text:
Toniná

Tonina (or Toniná in Spanish orthography) is a pre-Columbian archaeological site and ruined city of the Maya civilization located in what is now the Mexican state of Chiapas, some 13 km (8.1 mi) east of the town of Ocosingo.

The site is medium to large, with groups of temple-pyramids set on terraces rising some 71 m above a plaza, a large court for playing the Mesoamerican ballgame, and over 100 carved monuments, most dating from the 6th century through the 9th centuries AD, during the Classic period. Toniná is distinguished by its well preserved stucco sculptures and particularly by its in-the-round carved monuments, produced to an extent not seen in Mesoamerica since the end of the much earlier Olmec civilization. Toniná possesses one of the largest pyramids in Mexico; at 74 m in height, it is taller than the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan.

Toniná was an aggressive state in the Late Classic, using warfare to develop a powerful kingdom. For much of its history, Toniná was engaged in sporadic warfare with Palenque, its greatest rival and one of the most important polities in the west of the Maya region, although Toniná eventually became the dominant city in the west.

The city is notable for having the last known Long Count date on any Maya monument, marking the end of the Classic Maya period in AD 909.

Etymology
Toniná means house of stone in the Tzeltal language of the local Maya inhabitants, an alternative interpretation is the place where stone sculptures are raised to honour time. However, this is a modern name and the original name was either Po or Popo, appearing in Classic Maya texts in the title used for the kings of Toniná, k'uhul po' ajaw (Divine Lord of Po). A Maya rebellion in Colonial times, in 1558, featured a group called the po' winikob' (People of Po). Early versions of the Toniná emblem glyph bore a doubled po glyph and the term Popo is also found in Colonial records. Since double sounds were often abbreviated in hieroglyphic texts, Popo may represent the original name of the city.

Location
Toniná is located at an altitude of 800 to 900 m above mean sea level in the Chiapas highlands of southern Mexico, some 40 mi south of the contemporary Maya city of Palenque, Toniná's greatest rival throughout its recorded history. Toniná is separated from Palenque by mountainous terrain and the site core is located along an easily defended ascending limestone ridge immediately to the west of a seasonal tributary of the Río Jataté, one of the two rivers forming the Ocosingo Valley.

Rulers
Rulers of Toniná recorded in the Maya script on Toniná monuments include:

The last known recorded date at the site is featured on Monument 101 as 15 January 909 CE.

Early Classic
Toniná had a particularly active Early Classic presence, although the Early Classic remains lie entirely buried under later construction. Due to this, early texts are scarce and only offer a glimpse of the early history of the site. An 8th-century text refers to a king ruling in AD 217, although it only mentions his title, not his name.

Ruler 1 is depicted on a couple of Early Classic monuments, the better preserved of which is an altar that dates to 514. A ruler known as Jaguar Bird Peccary is represented on a 6th-century stela, which describes him acceding to the throne in 568.

The first mention of Toniná in a record from a foreign state is from the site of Chinikiha, located 72 km to the northeast on the Usumacinta River, the text is from a throne and describes the capture of a person from Toniná in 573.

K'inich Hix Chapat
Toniná's history comes into focus in the Late Classic, when its historical record is more fully represented by hieroglyphic texts. In 633 K'inich Hix Chapat is recorded as installing two subordinate lords but little else is known of his reign, although he was probably enthroned in 595. The last mention of K'inich Hix Chapat is in a monument dated to 665 that appears to be a memorial stone.

Ruler 2
Ruler 2 acceded to the throne of Toniná in 668. His rule is marked by warfare and the frequent depiction of bound captives on his monuments. Ruler 2 established the use of in-the-round sculptural style that came to typify the stelae of Toniná. A monument dated to 682 depicts three naked prisoners with their arms bound, one of them is identified as a lord from Annak', an as yet unidentified site. His reign may have ended with his defeat and capture by K'inich Kan Balam II of Palenque in September 687, as described in a glyphic text from Temple 17 in the rival city, an event that probably culminated in his sacrifice.

K'inich B'aaknal Chaak
K'inich B'aaknal Chaak was enthroned in 688, twenty years after Ruler 2, and reigned for twenty-seven years. During his reign he restored Toniná's power with a number of military victories over Palenque, and his reign was dominated by the struggle against the rival city for regional power. Ballcourt 1, the larger of Toniná's two ballcourts, was dedicated in 699 to celebrate three victories over the city's arch-rival. The ballcourt originally had six sculptures of bound captives, all vassals of the enemy Palenque king from the Usumacinta region. The date of the king's death is unknown.

Ruler 4
Ruler 4 came to power in 708 at a very young age. Three years later, in 711, while Ruler 4 was still a child, Toniná gained an important victory over Palenque. The battle resulted in the capture of Kan Joy Chitam II of Palenque and made Toniná the dominant centre in the lower Usumacinta region. The victory was so complete that it resulted in a ten-year gap in the dynastic history of the defeated city, during which the captured ruler may have been held hostage. Ruler 4 continued in power to celebrate the period endings of 716 and 721. A captive depicted on one of his monuments is identified as being from the distant city of Calakmul, one of the two Maya "superpowers".

K'inich Ich'aak Chapat
Ruler 4 was succeeded by K'inich Ich'aak Chapat in 723. Around 725 Toniná fought a war against Piedras Negras, a city on the north bank of the Usumacinta River, now in Guatemala. A series of events during his reign were marked on monuments between 726 and 729 and in 730 he rededicated the tomb of his predecessor K'inich B'aaknal Chaak. The mother of K'inich Ich'aak Chapat is named as Lady Winik Timan K'awiil and his father may well have been K'inich B'aaknal Chaak himself. The reign of K'inich Ich'aak Chapat is notable for the absence of the usual sculptures depicting bound war captives, although the reason for this is unknown.

Later rulers
Little is known of the next two rulers, Ruler 6 is named as K'inich Tuun Chapat, he celebrated the period ending of 736 and may have died 762. A damaged text accompanying the image of a bound captive indicates renewed warfare with Palenque during his reign, however the name of the prisoner is lost and it is unclear if it is the actual king of Palenque or merely one of his vassals.

He was succeeded by Ruler 7, about whom even less is known. Around 764 Toniná defeated Palenque in battle. Ruler 7 has been identified as the mysterious Lady K'awil, known from a fragmentary text on an altar disc which records her death in 774.

In 775 a text recorded the death of Lord Wak Chan K'ak', a prince who appears to have been the heir to the throne and who died before he could take power.

Ruler 8 was the last of the successful warrior kings of Toniná. He celebrated a series of events between 789 and 806, including the defeat of Pomoy in 789, and the capture of the ruler Ucha'an Aj Chih, who appears to have been the vassal of B'olon K'awiil of Calakmul. In 799 he rededicated the tomb of Ruler 1. Ruler 8 oversaw an extensive remodelling of the upper levels of the Acropolis. Ruler 8 erected a number of sculptures of bound prisoners of war and adopted the title aj b'olon b'aak, "He of Many Captives". However, the lesser extent of Toniná's power is evident from its victory over the site of Sak Tz'i' (White Dog), an important city in the Lacandon region, an area which had once been dominated by Toniná.

By the time of Ruler 8's successor, Uh Chapat, Toniná was clearly in decline. Only a single event, in 837, can be dated to his reign, although a stucco mural depicting captives with garrottes at their throats may belong to his period of rule.

The history of Toniná continued after most other Classic Maya cities had fallen, perhaps aided by the site's relative isolation. Ruler 10 is associated with a monument dating to 904 in the Terminal Classic and a monument dating to 909 bears the last known Long Count date although the name of the king has not survived. Ceramic fragments indicate that occupation at the site continued for another century or more.

Ritual Cremation of Rulers
Urns containing cremated remains of Mayan rulers discovered in the Temple of the Sun at Toniná, were found to also contain rubber, coal, and roots - materials that make up the rubber balls used in the mesoamerican ball game - leading archeologists to believe that the Mayans of this period in Toniná memorialized their rulers by incorporating their ashes into the ritual game of ball typical of mesoamerican cultures.

Modern history
The first published account of the ruins was made by Fray Jacinto Garrido at the end of the 17th century. A number of visitors investigated the ruins of Toniná in the 19th century, the first being an expedition led by Guillaume Dupaix in 1808. John Lloyd Stephens and Frederick Catherwood visited in 1840, and Stephens wrote an extensive description of the site. Eduard Seler and Caecilie Seler-Sachs investigated the monuments at Toniná, publishing their reports at the turn of the 20th century. Karl Sapper visited the site in 1895 and 1896. Frans Blom and Oliver La Farge investigated the site in 1920s for Tulane University, publishing their reports in 1926—1927.

The French Toniná Project began excavations in 1972 which continued through 1975, then resumed in 1979 to 1980, under the direction of Pierre Becquelin and Claude Baudez. The National Institute of Anthropology and History of Mexico (INAH, the Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia) began their own excavations at Toniná the following year.

The site is accessible for tourism and has a small museum that was inaugurated on 15 July 2000.

Site description

The site was built on a platform covering 6 ha. The principal architecture is located in the acropolis, which occupies seven south-facing terraces on the northern side of the platform, rising 71 m over the plaza below. It has a more distinct geometry than at most Maya sites, with a right-angle relationship between most structures.

Much of the public imagery of the site details the ruthless manner in which the city dealt with its enemies. A 16 by stucco sculpture rising from the fourth to fifth terraces depicts a skeletal death god carrying the severed head of a lord of Palenque in one hand. A frieze on the fifth terrace probably displayed Toniná's most distinguished victims, dozens of fragments of this frieze were discovered in the plaza below. This frieze was carved from the local sandstone but its style is that of Palenque, suggesting that captured artists carried out the work.

After the abandonment of the city at the end of the Classic Period, many of the sculptures fell down the steep embankment supporting the seven terraces.

Structures
Ballcourt 1 (the Sunken Ballcourt) was dedicated in 699 by K'inich B'aaknal Chaak to mark three victories over K'inich Kan Balam II of Palenque. Sculptures of the torsos of six captured vassals of the Palenque king were used as ballcourt markers. One of these vassals is named as Yax Ahk (Green Turtle), who was the lord of Annay Te', a site that probably lay on the south side of the Usumacinta between Piedras Negras and Yaxchilán.

Ballcourt 2 is the smaller of the two ballcourts and lies in the north of the plaza, at the foot of the Acropolis.

The Palace of the Underworld is entered via three step-vaulted arches on the eastern side of the second terrace of the Acropolis.

The Palace of Frets is located on the fourth terrace of the Acropolis. The south facade of the palace is decorated with four large stepped frets. On the east side of the palace a stairway leads to a decorated throne of stone and stucco. One of the rooms of the palace contains a stucco decoration representing feathered serpents and crossed bones.

Monuments and sculptures
The monuments of Toniná tend to be smaller than those at other Maya sites, with most of the stelae measuring less than 2 m tall. The most important difference from monuments at other Maya sites is that they are carved in the round like statues, often with hieroglyphic text running down the spine. On the fifth terrace, in-the-round sculptures of Toniná's rulers dominated two-dimensional representations of defeated enemies.

The dated monuments at Toniná span the period from AD 495 to 909, covering most of the Classic Period.

Monument 3 is broken into various fragments, five of which were recovered from various locations in Ocosingo and Toniná through the course of the 20th century and most of which were reunited in the Toniná site museum. Aside from being broken, the stela is largely complete and only lightly eroded, it is a statue of a ruler with inscriptions describing the accession of K'inich Baaknal Chaak and the promotion to the priesthood of Aj Ch'aaj Naah.

Monument 5 was recovered from a school in Ocosingo and moved to the site museum of Toniná. It is a badly eroded life-size human statue with the head missing.

Monument 7 is carved from yellow sandstone and has suffered only minor damage. It is a stela base with well-preserved hieroglyphs on all four vertical sides and was dedicated by K'inich Ich'aak Chapat in 728. It is currently in the Museo Regional in Tuxtla Gutiérrez.

Monument 8 dates to the reign of Ruler 2. It marks the period ending of 682 and shows the presentation of three war captives.

Monument 12 is a sculpture carved in the round, representing Ruler 2. It dates to AD 672.

Monument 27 is a carved step depicting K'awiil Mo', a lord from Palenque, as an elderly prisoner, bound and lying on his back with his profile positioned in such a way as to be trodden on time and again.

Monument 99 is an undated fragment that depicts a female captive, which is rare in Maya art.

Monument 101 has the last Long Count date from any Maya monument, it marks the K'atun ending of AD 909.

Monument 106 is the earliest securely dated monument at the site, dating to AD 593. It depicts Ruler 1.

Monument 113 depicts Ruler 2 participating in a scattering ritual.

Monument 114 was dedicated in 794 by Ruler 8. It commemorates the death of an important noble, apparently a relative or vassal of Ruler 8's predecessor Tuun Chapat.

Monument 122 is a low relief sculpture marking the defeat of Palenque by Ruler 4 in 711 and the capture of Kan Joy Chitam II, who is depicted as a bound captive.

Monument 141 is a very well preserved hieroglyphic panel carved from fine grained white limestone with almost the whole inscription intact. It describes the dedication of a ballcourt by K'inich B'aaknal Chaak.

Monument 154 dates to the reign of K'inich Hix Chapat and records his installing of two subordinate lords in 633.

Monument 158 has a very late date, in AD 904, at the very end of the Classic Period. It was erected during the reign of Ruler 10.

The Frieze of the Dream Lords (also known as the Frieze of the Four Suns or Frieze of the Four Eras) was uncovered by archaeologists during excavations in 1992. It is a stucco mural located at the east end of the 5th terrace. It represents a complex supernatural scene divided into four by a feather-covered scaffold from which hang the severed heads of sacrificial victims. Among the scaffold partitions are depicted the wayob (spirit companions) of the Maya elite. The most well-preserved section of the sculpture depicts a skeletal supernatural way named Ak Ok Kimi ("Turtle Foot Death") wearing turtleshells on its feet and carrying a severed head in one hand, interpreted as the way of a lord from the site of Pipa'. The frieze was once brightly painted in red, blue and yellow. This frieze has strong stylistic parallels with mural paintings at the great Early Classic metropolis of Teotihuacan in the distant Valley of Mexico.

Site museum
The site museum is located 300 m outside of the Toniná archaeological zone. It possesses 2 exhibition rooms and a conference room. The first room explains the pyramidal form of the acropolis and how it relates to Maya mythology, while the main room contains sculptures of the city's rulers.

Artefacts in the collection include stone sculptures, ceramics and artefacts sculpted from bone, shell, obsidian and flint. The pieces in the museum graphically depict the two sides of the power exercised by Toniná, on the one hand with sculptures of the city's rulers and on the other with its depictions of bound prisoners of war.

title: Toniná


text:
Reston

Reston may refer to:

Places

 * Reston, Florida, an unincorporated community in Florida, United States
 * Reston, Lincolnshire, a parish in England
 * Reston, Manitoba, a small community in southwestern Manitoba, Canada
 * Reston Scar, a fell in Cumbria, England
 * Reston, Scottish Borders, a village in the southeast of Scotland
 * Reston railway station
 * Reston, Virginia, a census-designated place in Fairfax County, Virginia, United States

Other uses

 * Reston (surname)
 * Reston foam, a 3M surgical dressing; see auricular splint
 * Reston Group, a Silurian to Devonian lithostratigraphic group
 * Reston Publishing, a defunct imprint of Prentice Hall
 * Reston virus, a form of Ebolavirus

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

title: Reston


text:
Talk:Subic Bay (disambiguation)

Moriori-- sorry, I keep getting across your edits - not trying to undo them, just a co-ordination problem. I'll lay off this page now. seglea 02:24, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * No probs. Happened to me a couple of times too. I'd have a go at this article but am working on a couple of other new ones. I have removed the space you put at the start of your entry, to make it fit the page width Moriori 02:29, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Subic Bay (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Charles Tupper

Untitled
This page was violated! SD6-Agent 02:41, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wow, three days with no one noticing...thanks, it's fixed now. Adam Bishop 02:42, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This page should be divided up into two sections... showing Tuppers extensive Provincial and Federal careers. Disasternat 20:35PM 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Tupper is very notable in that he had the shortest term as Canadian Prime Minister. This should be directly addressed in the article. --206.116.214.40 21:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There is an incorrect label on the statue of Sir Charles Tupper. The plaster cast statue is said to have been done by W.C. Archibald. This is completely wrong. The statue was done by well known Canadian sculpturer Louis Phillippe Hebert. The name of W.C. Archibald is on the base - it was likely commissioned by him. Hebert's name is on the other side of the base. The statues are somewhat rare, but the origin is widely known. How do I know this? I have one on the other side of my living room. 24.138.27.94 (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Charles NAPIER Tupper??
I can find no source for this middle name of Tupper. Surely he didn't share the middle name of John Turner? Canada Jack 20:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Neither the Dictionary of Canadian Biography or the parliamentary website mention anything about Charles Tupper having a middle name. Unless someone can cite a source that lists his middle name as "Napier," I have omitted it. I believe someone has conflated John Turner's middle name with Tupper - as Turner's middle name is, in fact, Napier. Canada Jack 16:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Image
I'm not sure of the coding to do it myself, but I think it might be better to show the image in the infobox at its own size/resolution-- it looks very "chunky" right now. Stevecudmore (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And fixed. Windjade (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed triva section
I worked most of the informationin the triva section into the rest of the article and removed the section. The only fact I couldn't find a place for is, handily enough, addmitttedly doubious and unsourced, so it goes here until someone finds a source for it:

"According to some reports (discounted by some historians), Tupper was also a notorious womanizer, his nickname 'The Ram of Cumberland' being believed to have a dual meaning."Stevecudmore (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

One source is Nation Maker: Sir John A. Macdonald: His Life, Our Times by Richard J. Gwyn - page 50. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.218.196 (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

MD?
Tupper wouldn't have graduated with an MD from the University of Edinburgh as that institution doesn't grant those. He would have received an MBChB. Trust me, I went there :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilolily (talk • contribs) 16:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Were you there in 1843? 22:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Education
I've undone the addition of secondary school to the infobox; this is more typically limited to postsecondary education, and I don't see a reason to deviate from that practice here. I've also specified that he attended the medical school in Edinburgh. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that there is no reason not to use alma_mater to list a single institution here. Since that institution is explicitly a medical school it makes sense to omit the "M.D." Nikkimaria (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Charles Tupper


text:
Talk:Crookshanks

Questions
What does "Crookshanks is obtained in the third book" mean? Does "obtained in" really mean "appeared"? Moriori 02:42, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC) Hermione buys Crookshanks in the third book, so I guess she "obtained" him.
 * Well, he was obtained by Hermione, isn't that pretty clear? I'll edit the article to say, "...obtained by Hermione Granger".ISAYsorry 21:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Crookshanks is a Kneazle?
I don't recall reading anything about Crookshanks being anything other than an average everyday cat. What is the authors source? For that matter, I don't recall seeing anything about "Kneazles" in the HP series anyway.

I believe it was mentioned on JKR's author page and also in "Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them."-Marira 17:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes. In Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, I do not recall it actually saying that Crookshanks is a Kneazle, but on JKR's website, she states that Crookshanks is a cross between a cat and a Kneazle, and also states that Arabella Figg breeds the two species together.

JKR stated on her website that Crookshanks is 'more than just a cat' and that the answer lies within Fantastic Beasts. Later she outright stated Crookshanks is a Kneazle/cat mix. Wolfie the Marshmallow 16:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

After the third book?
What happens to Crookshanks after the third book? Does he appear again, and does he play a significant role? (I can't remember seeing him for a long time). If so, maybe this should be put into the article. Andymc 13:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Merging into Hermione
I think that Crookshanks should be merged into Hermione's article. Some other pets are merged into their owner's article such as Trevor, Aragog or Fang. Lord Opeth 22:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty obvious, Crookshanks has no notability without Hermione. Judgesurreal777 05:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Crookshanks


text:
Talk:Robot Wars (TV series)

Dubbed version
Did the author really mean to say that they show a dubbed version in Ireland? This sounds like bad vaudeville/music hall humor of 120 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italo Svevo (talk • contribs)

 * Yes, they do, actually. Only the commentary is dubbed. The rest is still in English. Robert Mc Cann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.172.123 (talk • contribs)

Individual Robot Pages
There are so many individual robot pages here that are unwikified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.243.169 (talk • contribs)

 * There has certainly been a lot of innovation carried out by competitors in Robot Wars and the current competitions, but we are still a relatively small group - I'd guess at maybe 200 active combat robot builders in the UK - so I'd be wary of submitting each other's robots in case it counts as self promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.96.152 (talk • contribs)

 * Yeah I took care of that. Considering all except one of the individual robot pages I found were unreferenced and the unwikified pages are all of less notable robots I find it extremely unlikely pages for them would have been made. Unwikified. Freikorp (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Dropped?
Can someone who knows please write why the show was cancelled? I miss the show I would like to know why it stopped. EchetusXe (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

 * The show was removed from broadcast for the same reason most shows are removed: ratings fell off and the network replaced it with a show they hoped would generate greater audience appeal. Run Amok (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Units
Heavyweight: Up to 100 kg or 100 lb? Both are used in the article. Can't both be right. 132.229.116.79 13:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, they can. The earliest Robot Wars event in the US had a 100 pound max weight. This crept up thru a number of iterations to the 100 KG limit in the late UK Robot Wars Run Amok 16:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Er, can you clarify that in the article then? 129.16.97.227 18:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Do note that the weight for walking robots was DOUBLE the maximum weight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.110.52.117 (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

 * The weight limit for heavyweight 'legged' robots was 300 pounds thru the 4th Wars -- that's less than double the 175 pound maximum for wheeled robots at the time. The US Robot Wars started with a 200 pound maximum for legged heavyweights in 1995 which increased to 300 pounds in 1997.Run Amok (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

 * In Series 8 and 9, the limits were 110 kg for wheeled robots, and 135 kg for walking robots. In Series 10, the wheeled limit stayed at 110 kg, but the walker limit was increased to 145 kg. Yakobski42 (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect finalists
someone is changing series 4 finalists. It should be chaos 2 winner, then pussycat runner up, tornado 3rd and dominator 2 4th, hypnodisc and stinger never even made the quaterfinals, check live videos if you dont believe me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.22.33 (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

 * The finalists of Series 4 (AKA - The Fourth War) were Chaos 2 (winner), Pussycat (runner up), Stinger (3rd) and Hypno-Disc (4th). Hypno could'nt actually have a 3rd/4th play-off with Stinger due to the disc being destroyed by Shunt. I should know, I watched the episode two weeks ago! Now, I believe you know all this and are trying to hide vandalism by making this look like a content dispute. Now, you are on a final warning on your account and a only warning on your IP. So please stop this now! John Sloan (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I can back up John Sloan's statement on the finalists in Series 4. Tornado was defeated by Chaos 2 in the quarter finals, and Dominator was defeated by Pussycat in that same round. Hypno-Disk defeated Wild Thing to move into the semi finals, and Stinger defeated Panic Attack. Run Amok (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Blendo
No mention of Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage's winning design with Blendo? --68.45.218.70 (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

IIRC they competed in the American competition which was not shown in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.239.102 (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Broadcast Dates
Where do all the broadcast dates on this page come from? Some of them appear on external sites, but I've been trying to find the others for years and now they suddenly appear here. Is there any verification to confirm the dates? Christophee (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can look on Robot Wars wiki but the broadcast dates are missing for the Third Wars.--The Master of Mayhem 11:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

UK vs US
Why there are the US rules in the section "Format", but still in the header is stated that Robot Wars was a British game show. Seems somehow odd. 82.141.119.188 (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't finish reading that sentence: 'Robot Wars was a British game show modeled on a US-based competition of the same name.' The US rules appear in the section on the origins of the competition.Run Amok (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Now it seems to be differently stated and there reads: The format for the first and second televised U.K. Robot Wars differed radically from the earlier U.S. events. So, no US rules in UK show after all? 85.217.20.33 (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

 * The very first sentence of the article still reads 'Robot Wars is a British game show modeled on a US-based competition of the same name.' The rules changed from the original competition to the TV show. The original rules are linked so that interested parties may discover what has changed and what remains the same. Many people do not realize that Robot Wars has a US origin. Run Amok (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused. The British entry says it's based on the american show and the American show says its based on the British show. Can someone PLEASE correct one or the other?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.116.31 (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

 * The only American "Robot Wars" I can find was first aired in 2002. The UK's Robot Wars first aired in 1998. Seeing as there is no source for this claim, and it seems to be false, I'll remove it.InternationalistChap (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

 * "Robot Wars" was originally a live competition held in San Francisco in the US from 1994 to 1997. The concept was subsequently sold to UK TV producers who turned it into the familiar British TV show. Eventually this led to two American versions of the British TV show: "Robot Wars: Extreme Warriors" and "Nickelodeon Robot Wars". — Stalwart UK  13:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Right, my point was that there was no American version of the TV programme. I get what you're saying, but it sounds weird to me; the first series isn't 'based' on an American competition, it is essentially the filming rights to the Robot Wars Tournament in the UK... It's kind of like saying the TV coverage of the World Cup was modelled on a Brazil-based competition of the same name... It's also just not really relevant in that section, and the article explains the origins of the concept in a later section anyway... I still recommend that the clause is removed, just for ease of reading. It is also still without a reference. InternationalistChap (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that this article is tagged for excessive detail.InternationalistChap (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

who controls house robots?
controled by human or computer (AI)? Are there any rules regarding the action of house robots? When can they fight against the contestants? I saw from videos that house robots often stay still at the beginning of the match and later they begin to move.--Gqqnb (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Human controled, they are supposed to engage only when a contestant is in the 'CPZ' or when a contestant is disabled.

Run Amok (talk) 05:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Human controlled, by a team in constant contact with the producers, and it was not unknown for the producers to give instructions to these controllers to deliberately impact the match — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5A:67F:ED90:6064:B9EB:988E:46AD (talk) 07:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Detail
This page contains a lot of intricate detail, for example on the House Robots and Arena. Granted, it was a very detailed and evolving show, but we mustn't let our nostalgia crowd the rules of WP. However, I would reccomend the fantastic Robot Wars Wiki for limitless knowledge on the series. Chausssettte (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

repeats section?
Is it worth puttng up a mention of repeats. Challenge have aired repeats of series 2 and most recently have started to air repeats of series 5... Visokor (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

No other TV shows have a section on reruns, so no. 86.30.239.102 (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Major Damage?
Was this an actual house robot? No info in the table and i don't remember him. 82.47.31.154 (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

He was used in the Roaming Robots and Robot Wars live tours. 80.111.246.131 (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

PPD3
PP3D is a wide, convertible heavyweight robot, armed with a bottom-mounted flywheel, that competed in the 2016 series of Robot Wars, who's fly wheel nearly sheared off after destroying the scoop on Shunt, despite of a loss of C0 2 .79.77.200.119 (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

"2016 Series" vs "The Eighth Wars" vs "Series 8"
I've noticed this has been changed, and I'm not sure about it. So far, it's been referred to as the 2016 series, in the article as opposed to the 8th Wars or Series 8., and I have to admit that I probably favour it I've not seen anything from the BBC refer to the show as "The Eighth Wars" or Series 8 (there are only very small references to the previous series on screen). As much as I would prefer there to be a clear lineage between S1 and the new one, that has not been referred to either on screen or in publicity to a sufficient extent: as there is no sign yet from anybody (as far as I'm aware) that it is officially known as the 8th Wars or Series 8, I would back returning the article to "2016 Series" or "2016 revival". What do we think? 86.170.252.98 (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer "The Eighth BBC Wars" since it's possible the BBC don't even know the Channel 5 version exists.-- Laun  chba  ller  20:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nah, I disagree: there's been no effort on the BBC's behalf to call it series 8 or anything like that. I favour calling it 2016 Series. Pretty sure the Beeb know the C5 version exists, but even if they did discount it, that would make it the 7th BBC Wars, which just confuses things. 2016 Series or Revived series 1 for me. 92.6.235.14 (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The rules on the official site say "Season 8". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.28.179.129 (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Official teaser put out by BBC Two indicated that the upcoming series is series 9: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Mv_CRw2MfU JCW555 (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

house robot weights?
Shouldn't the house robot weights include both their weights from the original series and their weights from the revival (I mean Killalot nowadays is 741 kilos) Visokor (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really, as its generally not known. The 'published' weights have no basis in reality and were known to be completely made up. There's no sources for the section, and should probably be deleted entirely as unsourced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5A:67F:ED90:6064:B9EB:988E:46AD (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robot Wars (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205043836/http://www.spheretv.com/site/television/game-show/robot-wars.html to http://www.spheretv.com/site/television/game-show/robot-wars.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Reason for second cancellation?
I'm curious, what caused the show to be cancelled a second time?: were the spinner weapons now too powerful for the arena to contain (I remember Aftershock's blade breaking halfway out of the wall while fighting Carbide), or was it the controversy sparked when it was found out Craig Charles wouldn't be hosting again?2600:1700:6841:4980:106A:488A:4E88:E6C4 (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Robot Wars (TV series)


text:
Joseph Proust

Joseph Louis Proust (26 September 1754 – 5 July 1826) was a French chemist. He was best known for his discovery of the law of definite proportions in 1794, stating that chemical compounds always combine in constant proportions.

Life
Joseph-Louis Proust was born on 26 September 1754 in Angers, France. His father served as an apothecary in Angers. Joseph studied chemistry in his father's shop and later went to Paris where he gained the appointment of apothecary in chief to the Salpêtrière. He also taught chemistry with Pilâtre de Rozier, a famous aeronaut.

Under Carlos IV's influence Proust went to Spain. There he taught at the Chemistry School in Segovia and at the University of Salamanca. But when Napoleon invaded Spain, they burned Proust's laboratory and forced him back to France. On 5 July 1826 he died in Angers, France. The mineral proustite (Ag3AsS3) is named in his honour.

Chemistry studies
Proust's largest accomplishment in the realm of science was disproving Berthollet with the law of definite proportions, which is sometimes also known as Proust's Law. Proust studied copper carbonate, the two tin oxides, and the two iron sulfides to prove this law. He did this by making artificial copper carbonate and comparing it to natural copper carbonate. With this he showed that each had the same proportion of weights between the three elements involved (Cu, C, O). Between the two types of the other compounds, Proust showed that no intermediate compounds exist between them. Proust published this paper in 1794, but the law was not accepted until 1812, when the Swedish chemist Jöns Jacob Berzelius gave him credit for it.

There are, however, exceptions to the Law of Definite Proportions. An entire class of substances does not follow this rule. The compounds are called non-stoichiometric compounds, or Berthollides, after Berthollet. The ratio of the elements present in the compound can fluctuate within certain limits, such as for example ferrous oxide. The ideal formula is FeO, but due to crystallographic vacancies it is reduced to about Fe0.95O.

Proust was also interested in studying the sugars that are present in sweet vegetables and fruits. In 1799, Proust demonstrated, to his class in Madrid, how the sugar in grapes is identical to that found in honey.

Works

 * Translated to German in Journal für die Chemie und Physik vol. 1 (1806) p. 249-270
 * Translated to German in Journal für die Chemie und Physik vol. 1 (1806) p. 249-270
 * Translated to German in Journal für die Chemie und Physik vol. 1 (1806) p. 249-270
 * Translated to German in Journal für die Chemie und Physik vol. 1 (1806) p. 249-270
 * Translated to German in Journal für die Chemie und Physik vol. 1 (1806) p. 249-270
 * Translated to German in Journal für die Chemie und Physik vol. 1 (1806) p. 249-270
 * Translated to German in Journal für die Chemie und Physik vol. 1 (1806) p. 249-270
 * Translated to German in Journal für die Chemie und Physik vol. 1 (1806) p. 249-270
 * Translated to German in Journal für die Chemie und Physik vol. 1 (1806) p. 249-270
 * Translated to German in Journal für die Chemie und Physik vol. 1 (1806) p. 249-270
 * Translated to German in Journal für die Chemie und Physik vol. 1 (1806) p. 249-270
 * Translated to German in Journal für die Chemie und Physik vol. 1 (1806) p. 249-270
 * Translated to German in Journal für die Chemie und Physik vol. 1 (1806) p. 249-270
 * Translated to German in Journal für die Chemie und Physik vol. 1 (1806) p. 249-270
 * Translated to German in Journal für die Chemie und Physik vol. 1 (1806) p. 249-270
 * Translated to German in Journal für die Chemie und Physik vol. 1 (1806) p. 249-270
 * Translated to German in Journal für die Chemie und Physik vol. 1 (1806) p. 249-270

title: Joseph Proust