American Civic Association of which Mr. Delano was president. Printed in six colors, the handkerchiefs were sold for $1 each and the proceeds were used for the George Washington Memorial Parkway fund.

Creation of the District Flag Commission
By 1938, the D.A.R. had been campaigning for a district flag for over a decade. The effort was being spearheaded by the local D.A.R. Committee on Correct Use of the Flag. In 1937, the local Chapter was asked to present a district flag to Dahlgren Hall at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland to be hung along the flags of the 48 states (the states of Alaska and Hawaii did not join the Union until 1959) provided by state societies for Navy Day. The state chairman of the Flag Committee reached out to the district commissioner who was unable to provide one since it did not exist. Through extensive lobbying to Congress, the search for a suitable flag was pushed forward.

On June 16, 1938, Congress requested by an act that the secretary of war, the secretary of the Navy and the president of the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia create "a commission to procure a design for a distinctive flag for the District of Columbia, the Seat of the Capital of the Nation". The selection of the design shall have the advice of the Commission of Fine Arts. The bill was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on the same day.

The commission included the president of the Board of Commissioners Melvin C. Hazen, the secretary of war Harry H. Woodring and the secretary of the Navy Claude A. Swanson. They held a meeting on July 9, 1938 to discuss the plans of choosing a design. The Evening Star stated at the time that this was a first step for the people of Washington toward the district's sovereignty which would include the right to vote. It was hoped that this was a sign of concession to come on the matter. At the time, the district commissioner was appointed by the president of the United States as were the two secretaries as part of the Cabinet. It was not until 1975 that DC residents voted for their mayor.

An announcement was made in the newspapers of a contest open to the public to submit design and ideas for the flag. The Heraldic Division of the War Department laid some heraldry and visibility rules. Arthur E. Du Bois was the heraldic expert of the Quartermaster General's Office and sat on the commission as an adviser. The secretary of war and the secretary of the Navy did not appear to actually be present on the commission but were represented by members of their staff.

Design submissions and selection
Charles Dunn submitted his 1921 design with the Washington coat of arms with all the charges in their original tincture of gules (red) in June 1938. In addition to the flag itself, he proposed the use of a Washington coat of arms in the canton (which he erroneously called a jack) for local organizations such as the American Legion. The organization would then use the rest of the space (the field) on the flag for their own emblem.

On August 24, 1938, the Evening Star announced that the commission had met to review the designs. They were down to two submissions mentioned by name. The first one was Charles Dunn's design using Washington's coat of arms. The second was a submission by the American Liberty Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution and designed by one of its members, Mrs. George T. Hawkins. On a blue background, a big gold star made up of 13 concentric lines representing the original Thirteen Colonies with the Capitol Building in the center. The star is encircled by 48 small gold stars representing the states in the Union. The words "DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA" written in gold could be added or removed from the bottom. A flag of Dunn's design was made and a display board of Hawkins design were shown to the reporters present at the announcement. Both designs were submitted to the Commission of Fine Arts for final review as the commission "admitted a deadlock". The Fine Arts' meeting would take place in September.

Formal requests for local selection involvement
However, the Commission of Fine Arts had to delay the review as it wanted to study all of the 50-odd designs and some had not yet arrived as of September 3 when the meeting took place. The review was pushed by two weeks to the next meeting. In addition, the Evening Star reported that the process of selecting the design was being questioned among those active in civic affairs. It was suggested that the Commission of Fine Arts use a more democratic process. This selection was "seen as a real opportunity to arouse interest and civic spirit through giving this voteless and unrepresented community an opportunity to have a part in the selection of the community colors under which it will in the future march with pride and devotion".

The question of what the flag should represent was also discussed. The Evening Star asked the question in these terms: "what do any of the designs under consideration symbolize?" Some citizens asked the same question. In their September 8, 1938 meeting, the Association of Oldest Inhabitants asked that the Commission of Fine Arts collaborate with a special committee of native Washingtonians as they felt left out. On a letter to the commissioner they stated their concerns:

"Our association believes that such a flag, in order to be appropriate and truly representative of the District, must have some definite local significance. The designs under consideration appear to us to be symbolic of national rather than local sentiment. If it is to be our District of Columbia flag, surely District citizens should have a part in the selection of the design."

The Federation of Citizens' Association joined in this movement in early October. They requested that the Commission of Fine Arts give them the privilege to co-operate with them to the selection of the design. A special committee was to be appointed to seek this. A letter from the Association of Oldest Inhabitants to the Federation of Citizens' Association was sent on October 5, 1938 requesting that both groups collaborate on the selection of the design. The Kalorama Association sided with the other two associations on October 11 as they sent a letter to the commission recommending that the choice of the design be left to the residents of the district.

Selection of the final design
On October 15, 1938, the Evening Star announced that a new flag has been adopted by the District Flag Commission and the Fine Arts Commission. After reviewing 50 designs, Washington's coat of arms was selected. The design was described as "paying honors to George Washington using the major elements of the emblem features of the family shield of the first President".

"No longer will the District be ignominiously anonymous in times of patriotic events, parades and other celebrations where every State of the Union has its flag."

- Commissioner Melvin C. Hazen

The following specifications were adopted: "The proportions of the design are prescribed in terms of the hoist, or vertical height, of the flag as follows: the upper white portion shall be $3/10$ of the hoist; the two horizontal bars are each $2/10$ of the hoist; the white area between the bars $1/10$ of the hoist; and the base, or lowest white space, is $2/10$ of the hoist. The three five-pointed stars have a diameter of $2/10$ of the hoist and are spaced equidistant in the fly, or horizontal, dimension of the flag."

Design explanation and failure to credit local input
On October 16, all the details of the selections were given to the press and explained. It was explained that the commissioner, who was the former district surveyor, recalled seeing the coat of arms on a shield on old maps. Upon research, a map by Andrew Ellicott engraved in 1792 by Thackara & Vallance in Philadelphia was found. The direct association of the first president with the establishment of the district and the capital city bearing his name was sufficient to justify using heraldic symbolism in the flag to illustrate the historical connection. In his view, it explained why several designs included this idea.

Mr. Hazen was credited for having "brought to attention the basic elements of the simplified Washington shield" while Arthur E. Du Bois was credited for the details of the final design. Apart from the mention that many designs included these features and that 50 designs were submitted, there was no recognition of the contribution of the local residents in the process. He responded to the failure to include the local population (directly or through the civic associations) by stating that anyone interested could submit a design and that it would have been reviewed. No mention of Charles Dunn's contribution was made at the time. His contribution was made public in 1957, when he published an article in the Records of the Columbia Historical Society entitled The Origins of the District of Columbia Flag were he reveals the process that took place from his point of view. When he died in 1978, his contribution was not mentioned.

Commissioner Hazen also announced that the flag could first be flown at the Inter-American Horse Show at Meadowbrook Farm, in Montgomery County, Maryland, on October 23, 1938, which would be designated as District Day. The commissioner was one of the sponsors of the Show. However, the flag was first flown on October 18, 1938, on the District Building (now known as the John A. Wilson Building, the city council's offices) under the American flag. The flag measured 6.5 ft feet by 9.5 ft.

Designer
Today, most sources state that Charles Dunn is the actual designer of the DC flag. It seems all historical accounts come from The Origins of the District of Columbia Flag he published in the Records of the Columbia Historical Society and the August 24, 1938, Evening Star article where he is mentioned as a finalist. However, according to the commission set up by Congress and who had authority to choose the design, Commissioner Melvin C. Hazen is credited as playing a major role in the design and Arthur E. Du Bois as having done the final design. This appears to indicate that Hazen and Du Bois were seen as co-designers at the time. The criticisms that followed the announcement regarding the lack of local involvement seem to confirm that this was the accepted view at the time. The DC Council website no longer states that Dunn is the designer, while it stated it up until 2018 that this was the case.

The link to the Washington coat of arms is undeniable and has been stated by all parties as a source of inspiration for the DC flag. Therefore, from a heraldry perspective, it seems that neither Dunn nor Hazen and Du Bois can lay claim to the design itself as being their own. In addition, as stated by the commissioner himself, the use of the design and its first association with Washington City and the other territories of the District of Columbia dates back to 1792 when it appeared on the Ellicott map only two years after the District of Columbia was created and while President Washington was in office. This exact same design of the arms dates back to at least the 14th century in England and it seems the original designer would have lived at that time. No changes have been made between that time and the design set in 1938.

DC Government use
Starting in 1916 when the District Building was inaugurated to 1964, the flag of the United States was flown from a large flagpole located on the roof of the building. Due to concerns regarding the safety of the staff during inclement weather, two new poles were installed in front of the building. It was then that, for the first time, the DC flag was flown on the DC Government building grounds on a separate pole. Prior to that, it was flown under the US flag. The flag first appeared on the District of Columbia license plates known as the 1984 Capital City Baseplate starting on October 1, 1984. These plates were issued for new registrations and issued to motorists who had the old 1974 and 1978 series plates. This replacement process took place from October 1984 to September 1986.

The DC flag is used on all DC Government websites, publications, documents and equipment. It is used extensively on its own or integrated into some of the department logos and program logos. One notable exception is the patch of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia which had the Capitol building on it and never had the DC flag on it.

Local politics
Elements of the design are used extensively in local politics. The three stars and bars or the colors are often used by candidates and causes on their signs during local elections.

In 2002, the D.C. Council debated a proposal to change the flag in protest of the district's lack of voting rights in Congress. The new design would have added the letters "D.C." to the center star and the words "Taxation Without Representation" in white to the two red bars, a slogan already in use on the district's license plates. The change presumably would have been temporary and revoked once the city achieved equal representation or statehood. It passed the council on a 10–2 vote, but support for the proposal soon eroded, and then-mayor Anthony A. Williams never signed the bill.

In spite of its adoption by a non-elected commission of federally appointed members, the DC flag has become a symbol of local identity and local self-governance in the 21st Century. Today, it is used extensively by the DC Government's Statehood Campaign, activists and citizens fighting for the District of Columbia to become the 51st State of the Union. It is also a non-partisan symbol and is extensively used by all parties in the district including Democrats, Republicans and Green Party in their campaigns and websites.

City Council Commemorative Flag Program
Starting on June 1, 2017, the D.C. City Council began a new commemorative flag program, which is similar to the United States flag program operated by the Congressional Keeper of the Stationery and requested through a constituent's U.S. senator or U.S. representative. In the case of the DC flag, interested parties can fill out an online form on the DC Council's website providing a credit card or by sending a letter with applicable check or money order to the secretary of the City Council requesting a 3×5 or 4×6 District of Columbia flag; once the request is received a flag is taken and then flown on one of several flagpoles at the John A. Wilson Building. After the flag has been flown it is then packaged and sent to the requester with an accompanying certificate that authenticates the flag was flown at the top of a flagpole at the Wilson Building.

DC Flag Day
Flag Day is celebrated in the United States on June 14. The Neighbors United for DC Statehood has been organizing the DC Flag Day Photo Contest since 2013 (with the exception of 2016). It celebrates the DC flag and pride while advocating for DC Statehood on their website and on social media using the hashtag #DCFlagDay. In 2018, the contest was organized in several categories:
 * Best Ward: given to the Council member to the highest volume of constituent tweets with the flag (won by Ward 6)
 * Best Campaign Team: given to the best Campaign team bringing DC Love
 * Best Advocacy: for the best photo encouraging a specific House or Senate member not yet cosponsoring the statehood bills in Congress
 * Best Group: given to a community group (won by Mayor Muriel Bowser)
 * Best Elected Official: given to a local elected official (won by Brianne Nadeau)
 * Best Agency: given to a local Government Agency (won by DOEE)
 * Best Business: given to a business promoting the DC flag and its business
 * Best Non-Profit: given to a non-profit representing the love of Washington, DC and their organization (won by DC Vote)
 * Artistic Expression: given for the most artistic photo
 * Best Pet: given for the "most cute, quirky, or compelling photo of a non-human living thing"
 * Best Friend in a State: given to a person or group from one of the 50 states imploring their Representative or Senator to support the Statehood Movement or thank them for doing so (won by Eleanor Norton)
 * Best Statehood Shot: given for the best photo symbolic of the fight for statehood (won by Charles Allen)

Voter's Guide upside-down flag incident
On October 16, 2014, ahead of the November 4 elections, it was discovered that the DC flag was put upside down on the DC Voters Guide sent to residents in the district the previous day. It was originally reported by Denise Tolliver, the District of Columbia Board of Elections' spokesperson, that the inverted flag was placed as a way to draw attention to the upcoming election. The turnout at the previous election was at a historic low with only 27% turnout. Later that day, after checking with the printer, the Executive Director, Clifford Tatum, confirmed that it was indeed an error. According to him, a member of the design team had stylized the logo in past elections. He stated that "[The Board] ha[s] done different things with the flag in the past. Her idea was the bars would be above the stars." Since the error was found after they were published, it appears someone came up with the cover-up idea of it being intentional. Ward 5 Council Member Kenyan McDuffie stated "My impression is that this was not an intentional act, and it was an error. And if it was intentional, then it was ridiculous that anyone would sanction that." The board issued an apology and acknowledged both issues with the DC flag properly oriented as a watermark:

Federal use
Until 2013, the DC flag was not automatically raised at events in the United States Armed Forces along the flags of the 50 states. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 was signed into law by President Barack Obama in January 2013 contained a provision that required just that the DC flag and the flags of the territories be displayed whenever the flags of the states are displayed. This legislation was pushed by Delegate to the House of Representatives Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Private use
The design has been embraced by the public in the 20th century and it has become a symbol of the city. It is used in the logos of D.C. United, the DC Defenders, Old Glory DC, the Washington Capitals, and the Washington Wizards.

It has been used by many local brands in their logos to show their local connection. One such example is DC Brau Brewing whose logo includes the DC flag on the US Capitol. The Department of Small and Local Business Development established the Made in DC program "to capture, highlight and promote the intellectual and creative genius of DC’s local maker community". The logo includes the DC flag as part of its design.

The flag is a popular tattoo design among residents of the district. Some years on Flag Day, people with D.C. flag tattoos have gathered in Dupont Circle to celebrate it rather than the U.S. flag, and to rally for D.C. voting rights. Notable bearers of the tattoo include Ward 3 Council Member Mary Cheh and radio host Kojo Nnamdi—who, along with Tom Sherwood, political analyst at the local National Public Radio WAMU agreed to get tattooed in for a $3,000 donation to the public supported station. It was announced on air on October 23, 2015 and the tattoos took place on November 20, 2015.

No local involvement in the selection
The new flag was not well received by many in the local population at the time. The failure to involve the local population in the selection of their flag did not go unnoticed and many found new meanings for the stars and bars with many negative symbols and parallels.

With the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801, the new federal district was placed under the sole authority of Congress. In the process, DC residents lost voting representation in Congress as they were no longer part of a US state. They also lost representation in the Electoral College and the right to home rule. By 1938, the residents were still fighting for these rights. The Twenty-third Amendment restored the right to vote in the Electoral College and on December 24, 1973, the District of Columbia Home Rule Act allowed the residents to elect a mayor and the 13-member Council of the District of Columbia.

In 1938 however, the situation was much different. The Evening Star points out that while the residents of the district had now a flag, they were still without a vote or representation. The refusal to involve local participation in spite of multiple requests of local civic associations was a clear sign that nothing had changed in terms of local representation and involvement in the federally controlled government. The lack of local significance or symbolism was also criticized and new interpretations of the flag were found. The two red stripes were seen as representing the Senate and House of Representatives where DC residents were not represented, while the three stars represented the three commissioners who ruled over the city with accountability to the people who were innocent and represented in white.

A strong parallel was found by some between the way the commission (who was not elected by the residents) had not listened to the local residents and Stalinism in the Russian Empire

The chairman of the Flag Committee of the Society of Natives noted: "One critic finds fault with the absence of blue and of the predominance of red. This suggests that it is well this action of the Flag Commission did not occur in the stirring days of the "red rider." Surely the hand of Moscow would have been suspected of animating the commission had this banner bearing so much red been born at that time."

- Jess C. Suter

A citizen had similar views. He describes his vision of the flag which he considers "a misfit for a flag to represent the seat of government of the greatest free country of the earth":

"Leaving out the blue of heaven, there is sandwiched in between irregular strips of the white of purity, two crimson cross bars of Stalin-hued tyranny, or the scarlet-colored brand of universal shame. To make the redness redder, the spotless white of purity is further splotched with red stars. And it is a shame to flaunt redistic bars and "stars," behind which the citizens of the District are found fettered in political degradation like unto that of the desperate convict or the violently insane."

- Joseph W. Cheyney

Over time attitudes toward the design changed and it went from being rejected to being embraced including by the Statehood movement in the District of Columbia.

The flag of Washington D.C. placed eighth out of 72 entries in a 2001 survey of U.S. and Canadian subdivisional flags by the North American Vexillological Association.

History of Washington family arms
The coat of arms in question is blazoned as: "Argent two bars gules, in chief three mullets of the second."

According to records available, this coat of arms was granted to Lawrence Washington of Sulgrave Manor in 1592 by Robert Cook, Clarenceux King of Arms. He was the last known recorded grantee of that specific design by the College of Arms.

Lawrence would have passed it down to his descendants upon his death as it was the tradition. Lawrence Washington had two sons: John (1589–1688) and Lawrence (1602–1652). Lawrence Washington was the youngest. As was often the case of younger children, he entered the clergy as he seems to not have had received the estate and became a rector.

Lawrence's oldest son, John Washington (1631-1677) was the earliest ancestor to arrive in America with his youngest brother. He settled in the Colony of Virginia in 1656. It is mentioned in Crozier's General Armory that John was using the coat of arms in Virginia in 1657. However this armorial was published 250 years later in 1904 and the author does no cite his sources for the coat of arms. It could well be that William Armstrong Crozier was deducting the fact that John had it because George Washington was using them a century and a half later.

There seems to have been no official recordings of this coat of arms in the colonies so it remains unclear who used the coat of arms between John Washington who settled in 1656 and the Revolutionary war. It is said that it was engraved on Elizabeth Washington (1717–1734/35), George Washington cousin. It appears that the coat of arms had been used by the family in the Colony for some time as George Washington reported in his letter to Sir Isaac Heard on May 2, 1792. George himself had started using it as early as 1755, when he purchased goods with the coat of arms. It is well documented that George Washington, a British subject until the Revolutionary War, used this coat of arms extensively at Mount Vernon and on many objects.

While the United States were no longer under British rule after its independence, it appears that George Washington was actually studying his family heritage later in life both in terms of genealogy and heraldry as visible in his correspondence with the College of Arms represented by Isaac Heard from 1791 to 1796.

The earliest communication we have from his regarding this happens in 1788 with William Barton. The question was raised with regards to the design of the Great Seal of the United States and the possible need for regulations which George Washington was reluctant to the idea because of the fragility of the Union. At the time, he described himself as "imperfectly acquainted with the subject of heraldry. In his view "it might not [...] be advisable to stir any question, that would tend to reanimate the dying embers of faction, or blow the dormant spark of jealousy into an inextinguishable flame."

A couple years later, the same President was in communication with Isaac Heard, who was the Garter Principal King of Arms to inquire about his family's coat of arms. The communication seems to be centered around the genealogical question. In the December 7, 1791 letter, Mr. Heard is requesting additional information regarding George Washington's ancestry as he seem to not have that information available. Mr. Washington responds on May 2, 1792 that he will probably not be able to provide this pedigree due to the lack of centralized records. He has been researching the historical family link to England and acknowledges that he is unsure about the exact location in England. It is in this letter that he mentions the resemblance of the arms:

"The Arms enclosed in your letter are the same that are held by the family here—though I have also seen, and have used as you may perceive by the Seal to this Packet a flying Griffen for the Crest."

In an August 9, 1793, Mr. Heard informs Mr. Washington that he is still trying to prove that he is a direct descendant from Lawrence Washington who was granted the coat of arms and is requesting more information. The question appears to have not been resolved by July 10, 1796. He was still attempting to find the proof that the first immigrants (John and Lawrence) were in fact Lawrence Washington of Soul grove's descendants. No further letter is known to exist between the two and George Washington passed away on December 14, 1799.

title: Flag of Washington, D.C.


text:
Cassia (genus)

Cassia is a genus of flowering plants in the legume family, Fabaceae, and the subfamily Caesalpinioideae. Species are known commonly as cassias. The genus includes 37 species and has a pantropical distribution. Species of the genera Senna and Chamaecrista were previously included in Cassia. Cassia now generally includes the largest species of the legume subtribe Cassiinae, usually mid-sized to tall trees.

Cassia is also the English common name of some unrelated species in the genus Cinnamomum of the family Lauraceae.

Ecology
Cassia species occur in a range of climates. Some can be utilized widely as ornamental plants. They have been used in reforestation projects, and species from desert climates can be used to prevent desertification.

Cassia species are used as food plants by the caterpillars of many lepidopteran taxa. For example, the skipper Astraptes fulgerator and the pierids Catopsilia pomona and C. pyranthe are all seen on Cassia fistula. The latter utilizes several other cassias, as well.

The plant pathogenic viruses cassia yellow blotch bromovirus and cassia yellow spot potyvirus were first described from Cassia.

Uses
Because the name Cassia is not precise, it is sometimes difficult to know what is meant by references to plants known as "cassias". Cassia gum, for example, is made from Senna obtusifolia, a species formerly included in genus Cassia.

Genera Cassia and Senna are both known in systems of traditional medicine. Cassia fistula, for example, is used in Ayurvedic medicine.

There exists some culinary use for cassias. The fruit of some species is edible. In Central America, its pods are stewed into a molasses-like syrup, taken as a sweetener and for its nutritional and medicinal effects. Some have toxins in their seeds, however.

Systematics and taxonomy
There are hundreds of Cassia species, but it is unclear just how many. One estimate stands at 692. The genus was a wastebasket taxon for a long time, used to classify plants that did not fit well anywhere else. Over 1000 species have belonged to Cassia over the years. Many taxa have since been transferred to more appropriate genera, such as Senna. Plants of the World Online accepts 37 species.

Species
Cassia comprises the following species:

 * Cassia abbreviata Oliv.
 * subsp. abbreviata Oliv.
 * subsp. beareana (Holmes) Brenan
 * subsp. kassneri (Baker f.) Brenan

 * Cassia afrofistula Brenan — Kenyan shower cassia

 * Cassia angolensis Welw. ex Hiern

 * Cassia arereh Delile

 * Cassia artensis Beauvis.

 * Cassia aubrevillei Pellegr.

 * Cassia bakeriana Craib —pink cassia, wishing-tree

 * Cassia brewsteri (F.Muell.) F.Muell. ex Benth. — Brewster's cassia, cigar cassia
 * Cassia burttii Baker f.

 * Cassia cowanii H.S.Irwin & Barneby
 * var. cowanii H.S.Irwin & Barneby
 * var. guianensis (Sandwith) H.S.Irwin & Barneby
 * var. peruviana (J.F.Macbr.) H.S.Irwin & Barneb

 * Cassia eremophila Vogel —desert cassia

 * Cassia fastuosa Willd. ex Vogel
 * var. calva H.S.Irwin & Barneby
 * var. fastuosa

 * Cassia ferruginea (Schrad.) DC.
 * var. ferruginea
 * var. vellozoana H.S.Irwin & Barneby
 * Cassia fikifiki Aubrév. & Pellegr.
 * Cassia fistula L. — golden shower, Indian-laburnum, purging cassia

 * Cassia grandis L.f. — pink shower cassia

 * Cassia hintonii Sandwith
 * Cassia hippophallus Capuron

 * Cassia javanica L. —apple-blossom cassia, Palawan cherry
 * subsp. bartonii F.M.Bailey
 * subsp. javanica L.
 * var. javanica L.
 * var. microcalyx Irwin & Barneby
 * subsp. nodosa (Buch.-Ham. ex Roxb.) K.Larsen & S.S.Larsen
 * subsp. pubiflora (Merr.) K.Larsen
 * Cassia johannae Vatke

 * Cassia lancangensis Y.Y. Qian

 * Cassia leiandra Benth.

 * Cassia leptophylla Vogel —gold medallion tree

 * Cassia mannii Oliv.

 * Cassia marksiana (F.M.Bailey) Domin

 * Cassia midas H.S.Irwin & Barneby

 * Cassia moschata Kunth

 * Cassia mystacicarpa Rizzini & Heringer

 * Cassia psilocarpa Welw.

 * Cassia queenslandica C.T.White

 * Cassia × regia Standl.

 * Cassia roxburghii DC. —Roxburgh's cassia
 * Cassia rubriflora Ducke

 * Cassia sieberiana DC.

 * Cassia spruceana Benth.

 * Cassia swartzioides Ducke
 * var. scarlatina (Ducke) H.S.Irwin & Barneby
 * var. swartzioides

 * Cassia thyrsoidea Brenan

 * Cassia tomentella (Benth.) Domin

title: Cassia (genus)


text:
Talk:Appeal to emotion

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lharmer96.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Appeal to emotion


text: Template:November-class submarine

title: Template:November-class submarine