This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.MesoamericaWikipedia:WikiProject MesoamericaTemplate:WikiProject MesoamericaMesoamerica articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article relates to the British Museum. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one, as needed.British MuseumWikipedia:GLAM/British MuseumTemplate:WikiProject British MuseumBritish Museum-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
The artist was careful to show such minute details as the strings that are tied to hold on the wrist cuffs worn by both royals, and the pattern woven on Shield Jaguar’s beautiful cape.
shouldn't that say Lady Xoc's beautiful cape? Shield Jaguar doesn't seem to be wearing one, or at least not one than a pattern can be seen on. --duncan 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article says:"...9.13.17.15.12 5 Eb 15 Mac, or October 28, AD 709... This is only true if you use the discredited Thompson correlation of 584285 days, NOT the mainstream GMT correlation, 584283 days, as used in the Long count article. Also this would have to be in the revisionist Proleptic Gregorian calendar. Shouldn't Wikipedia articles be consistent in these conversions? Senor Cuete (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The British Museum site only gives the Calendar Round, so this only is good for specifying the date in a period of approximately 52 years. Assuming that the Long Count in this article is correct, the date at the British Museum site would be correct if you used the Thompson correlation and the Julian calendar. This would be October 22 using the GMT correlation and the main-stream Julian calendar(used before October 1582). This problem was solved in articles like K'inich Janaab' Pakal by giving the month and noting the Long Count. Perhaps this is the way to go here as well. It would still need a citation. Senor Cuete (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you have one go ahead - there is peabody/harvard page with some info. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found it at Peabody but it appears to me that it only gives a Calendar round: https://www.peabody.harvard.edu/cmhi/detail.php?num=24&site=Yaxchilan&type=Lintel. It looks to me like someone has derived the Long Count. This conversion uses the Thompson correlation and the Julian calendar. Perhaps Wikipedia should standardize some correlation and calendar. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
