Talk:Maya calendar

/Archive 2004–2008

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment

Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—Yamara ✉ 15:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Chac Illustration

I like the new illustration of Chac and Kukulkan from a codex, but I think it doesn't add anything to the article. Is it really about the calendar? Shouldn't it be removed? Senor Cuete (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Prob no particularly strong reason to keep that img on this article. I suppose it illustrates a couple of daysigns as they appear in codex style, but I guess unless there's an accompanying explanation of their function in the codex illus., may not be that useful anyway. Wld be good img for some other more directly relevant article, tho. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll nuke it. Senor Cuete (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Cholq'ij

Are the edits that renamed the Tzolk'in to the Cholq'ij really appropriate? I think not. Just because one group of highlands Maya in Guatemala uses this name, we shouldn't rename it in the article. Tzolk'in is the standard name for this. Also the editor has messed up his edits, adding confusing and misleading information. I vote to change it back to Tzolk'in. Senor Cuete (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

In reading this section, I see that it has much more information than it needs. Most of this should be moved to the separate Tzolk'in article. 14:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Cuete (talk • contribs)

Aw crap. When did that one sneak in? I'd reverted the changes they'd done to the Tzolkin article, but this got missed.

Clearly it's not appte for the anon to unilaterally decide to replace the most commonly applied term in the scholarly literature, with a term from one of the highland languages, favoured by new age mystics perhaps but not employed very much elsewhere. Agree their changes shld be undone, and that the Mayanism / modern divinatory usage bits should go elsewhere besides.--cjllw ʘ TALK 02:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ps. Have commented out the Mayanism/divinatory section. If to be retained, shld prob not be in this article, but another more relevant. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Image:MAYA-g-log-cal-D10-Ok.png

This bot has detected that this page contains an image, Image:MAYA-g-log-cal-D10-Ok.png, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at File:MAYA-g-log-cal-D10-Ok.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Template

May I put this template in the article?Japf (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Today's glyphs in the Maya calendar

B'ak'tun	K'atun	Tun	Winal	K'in	Tzolk'in		Haab'

Hi Japf. Personally I think it still needs some work, wrt layout. I appreciate the work that's gone into it, but maybe we need some more thought on how to make a template calc like this be more versatile, than only displaying today's date (there'd only be limited use for that I wld think). But that's just my opinion. --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi CJLL. I am thinking in construct the whole stella, but that includes a lot of work. It will take a lot of time. But what do you think would be an ideal template?Japf (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

New template

I almost have all the symbols to construct a stella like this.

I accept any suggestions to improve it.Japf (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Japf. This has potential, and thanks. Tho' I still feel those squared-off glyphs are a little too similar to to those created elsewhere, as has been mentioned before. I think you are on the right track though.

One thing before you go too far in development- the glyph imgs would be best in SVG format, that way they can be scaled to other sizes (for eg to reduce so they can fit inline) without loss of clarity; this would be more flexible. Also, each glyph's img boundary should have the same native h x w proportions, including whitespace if necessary -- that way when they do get resized they will still align when stacked or arranged vertically. Or rather, you'd have perhaps two img boundary proportions- one for "main-size" glyphs and another for 'affix-type' glyphs (incl. numbers).--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Cjll

I made these drawings in Paint from Windows, so I couldn't save them in svg format. I made the drawings quite large, so we can enlarge them with no problem. Unfourtunatly I haven't realised that they couldn't get smaller than about 30 px, since the lines become to thin. I can standardize the main-size glyphs h x w proportions, but the numbers and ISIG sign it's more difficult. In respect to the numbers, only the vertical versions of 0 to 5 exist, the other numbers are automatically composed by the template Template:Vertical Maya. I can improve it to afford the spaces properly. The ISIG sign is combination of several glyphs, so they where made with those proportions to fit well with the rest of the stella.Japf (talk) 10:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Since there is the probabililty of problems with copyright, I will redraw the glyphs copying by the Dresden Codex, which doesn't have these problems.Japf (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. This drawing is directly based on a glyph present in the Dresden Codex. If it is similar to something recent it should be coincidence. Therefore no Copyright problems with it.Do you think I may proceed with the others?Japf (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Japf, sorry for the lengthy delays, have been caught up. If these are your drawings based on Dresden glyphs then yes I'd say any CV concerns wld be mollified. --cjllw ʘ TALK 10:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

So, I will continue.Japf (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The stella is now operational. Plese give your opinion.Japf (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Subhead redundant?

Isn't "General overview" a redundnacy? Any overview, by definition, is general. Wouldn't "Overview" say the same thing, without the repetitive quality? -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

5125 solar years

Joe: I'll defer to the experts, but I still think someone should have clarified the section instead of simply reverting my edits. It says now (as it did before),

"In practice, most Maya Long Count inscriptions confine themselves to noting only the first five coefficients in this system (a b'ak'tun-count), since this was more than adequate to express any historical or current date (with an equivalent span of approximately 5125 solar years)."

This is at best confusing, and at worst, wrong. 5125 solar years is about 13 b'ak'tuns, right? That's why 2012 is said to be 13.0.0.0.0. Nowhere in this passage is the particular period named (as in the phrase "19th century") -- and as a consequence, the significance of 5125 (or lack of it) is lost. Any reader coming on this passage for the first time is likely to think that one b'ak'tun is 5125 years, which is incorrect. Read it again, and see if you agree. If you don't agree, please say why. If you do agree, please fix it.Jimbobboy (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But guys like Dougweller need to be sued for their criminal activity of showing favoritsm to false information 5125 solar years would be 3114bc Gregorian August 12 to 2012AD Gregorian August 12 or 3114bc Dec 21 to 2012ad Dec 21. This is fact not original research. Your labeling it solar years is the false original research. THe count is 5200 tun or 13 baktun being 13 of 400 tun. Go ahead and deleted this, a jpg copy has been made, and a million dollar law suit will proceed the minute it is deleted. 98.144.71.174 (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Although 5125 solar years could be equated to 13 baktuns, I am uncomfortable highlighting 13 baktuns. Although in the past it was thought that the highest baktun count was 13, it is now known that the baktun count continued past 13, past 19 baktuns, such that 20 baktuns was 1 piktun. Thus no general term for 13 baktuns exists nor did the Maya think that the world would end at 13.0.0.0.0. On the other hand, the Maya Long Count did begin at 13.0.0.0.0, or more correctly it began at ....13.13.13.13.0.0.0.0, not at 0.0.0.0.0 as New Age astrologers state. Because the Long Count began at 13.0.0.0.0 and it was thought that the highest Long Count was 13.0.0.0.0, the latter was associated with the end of the world. For now, I think it best to remove any reference to 5125 years and to not mention 13.0.0.0.0 in this paragraph. The critical idea in the passage is that multiple baktuns is adequate for most historical purposes. — Joe Kress (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely! The confusing part is the parenthetical comment "(with an equivalent span of approximately 5125 solar years)" that imputes some particular significance to the 5125-year span without saying what it is. Would someone fix this, please?Jimbobboy (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Corrected. — Joe Kress (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Perfect!Jimbobboy (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Lock this article

This article and the Long Count article are getting vandalized about ten times a day and the rest of the recent contributions are mostly un-helpful original research. These articles have been developed over a long time and have become high-quality and stable. Perhaps an administrator should protect or semi-protect these since those of us who patrol them are having to revert malicious editing many times a day. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I've added a request to semi-protect this article to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I don't feel there is enough recent anonymous vandalism for semi-protection of Mesoamerican Long Count calendar. You are free to add your own request if you disagree. — Joe Kress (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

My request was denied due to a lack of enough recent vandalism. — Joe Kress (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I requested semi-protection and now it is semi-protected for ONE WEEK! Senor Cuete (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

The recent spike in vandalism over the last two days was probably enough to approve the request. — Joe Kress (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sirs: There are no Maya Communities in the Mexican state of Oaxaca! Many other portions of your existing Maya Calendar page are clearly in error! Not all who edit Wikipedia pages are ignorant of the literature on the subject. Deleting changes backed by well known and accepted historical sources does not speak well for your editor or your editorial policy. (Sincerly, James B Porter PhD).

James: The reference to Oaxaca was badly written so it sounded to you like it was saying that there are Maya in that state. This was not the intent. What was meant was that some ethnic group was using the Tzolk'in there. I have wondered about that statement. A reference would be very helpful. Otherwise it could be removed. Making massive changes to an article that has been the result of years of consensus building, adding text with almost no reference to reliable sources is not the way to edit Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an argument about whether your degree is bigger than some other editor's. "Not all who edit Wikipedia pages are ignorant of the literature on the subject" so I guess you are implying that you are extremely knowledgeable about this subject. Too bad an argument of authority means nothing. Discussing proposed changes on the talk page before editing it is the best way to improve an article. Don't worry about getting your edits reverted because this is not your article (or mine). If this troubles you, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

These calendars can be synchronized...

"These calendars can be synchronized and interlocked, their combinations giving rise to further, more extensive cycles." This sentence has bugged me for a long time. This is vague and confusing. Who synchronizes and interlocks them? What further, more extensive cycles? What was the author talking about? The only authors that do this are whackos like Callemans and Arguelles, who do this to invent their own new pseudo-Mayan calendars. I'd like to see this sentence removed. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Nobody objected to this proposed edit for three weeks so I went ahead and made it. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

"I’m going to show you a graphic of how these two work together. This is the 260-day (Tzolkin) calendar and here is the 360-day (Tun/"Long Count"). This is the Tzolkin, and that is the Tun and each day on this calendar (Tzolkin) is like a tooth on a gear and there are 260 of them. And right here there are 360 days on the Tun calendar. As this calendar (Tzolkin) turns in this direction (counter-clockwise), it in turn revolves this calendar (Tun in a clockwise rotation). It goes in large cycles. This one (Tzolkin) goes around and around, and this one (Tun) goes around in 360 day increments. Every 52 revolutions of this calendar (Tun), these two teeth match back up. When that happened, it was a very special time in the Mayan civilization. To show you how seriously they took all of this, every 52 Tun they would have a celebration; a big celebration wherein the night before they would put out every fire and every spark in their whole entire civilization. Every bit of fire was extinguished. And was re-lit at the temples the next morning and then distributed by the priests to the people and by runners to the villages. And they spread fire throughout their whole civilization once again. All debts were absolved and they started all over." - quote from Ian Xel Lungold's DVD, Mayan Calendar Comes North. Its all relatives (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ian "Xel" Lungold is not a reliable source. In his lectures he used the completely incorrect Maya calendrics of another fringe "researcher" - Callemans. The "Tun calendar" is a modern made-up invention of Callemans. The rituals you describe did happen, just not at the end of anything in the fictitious "Tun calendar" that Callemans invented. These things happened in the Aztec empire at the end of a Calendar Round completion. The authors of this article fight a never-ending battle to exclude new-age dis-information from inclusion in the article. Please don't edit the article to include the bizarre theories of modern spiritualists like, Lungold, Callemans and Arguelles. Senor Cuete (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Mars, Mercury and Jupiter?

"The Maya also possibly tracked other planets’ movements, including those of Mars, Mercury, and Jupiter." Yes, this is possible but as far as I know there is no actual evidence for this. I think that this sentence should be removed because it's speculation. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Nobody objected to this proposed edit for two weeks so I went ahead and made it. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I think there'd be plenty of credible sources who advocate, in one form or another, that the Maya knew of and tracked all five of the naked-eye planets (Venus being a no-brainer, of course). For eg, various proposals linking Jupiter & Saturn with the 819-day count, Mars (& possibly Mercury) with tables in the Dresden, the accepted identification of the "Mars Beast" glyph, Mercury with the owl iconography, Jupiter with God K, etc. Susan Milbrath's Star Gods of the Maya (1999) is AFAIK the most comprehensive collection and one of the strongest advocates, but there's also Aveni, Ruggles, Bricker, Tate, Justeson, the Tedlocks, Foster, Mathews, Rice and a host of other modern scholars who at one time or another propose planetary identifications in the inscriptions & iconography. So I think there'd be scope to discuss these proposals somewhere, but the question is I guess whether or not this is the right article to do it. What wld be useful to have at some point is an article on Maya astronomy, sadly lacking ATM.--cjllw ʘ TALK 02:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

An article about the correlation question would be good as well so every time someone reads about one of the other 50 or so proposed correlations it wouldn't end up here. I'm too lazy to write it. Senor Cuete (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Just a note that I've copied citation for Susan Milbrath's "Star Gods..." from Tzolk'in entry to here as it is mentioned in above discussion and I believe it a reasonable source for this article.Volpane (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

¶ The Mayan calendar is certainly different from the majority of ancient calendar systems - the Egyptian, the Babylonia, the Hebrew, the Chinese, the Druid, etc. - which involved either the solar year or the lunar year or a combination of both, since the Mayans seemed (more or less) indifferent to the solar year, and instead seemed to pin their calendar on astronomical events that did not relate to the earthly cycles. But it should be kept in mind that the Mayans, occupying the lush jungles near the equator, would not have noticed or been concerned about the usual change of seasons that is more conspicuous nearer the poles. Sussmanbern (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Re-dating

Andreas Fuls (Technische Universität Berlin) found substantial proof that the Maya calendar was dated 208 years off. Apparently there were 3 astronomic things happening at the same time on 19.12. AD 830. Which the Mayans recorded in their documents as well. Year 2012 theories become year 2220 theories due to this re-dating. I'm sorry that the only references I found are german. -- A reader who checked to see whether Wikipedia knows this already --80.219.140.57 (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The major part of the mayanists agree with one of the GMT correlations. If the correlation of Fuls is true, and can be proved, the other mayanists can change their minds. It is only possible for wikipedia change the correlation after the experts are convinced, and not before that. For now, we can only say that there are some people who disagree with GMT correlations.Japf (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

See Mesoamerican Long Count calendar where the correlation problem is discussed. The Fuls proposal is included there among others.Japf (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Template almost finished

Hello

Please give your opinion about the Template:Maya stela in its discussion page.Japf (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"distinct, and precise"

The first sentence reads "The Maya calendar is a system of distinct, and precise calendars and almanacs..." do the words "distinct, and precise" add anything to the article? Of course the calendars are unique so they have to be distinct. Isn't it redundant to use the word "unique"? As far as precise goes, the Long Count, Tzolk'in and Haab' only count a number of days as integers so they are precise but isn't this also redundant? The astronomical observations in the supplementary series are precise (carefully observed) but not accurate (which is what I think the editor intended) by modern standards. Don't these adjectives make the sentence wordy? Wouldn't removing these adjectives be more concise and better style? Senor Cuete (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Nobody objected to this proposed edit for two weeks so I made it. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Haab'

' Haab'months: names in glyphs in sequence

No. Seq.	Name of month	Glyph example	meaning	No. Seq.	Name of month	Glyph example	meaning
1	Pop		mat	10	Yax		green storm
2	Wo'		black conjunction	11	Sak'		white storm
3	Sip		red conjunction	12	Keh		red storm
4	Sotz'		bat	13	Mak		enclosed
5	Sek		?	14	K'ank'in		yellow sun
6	Xul		dog	15	Muwan'		owl
7	Yaxk'in'		new sun	16	Pax		planting time
8	Mol		water	17	K'ayab		turtle
9	Ch'en		black storm	18	Kumk'u		granary
				19	Wayeb'		five unlucky days

Please, give your opinion about this table. Close your doors, and hide below your beds, because we are in the Wayeb'.Japf (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I will wait another week. After that I will post the table in the article.Japf (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Having the glyphs as well as the names and meanings would be better than the table that is there now, but the glyphs are poor. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

They were made by myself. The white and black pictures were made from the Dresden codex, and many details had to be imagined because the quality was poor. The coloured pictures were taken from a picture from the commons and were very little. There are lots of better pictures but they are subjected to copyright. Japf (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Japf: You can download glyphs from the codices here: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/18973. These are in the public domain and you can use them in the Haab' table. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Hello Senõr Cuete

I know that source, and in fact I tried to use it, but I only have identified 9 glyphs, because they are referred in the text. My lack of knowledge about Maya writing doesn't allow me to identify the symbols. If you can help me to search other glyphs in the plates, It would be great.

Until now, I found in plate LXV Cumhu (fig7), Pax (22) and kankin (63).

plate XLVIII: Ceh (44), Zac (48)

plate LXIV: Mac (4), Yax (12), Mol (50), Xul (56)

Japf (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but any identification of glyphs needs to be clearly based on a cited reliable source, no self-translations please. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I only copied what's written in the present article. Japf (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Doh! Sorry, so I assume they are all from Kettunen and Helmke. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sotz' also spelt "Zotz", is an alternate name for Camazotz a bat-demon/god and apparently one of the Nine Lords of the Night, as mentioned in the section of the article. We should link it to his/its main article. 207.216.208.68 (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

External links

I think these need clearing up - it isn't enough just to be a calendar to be a link. Dougweller (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy new Tun

Hello

January 1st, 2011 is by coincidence the beginning of a new gregorian year, and also the beginning of new tun. The lasts years that happened were 1805 and 1599 (Gregorian).Japf (talk) 12:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Added a description of the year bearers

I added a description of the year bearers. These were very important in the post classic cultures. In Time and the Highland Maya, Tedlock describes their use my modern maya communities in Guatemala. I'll look this up and see which system they use and add a citation. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

New division "Combination of Tzolk'in and Haab' " created

I am sorry for not having explained the reason for combining two existing paragraphs into a new division. The main reason is that the Year Bearer and 52-Day Cycle sections are not on the same hierarchical level as the Tzolk'in and Haab' sections. By regrouping the two first sections, a new division is created that is on a par with the two latter sections. Another reason is that the Year Bearer section was in between Long Count and Short Count, where it simply did not belong.Retal (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason to create a new heading for "Combination of Tzolk'in and Haab' ". The combination of These two cycles is called the calendar round and it already has a heading. It makes sense to describe these two first and then describe the calendar round. Your edit also makes the year bearer a sub heading of the calendar round, which it isn't. There is no such thing as "Combination of Tzolk'in and Haab' " - this is referred to by sources as the calendar round. By making calendar round a sub heading of "Combination of Tzolk'in and Haab' ", you made it a sub heading of itself. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

True, the Calendar Round section gives the specifics of the combination of Tzolk'in and Haab'. However, I also suggested a new division to give the discussion of the Year Bearers its proper place; for why should it be wedged in between the Supplementary Series of the Long Count and the Short Count, as it is now? So, if you don't want to create a new overarching section called "Combination of Tzolk'in and Haab'", of which the Calendar Round would be the resulting, specific form, then I think one should integrate the year bearer discussion into the Calendar Round section. Agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retal (talk • contribs) 19:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem confused about the calendar round. It's not a "specific form of the "Combination of Tzolk'in and Haab'" it *IS* the combination of Tzolk'in and Haab'. Read the article. The year bearer is not really a part of the calendar round but is derived from it. You describe the Supplementary series as "Supplementary Series of the Long Count" which it isn't. It's its own data - not derived from the Long Count. It might make sense to make the year bearer a sub-heading of Calendar round. The problem in organizing the article is that you can't really tell the reader how the calendar round works before you describe the Tzolkin and Haab since they are combined to make up the calendar round. There might be two ways you could organize the article:

1. Describe it the way it appears on a Stela. ISIG>Long Count>Tzolk'in>Haab>supplementary series and then describe the parts that aren't on a typical stela: year bearer, 819 day cycle and Venus cycle and note that the short count was in use by the post-classic Maya at the time of the conquest. I see that the ISIG is not described in the article. Perhaps this should be added.

2. The order of apparent importance to the people of Mesoamerica: Tzolkin>Haab (calendar round) > year bearer > Long Count and the other stuff. This is more or less how it's organized now.

In my opinion neither of these is a particularly great idea - The organization is good enough. Maybe it would make sense to make the year bearer a sub head of the calendar round.Senor Cuete (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I have created a new division "Interlocking of Tzolk'in and Haab'", since unlike "Calendar Round", this caption immediately shows what the division is about; moreover, the Calendar Round is an effect of the Interlocking, rather than being identical with it. I removed the reference to the main article "Calendar Round", since in my view, this article is redundant. I also removed some details about combinations of day signs and coefficients of haab' dates that would only be interesting for specialists.Retal (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

ISIG

Neither this article nor the Long Count article mentions the fact that Classic inscriptions are inscribed as rows of two glyphs in columns and that they are introduced by an Introductory Series Introductory Glyph that spans both columns. The illustrations don't show this. I would like to add this information and a description of the glyphs that make up an ISIG and the patron deity of the Haab' month that appears in the center. I am wondering where in the hierarchy of the article(s) this would go and if it would be useful to upload an illustration of a typical complete classic inscription to show this. I can't find a good one on Wikimedia. I'll put this in the talk of the Long Count as well. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Reversion of edits by Retal

Retal: I reverted your edits to the article. I didn't want to do it because it feels rather heavy handed. It's not any more so than your unnecessary re-write of the article. The article has been here in its more or less present form for a long time and nobody has thought it needed a very heavy make over as you did. Your edits contain factual problems like your assertion that the the Calendar Round is not the same thing and the combination of the Tzolkin and Haab. Your rewrite of the Year bearer section contains less information than the old one. You are a terrible writer and your writing about things like how the Tzolkin and Haab are combined to produce the Calendar Round is awkward, wordy and less readable than the text you replaced. I suggest that you register as a Wikipedia editor and discuss proposed changes like the ones you want to make to the article here. I don't completely like the article either; for example if I were writing it, I would combine the Long Count article with this one and remove sections like the ones that tell how to make the calculations and the Maya concepts of time. I haven't done this because other editors wrote most of the articles and I respect their right to contribute what they want as long as it isn't un-helpful poor quality stuff like yours. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

You behave as if you own this article! You have no right to delete my contribution as a whole without giving me a chance to react to your arguments or to make amends where necessary. I will show that your arguments are both mistaken and offensive. (1) Nobody changed it the way I did. - This amounts to the argument that any major change is a dubious change, which is plain nonsense. Moreover, I don't see a "very heavy makeover"; I just brought together what belongs together and I tried to bring more coherency to the text. (2) I asserted that the Calendar Round is not the same thing and [? did you mean to say "as"?] the combination of the Tzolkin and Haab and this assertion is wrong. - I stated that the CR is the result of the interlocking of tzolk'in and haab', which is what you will find in any serious treatment of the CR.(3) My new text contains less information than the text I replaced. - It is true that I removed (a) unnecessary arithmetical details that could only be of interest to specialists and (b) untrue assertions, such as "the end of the Calendar Round was a period of unrest and bad luck among the Maya." I did so to get the basic things back into focus. For example, I explained why the YB were so important to the Mayas. I also added references. (4) My writing is (a) awkward, (b) wordy, (c) difficult to read. Since you give no examples, and make no effort to suggest improvements, these assertions are mere insults. If you don't come up with something more serious and constructive, I will feel free to undo your move. I also made it clear to you that the Year Bearer section was in the wrong place; you did not tell me why I should be wrong in this.Retal (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason that nobody thought that the article needed to be re-structured is because it was correct the way it was. Your assertion that the Calendar round is not the combination of the Tzolk'in and Haab demonstrates fundamental ignorance of this subject. No, no source treats the Calendar Round as anything other that the Tzoklkin and Haab. Since you insist that they are somehow different from themselves, this is original research which is not allowed in Wikipedia. I didn't contribute the text about the Calendar Round completion being baleful but I felt comfortable leaving it because I knew that for the post-classic cultures it was a huge thing - for example the extinguishing of the fires in Mexico-Tenochtitlan. What you wrote about this confused me and seemed to indicate that you think that it didn't occur on 4 Ahau 8 Kumku - again original research. The older section about the year bearer was more complete, clear and concise than the one you added - for example it explained all four year bearer systems and why they included four year bearers and the fact that they are still important to living cultures in Mexico and Guatemala. The only thing I could be luke warm about was the inclusion of an explanation about the significance of the year bearers. I thought about adding this but I felt that it should be in the Maya calendar divination article. You could boil this down to one well written sentence and add it to the article. An example of awkward wordy writing was the over-written text following the new heading about the Combination of the Tzolkin and Haab. The text describing the fact that only some combinations of the Tzolkin and Haab can occur is actually quite useful because if you look at supposed Maya calendar sites (including some maya calendar related articles on Wikipedia) many of the supposed calendar round dates can't occur. You say that this is not relevant to anyone except technical types. So who do you think we are writing for? I guess we're writing a technical article for non-technical people. Do you really think you can tell who will read the article? As far as saying that I think I own this article, I have gone out of my way not to act like I own it. I've let parts of it stay that I would never allow if it was mine and I've discussed proposed changes on the discussion page (like the inclusion of a description of the ISIG that's on this discussion page now). If you look at my contributions you will see that I've made hundreds of edits to this article and none have ever been reverted because they are clear, concise and factual and supported by citations. I have also refrained from making edits that I wanted because other editors talked me out of it. I want this to be a good article and this means reverting terrible edits like the ones you made and vandalism, which your edits almost are. YOU on the other hand seem to think YOU own the article because YOU feel free to make major changes to the article without discussing them and add them again when other editors tell you not to on the discussion page. Welcome to Wikipedia. If you make bad edits to an article, they will be reverted. If this makes you as furious as you sound, they you should go play elsewhere. Later retal. Senor Cuete (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Cuete, I have obviously been too rash. Let’s talk constructively. I suggest the following compromise, taking the text as it is now as our starting point. We bring together CR and YB in a new division called "CR and YB", so that we can lay our quarrel regarding combination, or ínterlocking, of Tzolk'in+Haab' and CR to rest. Then, in section 1, CR: (1a) We add an arithmetical explanation for the duration of the CR; (1b) we remove the passage about unrest and bad luck at the end of a CR; (1c) we make a slight change of wording: haab' coefficient > month coefficient, since the haab' itself has no coefficient, and we add a source reference. In section 2, YB: (2a) We make a change of wording: “If the first day of the Haab' is 0 Pop then each 0 Pop…” > “The first day of the Haab’ is called 0 Pop. Each 0 Pop…”; (2b) we add my paragraph about the YB being a translated Maya concept and about the reasons for the YB’s importance; (2c) we add my paragraph about the YB in the Highlands, Yucatan, DC, and the Classic Period; (2d) IF we talk about the Aztec New Fire ceremony at all, we make it clear that this ceremony took place at the CR’s of a YB (2 Acatl); (2e) we change the final paragraph, since as it is now, I can hardly understand it; moreover, we need references to literature here. Please let me know what you think about these amendments.Retal (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me take some time to look at the text as it is and study your proposed edits. Let me start with new fire: What I've read about Aztec mythology is that new fire happened on a Calendar Round Completion - in this case Tuesday July 6,1512 (Julian). I've never heard of it being on a year bearer. The only Aztec myth concerning a 2 Reed year that I've ever heard of is the legend that Topiltzin would return during a 2 Reed year. Malinalli knew this and told Cortez about it and that it was a 2 Reed year. He was happy to use this to convince the Mexicans that he was a god. This is described in the histories of the conquest. I think you are either confused about your Aztec history or reading an un-reliable source. If you can site some reliable source like Sahagun or Duran I'll believe it. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Hill Boone, Cycles of Time and Meaning, p. 17: "the Aztecs held the New Fire Ceremony and ushered in a new 52-year cycle in the year they called 2 Reed"; p. 255 note 18: "The Aztecs used to drill the new fire in the year 1 Rabbit; but because that year was always difficult for them (often being a year of famine), Moctezuma moved the New Fire Ceremony to 2 Reed" (from a gloss in the codex Telleriano-Remensis (4IV). The fear and unrest preceding an Aztec New Fire ceremony may thus have coincided with the 5 nemontemi, and this coincidence may have led to the bizarre statement in the article, that fear and unrest preceded "the" Calendar Round (CR of which day?) among the Maya. It should be made clear that a Calendar Round is not the same as a New Fire cycle.Retal (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The current creation started on 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ahau 8 Kumku - Monday September 6, -3113 (Julian astronomical). The Calendar Round repeated every 18980 days. This is a Calendar Round Completion. A Calendar Round Completion occurred on 11.14.12.5.0 Ahau 8 Kumku - Tuesday July 6, 1512 (Julian). This was during the reign of Moctecuzoma II which lasted from 1502 to 1520. A 2 Reed year bearer occurred on 11.14.19.7.1 3 B'en 1 Pop Saturday July 23, 1519 (Julian). If Hill is correct then the Aztec new fire ceremony did not happen on a Calendar Round Completion. The sentence "The end of the Calendar Round was a period of unrest and bad luck among the Maya, as they waited in expectation to see if the gods would grant them another cycle of 52 years.[citation needed]" was probably added by an author who was confusing it with the unlucky days of Uayeb. Since a citation has not appeared for a long time, it is probably a good idea to delete it. The Aztec new fire should probably not be mentioned in this article. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I will delete the sentence concerned. I hope you will soon consider the other proposed edits as well.(In connection with point (2a) above, we should probably also mention the discussion as to whether the YB falls on 0 Pop or on 1 Pop.) By the way, I am not familiar with the expression 'Calendar Round Completion'; do you mean the CR 'anniversary' of a given base date?Retal (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the Calendar Round section is worthless. It says "Neither the Tzolk'in nor the Haab' system numbered the years." What year is the author talking about? I suppose it means that there was no system to count the Haab' years. Then the second sentence is very POV. Who says it was sufficient for most people? Maybe it should say that for fixing a date in a longer period of time the Long Count was used. Also a parenthetical expression could mention that 52 Haab' years is 18980 days. The current creation started on 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ahau 8 Kumku. When another 4 Ahau 8 Kumku occurred a 52 Haab' year Calendar Round was completed. This was a big deal for the Maya. I'll look at the Year Bearer Section. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I think that you are more or less correct about changing the hierarchy of the part of the article about the Calendar Round. I think it should look like this

Calendar Round

text describing the calendar round as an18980 day cycle made up of the Tzolkin and Haab

Tzolkin

Tzolkin text

Haab

Haab text

Calendar Round Completion

text describing a Calendar Round Completion

Year Bearer

Year Bearer Text

Notice that this makes the Year Bearer a sub-heading of Calendar Round.

Also an interesting piece of original research - as I recall the accounts of the conquest describe the fact that Cortez arrived during a 2 Reed year. 1519 is only a Reed year if one uses either the Campeche or Mayapan Year Bearer system. The problem with this is that the coefficient of the Year Bearer will be 3 with the Campeche system and 4 with the Mayapan system. I'm wondering if I'm remembering this wrong or if the Aztec empire used a fifth system. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Retal - concerning your other suggestions. If you really feel that it improves the article you could put in the text explaining that 18980 is the LCD of 260 an 360. Personally I prefer to say that the Calendar Round repeats itself every 18980 days or 52 Haab years. I think it's enough. Yes, the Haab DOES have a coefficient 0-19. What do you mean? Text explaining what the Year Bearer means can be plagiarized, with a citation, from Tedlock. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Cuete, I have now made the YB a subheading of the CR section and removed the sentence "Neither the Tzolk'in nor the Haab' system numbered the years." Plagiarizing is not my style, using and rephrasing existing information is another thing. I will keep working on this article and I´ll keep you informed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retal (talk • contribs) 22:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Cuete: I have made the following new changes: (1) A rephrasing of the paragraph introducing the CR. Originally, we had: "Because the two calendars, Tzolk'in and Haab', were based on 260 days and 365 days respectively, the whole cycle would repeat itself every 52 Haab' years exactly." In this sentence, "the whole cycle" had not been previously mentioned, so that the reference missed its mark. Therefore, the new paragraph starts by explicitly stating that the two calendars together constitute a new cycle. Also, a reason is now given for the duration of the CR. (2) A paragraph explaining why the Mayas should pay such attention to the first day of the year. (3) Additional references, including Coe 1965 and B. Tedlock.Retal (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Retal: You should try to write clear, concise, simple declarative English without all of those parenthetical expressions. It would be much easier to see what you've done if you would edit a section once instead of doing it as a series of small edits. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Headings Haab' schema

I slightly changed the headings in the Haab' schema to preclude a possible misunderstanding: the given meanings are generally NOT those of the Post-Classic Yucatec month names, but of the glyphic Classic month names! Even so, ambiguities remain: e.g., 'Mat' is certainly not the translation of the glyph, but of the Yucatec name! This matter remains to be clarified.77.162.130.139 (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable source

I removed the text about the Aztecs believing that the world would end on 12/21/2012, citing Susan Evans because it's half correct. The part about the Aztecs believing that we live in the fifth sun is correct. However she then goes on to say that the Maya thought that the fifth sun would end on 13.0.0.0.0. This is wrong. It's specifically debunked in this article and the one about the Long Count. There's exactly *NO* evidence for this and a lot of evidence to the contrary in the form of distance inscriptions which use 20 Baktuns to make a Piktun. If anybody can come up with any evidence for a Mayan doomsday prophesy I'd like to see it and I'd like to see where Susan Evans found this in the form of her footnotes or other research other than hearsay. In absence of this I think she is an unreliable source. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

The Comalcalco brick is a hoax

The Comalcalco brick is NOT a reference to 13.0.0.0.0. First of all, here is a drawing of the brick: http://www.thecenterfor2012studies.com/comalcalco-brick.jpg. The Calendar round is clearly 4 Ahau 3 Xul. Supposedly this is the same Calendar Round as the one that will occur on 13.0.0.0.0. Unfortunately the Calendar Round on 13.0.0.0.0 will be 4 Ahau 3 K'ank'in. In addition, David Stuart is saying that the next glyph is a verb that uses the present tense so this has nothing to do with any future Calendar Round. When I search for information about Comalcalco I find a whole bunch of bizarre pseudo-scientific sites that claim that it was built by the Romans, the Hindus, etc., etc. Assuming that it is a classic period site, the brick in question refers to Sunday April 12, 873, Thursday April 25, 821 or Monday May 8, 769 (Julian dates). The anthropologist at INAH was reporting on a paper that was not yet published and was wrong. The media reports about this are just more dis-information related to the hysteria surrounding the new-age 2012 doomsday Hoax. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

This was already debunked in Sven Gronemeyer and Barbara MacLeod’s 2012 paper on Tortuguero Monument 6, which last year referred to this Comalcalco brick, along with Erik Boot’s suggestion of a 2012 connection, and Marc Zender’s critique of this idea: http://www.wayeb.org/notes/wayeb_notes0034.pdf (see the bottom of page 8 and top of page 9 for the discussion of the Comalcalco brick in which Zender confirms that it is 3 Xul and suggests that it represents a date of 9.16.18.5.0 4 Ahau 3 Xul - Monday May 8th 769 (Julian)). Zender also discusses this here: http://famsi.org/pipermail/aztlan/2010-July/007528.html Senor Cuete (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Leap year

How does this calendar maneges leap years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.239.43.223 (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Read the article. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

'Grand Long Count'

The article does not take into account the fact that the Long Count is an abbreviated notation of a more encompassing count that has been termed 'Grand Long Count' by David Stuart (Order of Days, pp. 229ff). Whether one uses this term or not, is immaterial; it is the wider perspective that is important, and that should be formulated by the article, whether as part of the Long Count section, or otherwise. Some of the information used in the 'Mesoamerican Long Count Calendar' (much less consulted than the present article!) should probably go into this article as well. Just giving the (contrived) names of four 'higher-order cycles' is clearly not enough; and just removing a sensible contribution without considering the issue at hand is unacceptable. 77.162.130.139 (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

David Stuart has invented a new term for the Long Count that would not be recognized by anyone that has not read his book. Does the article need to adopt this? I think not, particularly in the light of his apparent blunder in understanding the greater cycles of the Long Count. The article does mention the named longer cycles of the Long Count by including the table. In my opinion, duplicating material in the Long Count article is a bad idea. Really the two articles should be combined in a single more concise one. The biggest problem with what David Stuart has written is that if what you wrote is correct, he believes that there are 13 lower cycles in all of the higher cycles of the Long Count. This is ABSOLUTELY WRONG. If this was correct then the approaching completion of the 13th bak'tun would be followed by 1.0.0.0.0.0, not 13.0.0.0.0. The table in this article is correctly based on the fact that there are 20 lower cycles in the higher orders. You can also see this in the text of the Piktuns and higher orders section of the Long Count article. All distance inscriptions and long reckonings are based on having 20 lower cycles make up the next highest cycle. If Mr. Stuart really says what you wrote in the article he has made a huge blunder. Remember that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and if you are correct then his book is not reliable. He's not the first epigrapher to fail when stepping outside of his field of expertise - he's following in the footsteps of Schele, Friedel and Lounsbury. It's always a good idea to discuss significant changes to an article on the talk pages before making them. Reverting dubious contributions and asking the author to discuss them on the talk pages is hardly unacceptable. You should register as a Wikipedia editor. This gives you additional anonymity and creates a talk page for other editors to discuss such things with you, etc. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Sandra Noble

The Sandra Noble quote makes this factual article part of a controversy from which it should stay away as far as possible. Moreover, one cannot see why Mrs. Noble should be mentioned at all.77.162.130.139 (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not, in any way, Wikipedia's job to shy away from controversy — simply to take a neutral point of view when documenting controversial topics. Moreover, Ms. Noble is a credentialed authority in a field covering the topic of the article, and has been quoted from published and documented third-party sources. So, I don't see how you could argue for the exclusion of a quote presenting her thoughts on exactly the subject of this article.

If you think her quote introduces bias into the article, or that the article fails to present an opposing viewpoint equally, then feel free to add content based on equivalent independent, published source material which rounds out the article's coverage. — FeRD_NYC (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 discussion is fully covered by a separate article. The quote should be removed for the following reasons: (1) It is redundant, since the preceding paragraph of the text already makes the point; (2) it gives unnecessary emphasis to the 2012 non-issue; (3) it gives undue focus to the person of Sandra Noble and the organization she represents.77.162.130.139 (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

So you went ahead and removed the quote. Despite at least one objection. (Perhaps two, if you count Infrogmation's query, below, as a vote against there being any problem with its inclusion.) And despite the fact that no editor spoke up who concurred with your assessment, not following your original post nor after I disagreed. That doesn't strike me as a very strong consensus model. But I'm not going to edit-war to "defend" Ms. Noble's honor or something, since it appears there's some sort of very strong, unexplained issue with her / her organization lurking behind your IP address. I officially "whatever" out of the conversation.

(Note: Apologies to Infrogmation for continuing to insert new comments above yours; it doesn't feel quite natural to me, but I'm continuing the locally-established convention. Perhaps your bulleted question was intended to initiate a thread of conversation separate from my response. If not, feel free to re-work this section per WP:TPOC.) -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• What is supposedly "controversial" about the quote? -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that there is no controversy that the "Maya end of the world" is a fabrication as Sandra Noble stated. The paragraph should be in the text, but perhaps we may change it in the way it doesn't cite names in the main text. I suggest somethink like this:

Mayanists note that "for the ancient Maya, it was a huge celebration to make it to the end of a whole cycle", and the portrayal of December 2012 as a doomsday or cosmic-shift event to be "a complete fabrication and a chance for a lot of people to cash in."<ref>Sandra Noble, executive director of the Mesoamerican research organization Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc.(FAMSI) as quoted in USA Today (MacDonald 2007).</ref> Japf (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion, Japf, additional points of view are always helpful and welcome in attempting to build consensus.

Regarding the article copy you've proposed, though, I can't say I'm in favor of it — it seems to me even more problematic than the original quote. (Of course, I really don't see a problem with the original form, so that's not saying much.) Attributing a view to "Mayanists" feels weasel-wordsy, I'd be likely to toss in a {{Who}} tag myself if I was to come across that passage in an article.

And that's sort of exactly the point — taking a quote by one person (however qualified in the subject matter), expressing what's clearly her personal interpretation/analysis, and representing it as a common or widely-held view smacks of synthesis. It's better, by Wikipedia standards, that specific individuals' views be represented as their views, rather than being generalized. Combatting that generalization is pretty much the very reason the {{Who}} family of tagging templates exist. FeRD_NYC (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I also think that the original text is better than the one proposed by be. I was trying to propose an alternative.Japf (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I suport putting it back in since the IP editor that removed it didn't discuss the change, all the editors here support it and nobody has supported his edit here. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Senor cuete

(outdent) Well, alright. Now we've got a ball game. As I previously indicated, I wasn't willing to engage in a potential "duck season!" / "wabbit season!" back-and-forth with the mysterious 77.162.130.139, since at that point the issue here amounted to little more than a difference of opinion between the two of us, one on each side. But now, three different editors (myself included) have directly stated that they find the original text acceptable/preferable. Furthermore, as Senor Cuete most recently pointed out, not a single editor has spoken up to offer even weak agreement with 77.162.130.139's concerns, or to express support for the deletion of the Noble quote. Therefore, I'm willing to call consensus on this issue.

As I interpret our discussion here, meaningful consensus has emerged indicating: The other editors acknowledge 77.162.130.139's concerns, but for the most part do not share them. We find nothing in the contested copy that represents a significant policy concern, or would necessitate its expulsion from the Maya calendar article.

If any editor wishes to address specific points of policy regarding the current text, they are encouraged to be bold in improving it (preferably, with explanatory edit summary), and/or to explain the nature of their objection here and solicit input from other editors.

For the moment, however, I'm going to proceed in the manner Senor Cuete suggests, specifically by reversing (without prejudice) the good-faith edit by 77.162.130.139 which deleted Ms. Noble's quote. For the time being, the restored text will stand as-is (or as-was). Many thanks to everyone who took the time to share their thoughts here. -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 08:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Northward Equinox

HTML2011 - nobody except you ever heard of the "Northward equinox". In astronomy the equinoxes are called the vernal and autumnal equinoxes. You are free to invent a new term for these for your own use, but please don't vandalize the Maya calendar article by putting this in it. Senor Cuete (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Origin of the Tzolkin - Jose Merida

As far as I can determine, Jose S. Merida is not a mathematician, he is a lay preacher. The length of the tropical year is 365.2422 days. The average length of the cycle of the appearance of Venus is 584 days. Four years is +/- 1461 days. How can you multiply 584 times an integer and get something like 1461 days? 584 * 3 = 1752. "Venus wouldn't be visible during the Vernal equinox due to its proximity to the sun every fourth year"? - nonsense. This looks like unreferenced baloney from an unreliable source to me. When did that get added? I want to remove it. Senor Cuete (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I think you are right. The most approximate cycle is eight years not four, but even this is not exact. If a period of non visibility of venus occurs around the vernal equinox in a particular year, eight years later that would occur again, but it would slightly deviate, and around a few decades later Venus would be visible during the vernal equinox.Japf (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You should try using some planetarium software. It's true that Venus will be too close to the sun to be visible from Mesoamerica during the vernal equinox in 2013, 2017, 2021, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.47.173 (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Close to the sun is not the same as invisible. I'll have to look it up but I think that Venus can be observed something like two days before or after conjunction so it could be close to the sun but not invisible on the equinox in the years you cite. According to my planetarium program you are correct that Venus will be close to the sun on the vernal equinox in 2013, 2017 and 2021 but not every four years before or after that. It was't close in 2001 or 2009 and it will be quite far every four years ahead of the years you mention until at least 2051. I also randomly chose 600 and found that Venus was close to the sun on the equinox in 601 but not in 597 or 605 or during the years 602-605. It appears that what you say about the correlation between the position of Venus and the vernal equinox is not true. In any case Wikipedia is about reliable sources and references and doesn't allow original research. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Please see [[1]].

The Conjunction of Venus with the Sun happened at march 30th 2001 (9 days after the solstice, so Venus was visible). The conjunction it will be exactly in the of the equinox in 2033, and by the end of century will happen in the beginning of march. So has I stated before, every four years (yes, I said eight) the dates of conjunction repeat, but with slightly deviations which do not allow generalisations for a large period of time. So, the idea of José Mérida is wrong, unless he knew exactly when the Maia calendar was made. Japf (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

New finds

See http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6082/714

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/science/archaeologists-unearth-ancient-maya-calendar-writing.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=xultun-mayan-calendar

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/05/120510-maya-2012-doomsday-calendar-end-of-world-science/

http://news.discovery.com/history/mayan-calendar-discovery-doomsday-120511.html

http://phys.org/news/2012-05-ancient-maya-calendar.html

http://artdaily.com/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=55294

http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Team-with-Skidmore-archaeologist-makes-major-3549108.php

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0511/Mayan-calendar-discovery-suggests-world-might-not-end-in-2012

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0511/Oldest-Mayan-calendar-found-and-it-goes-way-beyond-Dec.-12-2012-video

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18018343

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ancient-mayan-workshop-for-1435307.html

http://spacewatchtower.blogspot.com/2012/05/ancient-mayan-workshop-for-astronomers.html

http://news.yahoo.com/earliest-mayan-calendar-shows-no-hint-world-end-185153809.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/in-guatemala-never-before-seen-mayan-artwork-is-discovered/2012/05/10/gIQAPic5FU_gallery.html

Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That's nice but the question is: How do these contribute to the article? Should the article be edited to include every new news article about this subject as it's released? If this was so the article would have been edited to include the fiasco about the Comalcalco brick and then it would have been retracted. Are recent news releases relevant to this subject? Senor Cuete (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

This article - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120510141953.htm has a good description of what's really there. The links you provided are great examples of the fact that the popular media generally get it wrong and sensationalize stories like this one. For example they say that this is the "Oldest 'Mayan' calendar". Senor Cuete (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

K'ib' or Kib'

Two Tzolk'in names K'ib' and Kib' are used within this article - should there be only one spelling? Other pages in Wikipedia use Kib'. (Copyeditor42 (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC))

There are various spellings of these names in different references. According to the notes for the table - "Day name, in the standardized and revised orthography of the Guatemalan Academia de Lenguas Mayas" with a footnote referring to this document which appears not to be online. Presumably more than one spelling would be acceptable since these are spelled phonetically into the greek alphabet and there is no single Mayan language but for this article "k'ib'" would be correct. The apostrophe is a glottal stop, the b' is a bilabial b. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

It looks like the Academy has a website: http://www.almg.org.gt/. Perhaps someone more fluent is Spanish than I could look for the Tzolk'in day names there. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Malmstrom an Ureliable Source

The article cites Malmstrom several times: Malmström (1997)

"[http://www.dartmouth.edu/~izapa/CS-MM-Chap.%206.htm Chapter 6: The Long Count: The Astronomical Precision

I read the cited article a long time ago. I used it as an example of terrible scholarship in one of these discussions but I didn't remove it. I reread it today and it's really awful. I'm not going write a detailed critique of it because would take too long to describe the very many errors but the problems are that it contains assertions that are thoroughly disproven, it contains very many careless errors that disagree with the mainstream scholarship, it has very few citations, it contains many original theories that are based on the authors conjectures and its very self-promoting. Rather that demonstrating Malmstrom's knowledge of the Maya calendar it demonstrates his ignorance. The references section also has a link to the whole book:

Malmström, Vincent H. (1997). Cycles of the Sun, Mysteries of the Moon: The Calendar in Mesoamerican Civilization. Austin: University of Texas Press. ISBN 0-292-75197-4. OCLC 34354774. Retrieved 2007-11-26. {{cite book}}: templatestyles stripmarker in |author= at position 1 (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

I haven't read the whole thing but even my cursory look created very large reservations about using as it as a reference. I was also alarmed recently to read that Malmstrom is a proponent of theories connecting the origin of the Olmec with old world cultures. Removing pseudoscientific sources will improve the article. I propose to remove the references to Malmstrom from the article. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I don't think we can discount the source as unreliable, it is peer reviewed and published by a university press. However, Malmstrom's view is clearly not the predominant one when it comes to the origins of Mesoamerican calendars. I don't know enough about his work to have any opinion about how well it concords with Maya calendrics, but I would prefer to see some comments by professionals to that effect (e.g. Book reviews) before I discount it as being simply wrong and erroneous. Being a proponent of pseudoscientific or dubious claims in one area should not necessarily be taken as indicative of general quackery. Michael D Coe for example is also a believer in trans-pacific contact as an influence in Mesoamerican and Latin American indigenous cultures. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I just read a mostly positive review in Ethnohistory. It is certainly not considered pseudoscience by peers in the field. I think we should describe his theory, but make it clear that it is not widely accepted.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

From the Tzolkin article - "Vincent Malmström identifies a correlation between the 260-day cycle and the 260-day gap between zenith and transits of the sun. According to this hypothesis, the 260-day cycle originated in the narrow latitudinal band (14°42′N to 15°N) in which the sun is vertically overhead about 12–13 August and again 260 days later about 30 April-l May (Malmström identifies the proto-Classic Izapan culture as one suitable candidate at this latitude). This period may have been used for the planting schedule of maize. However, others object to this conception, noting that while the 260-day calendar runs continuously the interval between autumn-spring and spring-autumn positions alternates between 260 and 105 days, and that the earliest-known calendric inscriptions are from considerably further north of this zone. Consequently this theory is not widely supported." It appears that peer revue is negative in this case. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I DO know enough about Maya calendrics to revue it. Just a casual glance at the linked chapter shows ignorance of Maya calendrics, wild fringe theories about the Long Count, self promotion and lack of citations. For example he says "the coastal regions of Colima, Jalisco, and Nayarit continued to enjoy closer cultural bonds with South America". "...the 52-year cycle has been called the "Short Count," especially by researchers working with the Maya. However, the association of the Short Count with the Maya is only accurate of their final period of decadence and decline..." Actually the Short Count is an abridged version of the Long Count. It has nothing to do with the Calendar Round. "(All Mesoamerican cultures believed that the world had existed in four earlier epochs..." Actually the Popul Vuh says it was three. Only post-classic calendars used four. Then he goes on to say that this creation will end on a four movement, citing unreliable sources. He then proceeds to state his fringe theories that the origin of the Long Count was based on the Calendar Round, the Thompson correlation is correct, the Tzolk'in is correlated to the Long Count and there is a grand Cycle of 13 Bak'tuns. None of this is referenced. All of this is contrary to the content in the Maya calendar and Long Count articles. If this doesn't convince you maybe you should read the chapter in his book about the magnetic Olmec heads. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I maintain that we should base our decision of how to allocate due weight on how the work has been received, not on what we personally think of it. So if he is not cited then that is a sign it hasn't been received well. We should look more into whether his work is cited in the main works on Maya calendrics. If it isn't then neither should we.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed per WP:NPOV if not referred to in the main works, not significant. Dougweller (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

From the Tzolk'in article: "However, others object to this conception, noting that while the 260-day calendar runs continuously the interval between autumn-spring and spring-autumn positions alternates between 260 and 105 days, and that the earliest-known calendric inscriptions are from considerably further north of this zone. Consequently this theory is not widely supported." Read the linked pdf. It seems that his theory about the origin of the Tzolk'in received a less-than-warm reception from others in the field. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Chapter 6 of Malmstrom contains a theory, that the creation date was selected to coincide with the zenith passage of the Sun at the latitude of Copan and Iztapa and that the Tzolk'in is 260 days long because a zenith passage of the Sun occurs with a 260 day interval at that latitude. He claims that this occurs on August 13, not 11, proving that the Thompson correlation (584285 days) is correct. He ignores the fact that neither the proleptic Julian astronomical (used by astronomers) nor the proleptic Gregorian (used by archaeologists) calendar uses a year equal to the tropical year and that August 13 today is not the same date in the tropical year as it was 5,125 years ago - although it is closer in the proleptic Gregorian calendar. In checking his theory one can ignore this by using the Julian day number of the relevant dates + .25 for time zone -6 and ignore Local Sun Time to Greenwich Standard Time conversion. Chapter 25 - Solar Coordinates in Astronomical Algorithms second edition by Jean Meeus has an easy to program method for calculating the Sun's right ascension and declination. This method calculates that at noon on Julian Day Number 584286 (August 14, 3114 BC Gregorian - September 9, -3113 Julian Astronomical) the Sun's apparent declination at noon was 14.8937 decimal degrees, close to the zenith at Copan - latitude 14.8395 degrees north and also Iztapa - latitude 14.9234. So the zenith passage date at these sites was close to but not coincident with creation of the current world using either the GMT or Thompson correlation. 261 days later, not 260, on julian day number 584547 the Sun was again close to the zenith at these sites. One must wonder how accurately this could have been be observed since the angular diameter of the Sun is +/- 32 arc minutes or 0.5 degrees, its declination was changing about .3 degrees per day and its position doesn't coincide with noon on any particular day. Also Malmstrom claims to have written computer programs to check his theories. Apparently he didn't do it with this one. This is an example of the futility of trying to prove or disprove a correlation using astronomy. If anyone has an astronomy program that you could use to check my calculations I encourage you to do so. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

The year 3314 BC is so far away that all the calculations related to counting of days and calendars may be wrong by several days. There is no way of knowing which was the ΔT so far in the paste. Every calculation we can do is nothing more than useless.Japf (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

ΔT would make a difference if very high accuracy was required but not for this analysis. I have a book that has algorithms that consider the gravitation of the planets, etc. and contain many more terms. These can be used to calculate this with high accuracy back to 3,000 B.C. Maybe I'll code that as well. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

The delta-T dependence on the interaction with the Moon is well known indeed, but there is other component which depends on the rising of continental masses after the end of ice age, and even now that component is important. You can have all the accuracy you want if you use the International Atomic Time, but you couldn't make sure if some phenomenon happened in the 584286 Julian day or one day before or after, because you can't know for sure how many leap seconds happened (surely in the magnitude of hundred thousands). Please read this, where it is said "but the uncertainties grow so rapidly that no meaningful results can be obtained earlier than about 2000 BCE". Anyway, I am only saying that the calculations of Malstrom are meaningless, but other calculations made by other people are meaningless also. I believe that the algorithms you use can handle with delta-T, but for 3114 BC they are surely outside of the range of validity for the determination of delta-T.Japf (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

From the previous paragraph we could conclude one thing: If we from the technological 21st century can't say exactly when an astronomical phenomenon happened 5000 years ago, neither did the stone-age mayas from the 5th century BC.Japf (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Solar Years

In the Table of Long Count units an edition war is starting. Some defend that a solar year is 365 days, and others defend that is 365.26 days. They are all wrong! A solar day is 365.2422 days. Please discuss here before amking changes in the text.Japf (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the article to which the IP editor linked, the length of the tropical year is 365.24219647 days citing Meeus. It appears that the editor didn't even read the article to which he linked. The table has the right values now. The table says "approximate" solar years so the values calculated out to a large number of decimal places makes the table worse. If the editor gets it right and adds the math to do this as a calculation it will have the same values as it has now so why bother. The editor could experiment with templates, etc. in a sandbox.

IP editor - I see that this is your first attempt to edit Wikipedia. A few suggestions: Register as an editor. This gives you a talk page, etc. Discuss changes on an article's talk page before editing. This is particularly important in this article. Editors are always defending this article against disinformation related to the 2012 Mayan doomsday hoax. If someone reverts your edit discuss it on the article's talk pages instead of starting an edit war. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Also I forgot, IP editor: Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Can you cite a reliable source that claims that the length of the tropical year is 365.26 days? Senor Cuete (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Reverted again. IP editor: You comment that the solar year is not 365 days. How do you know that the table was calculated using 365 days? Are you telepathic? Senor Cuete (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I calculated what was being use for this (I don`t need the rude/uncivil accusation of telepathy),
and it works out to 364.999, which is useless. Anyone who knows anything about calenders recognizes 365.26 days.
Someone else who knows something about math should take a look and fix it
because when I tried to do so my efforts were attacked. 24.79.38.15 (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You can't derive what was used to create this table by analyzing it because the "approximate solar years" are rounded, mostly to integers. If "Anyone who knows anything about calenders[sic] recognizes 365.26 days" then why can't you cite any reliable or even unreliable source that says so? Everybody that knows anything about calendars knows that the length of the Julian year is 365.25 days. The length of the Gregorian year is 365.2425 days and the length of the tropical year is 365.24219647 days. I linked these so you can read them. You cite the wikilinked article about the tropical year as a source for your assertion that there are 365.26 days in the tropical year. PLEASE PLEASE READ IT because it says that there are +/- 365.2422 days in the tropical year and that's what was probably used to calculate the values in the table. If you use 365.2422 days and come up with some different answer than what's in the table, report it here and it can be fixed but don't edit the table based on unwarranted assumptions and a bogus constant. When someone shows that you are wrong and cites the sources for this fact you should admit your mistake. Senor Cuete (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I checked the figures for the number of days in the tropical year with my calculator and it looks to me like the number for Kalabtun, K'incliltun and Alautun are incorrect. Japf or some one, please check this. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I did it again and I come up with 157,703.57, 3,154,071.46 and 6,308,142.92 using 365.24219647 for the length of the tropical year. Can someone else confirm this? Senor Cuete (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I think your calculations are correct. In order to avoid further misunderstandings I think it's better to use part of the IP suggestions by using the template {{round}}. What do you think about removing all the decimal places?Japf (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Table of Long Count units

Days	Long Count period	Long Count unit	Approximate Solar Years
1		1 K'in
20	20 K'in	1 Winal
360	18 Winal	1 Tun	1
7,200	20 Tun	1 K'atun	20
144,000	20 K'atun	1 B'ak'tun	394
2,880,000	20 B'ak'tun	1 Piktun	7,885
57,600,000	20 Piktun	1 Kalabtun	157,704
1,152,000,000	20 Kalabtun	1 K'inchiltun	3,154,071
23,040,000,000	20 K'inchiltun	1 Alautun	63,081,429

Your version of the table is correct. It uses the correct value for the length of the tropical year and editors can see this. Rounding all of the approximate tropical year values to zero makes sense to me. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Ok!Japf (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Done Senor Cuete (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Mustn't be the last number 63,081,429.86401201 years = 63,081,430 years? I was calculating with 365.24219647 d for solar year? And i can confirm the other numbers for correct... Oh, and it would be nice to see some coma for an better view  ;-) 79.245.80.112 (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes on the rounding and yes, many countries such as the USA use the commas. Since the commas are used in the days column I see no reason not to include them in the years column. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Since the years column is created by scripting you would have to figure out how to fix the error in the round macro and format the results with commas. It's possible that the round macro is making an error because of rounding with large floating point numbers. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Long Count illustration

The image of La Mojarra Stela 1 in the Long Count section is a bad example of a Long Count inscription. It's one of the earliest Long Counts known, in epi-Olmec script. It's not typical of Mayan Long Count inscriptions which are written in two columns preceded by a two column wide initial series introductory glyph. For this reason in the Long Count article it was moved to a section about the earliest Long Counts and the illustration was replaced with the illustration of Quirigua stela C. The Quirgua inscription is an excellent example of a Classic Maya Long Count inscription. I think the La Mojarra stela should be replaced with the Quirgua stela in this article as well. Also the articles don't explain the typical form of a classic inscription - ISIG, two columns, etc. Comments? Senor Cuete (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Nobody objected to this edit so I changed it. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

New External Links - Aztec calendar - Maya calendar - Commercial Sites

The new link added today to the Aztec calendar site is crammed full of advertising. The headings of the pages have as many as three different ads. In the left column Under Adds by Google are three hyperlinked texts. These are linked to a page with lots of stuff for sale. In the upper right of the home and other pages are various ads from Google AdSense. The right side of many of the pages have adds. Wikipedia has a policy against linking to commercial sites. Wikipedia IS NOT A MARKETING TOOL FOR YOUR BUSINESS. For this reason I have removed this site from the external links. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Looking at the external links, I see that http://www.mayan-calendar.org/ should be removed as well. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I revisted this article page today in search of the chart provided in the external links section entitled "Time Periods of the Maya Calendar System" from the site www.mayan-calendar.org and created by the Unity Corps Research Library, Ethnic Studies (division/dept?). I notice that Senor Cuete has twice removed this link in the past. In reading the Wikipedia external linking policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links, it clearly informs that links to commerical sites "can be" provided and are in many of the articles of this site. No where is it stated that links to commercial site should not ever be added. Rather, what the policy specifically states is, "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. All external links must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic." As such, this chart reference was re-inserted once again because of the staunch belief that it is a tremendously useful reference which is both "on topic" and "accurate" information, i.e., a simplified breakdown of the Maya time cycles and how the public can easily see why it's leading up to the calendar's completetion date on 12/21/12. Nowhere else in the article is this chart shown. And in fact, it should be. So, if the link to this chart is continually disconnected it should be either directly inserted into the article page itself or the link to the (commercial) site should be taken out. I'm not sure about the policy regarding inclusion of images in the article itself, but I feel this particular chart should be shown especially right now since we're approaching the Long Count's completion date. I've shown this chart to others in the public and it's made it very simple for them to understand this whole subject of discussion.

With regard to the new Manus assertion that the chart doesn't add value. Please read the above so that you can see why I completely disagree. Again, if linking to a commercial site is a problem and "seems promotional", then a deletion of the link to the actual site should be done but not the useful chart listing itself. In either case, I feel it's always useful for people to know the actual sources of things (whether they're commerical or not).

Lastly, the actual page of the chart at http://www.mayan-calendar.org/reference/mayan-calendar-system.html has no commerical links of ads at all. Therefore, there should be no disgruntled feelings about this point at all. User: 66.69.117.14810:59 9 November 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.117.148 (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The information in the link is superficial and without context, it does not go beyond what is already in the article or what is already represented better inb other extternal links. The site has no particular authority or reliability regarding this topic, but seems to be a little known NGO with no specialization in ancient Maya culture. There is no reason to add it. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hardly superficial. It is what the article is about. It is within context, and does add usefulness by visually simplifying the cycles. With regard to the origin from a little known NGO, that has nothing to do with context of this discussion, i.e. the usefulness of the information being provided. If giving credit to the source is an issue of irritation, then maybe getting rid of the source notation is a solution. But then again, I believe it should stay. Quick simplification of long topics is a tremendously useful thing. 66.69.117.148 (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the reputation and relevance of the NGO is important since that is the only guarantee of the quality of the information. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As the "important date" is getting near I think this page must be protected.Japf (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The page does not "contain further research that is accurate and on-topic." First, the information on the page adds nothing that's not already in the article and second it says that there's a 5125 year - 13 bak'tun cycle in the Long Count which is a bunch of crap, specifically and carefully denied by this and the Long Count article (which should be merged with this article). Also it says that there are five places in the Long Count which is wrong, specifically contradicted by the part of the articles about Pictuns and higher orders. Yes this article should be protected because as 13.0.0.0.0 approaches it's suffering from very high levels of vandalism and good faith but inaccurate edits. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

On this page of the site: http://www.worldend.org/2012/doomsday/pg3.html the paragraph describing the work of Jean Meeus contains astoundingly horrible dis-information about him. He didn't die in 1998. I talked to him quite recently. He would certainly be surprised to find out that he is dead. Shame, shame on the authors of this absolutely horrible pack of lies. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Well Maunus, if you really feel that the "reputation and relevance of the NGO", a criteria based on your personal opinion, is more important than the accuracy and relevance of the information provided, then, I suppose we'll just continue to disagree on this and another new point as well. Whereas some people rely only on what others say, some people actually do like to think for themselves. History is filled with so many examples of authorities and popular public opinion that was completely trusted and then proven to be completely wrong.. and then alternatively, others who weren't readily trusted but then proven to be completely right. To me, the guarantee of the quality of "any" information isn't based on what others are saying but what I think of the information provided for myself. I look to see if what is presented makes any sense to me, and in this case, if it actually calculates to be right.

Senor Cuete, on the above point, I'd like to thank you for shedding some light on why I initially liked the chart, "Time Periods of the Mayan Calendar System" or "Simplified Breakdown of the Mayan Long Count Cycle", published by Unity Corps in 2009, in the first place. During the course of my research on this subject and the importance/relevance/newness of the chart information provided, I looked to see when the external link to the chart was first made to see if there was a note by the editor on the reason for its inclusion. I remembered first seeing the information on this chart about a year ago. So I used the Revision history search feature entering "From year (and earlier): 2011" to "From month (and earlier): December". I noticed a couple of things in doing so. One is that the link was there at least a year ago which confirmed my memory.. and the other is that both you and Dougweller ("sorry, but I don't see why this should be included, agree with Maunus") have been editing this page for at least that length of time. Beyond that I couldn't find any revision history, and especially not the first note. So I thought hard about this and the point of what this chart information does show that the article as it currently exists does not. I then read your disparaging remarks of the chart's information (and an article from a different site?) disclosing that the Long Count is 5125 years. Hmm... That is quite interesting.. as this is a pretty basic and important point. I was actually quite surprised that you were not already aware of this fundamental bit of information about the Maya Long Count being that you are one of the editors of this very article about the Maya calendar for at least a year now. If it has been much longer, I apologize for not knowing. Unlike some others (not saying you), I don't have all day or make a life of being in here on this Wikipedia site looking up all of these things about people's credentials or basic matters of attribution. What matters most is the quality and accuracy of the information being presented. On this, I think we can all agree.

So then, here's the deal. Because you seem to not currently know why this 5,125 year statement is actually true, I'm gonna explain it for you and any of the other editors who also might not know. But before doing so, I would like to say that I wholeheartedly agree with you that this article should be merged with the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar article. Because in order to understand how the Long Count calendar's length does actually calculate to be 5,125 years, and why inclusion of this information seen in the chart is a good thing, some of the pieces of information provided in the other article should also be known and included in this one. Before anyone wanting to understand how to figure out the length of time in years does so, they will need to use a calculator. So, I suggest that they grab one when they're ready to extrapolate this information unless they're wanting to do this exercise longhand, which would be exceedingly difficult to say the least...

I'm sure your knowledgeable enough already to know that today's date of Wednesday, December 12, 2012 in the Gregorian calendar is commonly interpreted to be 12.19.19.17.9 (GMT correlation) in the Long Count. The reference of these five place marker/cycle notations in the Long Count is also commonly known to be a reference for the number of Baktuns, Katuns, Tuns, Winals and Kins used in the cycle. This is clearly seen in the Wikipedia Long Count article in the "Long Count periods" section. It's explained very well there and very similar to how it's structured in the chart you've edited out. Your two statements that "five places in the Long Count.. is wrong" and that it's "specifically contradicted by the part of the articles about Piktuns and higher orders" are both incorrect. This too is surprising that you would even say this since you yourself referenced the upcoming 13.0.0.0.0 new cycle date. I guess it's necessary to also mention here that this is a reference specifically to just the 5 mentioned "cycles of time" only. The Piktuns, Kalabtun, Kinchiltun, and Alautun are not usually considered when discussing the Long Count calendar because they are not a part of it. The same holds true of the Venus cycle.

Although, the ancient Maya kept track of many cycles of time, some elders say as many 13 which is 3 more than what's being mentioned here, not all of them were included in the Maya "calendar" Long Count, which is in essence the more appropriately named Mesoamerican Long Count calendar. It might be helpful for you or anyone else contemplating this issue to think of it this way. Although we use our current Gregorian calendar consisting of 365 days within 12 months, that doesn't mean that we are speaking of all the cycles of time that our modern 10 based number system and science keeps track of, i.e., a Decade, Century, Millennium, etc.. when discussing this same modern calendar. In the same way, the Maya Long Count calendar, is not all of the "number of cycles" that the Maya kept track of, but rather it is specifically the 13 Baktun periods of time consisting of 144,000 days each. The chart by Unity Corps provided by the www.Mayan-Calendar.org site you took out clearly breaks this down simply by graphically showing how the upcoming date of 13.0.0.0.0 is made up of these 5 cycles of time used in the Long Count calendar. What is not shown on the chart (which should be) and also not mentioned in this article (which should be) is another extremely important point, which I suppose is assumed that most people who are familiar with this topic already know. But certainly, the general public doesn't usually. That is, the Maya didn't use our modern 10 based number system to create their Long Count calendar or measure of any of their cycles of time. They used a 20 based number system. Why is this important to mention? It's important to understand how the day before 12/21/12 or 12/20/12 written as 12.19.19.17.19 is the eve of the new calendar cycle. This point alone is crucial beyond that of merely providing information that a traditional Long Count cycle is approximately 5125 years. So, why are both of these extremely important points not mentioned in the article? One would think that the core foundation of a very different numbering system used for this calendar's creation which is receiving so much notoriety right now, and the actual yearly length of time for its cycle would be considered two of the "most" if not merely more important pieces of information to provide. Likewise, there is a heavy emphasis on the Venus cycle in this article page as there should be in that it was so important to the Maya. But here again, there's no mention of it's actual length(s) in time. This happens to be some examples on why many people are currently saying that Wikipedia itself can not be used as a reliable single source for accurate information. There's too much that is consistently missing. There is also too much misinformation that is consistently staying in place. I'm now starting to get a clear understanding as to the reasons why.

Also, it is most usually universally agreed that the start of the Maya calendar corresponds to August 11, 3114 BCE which is rightly stated at the beginning of the Mesoamerican article. What is also correctly stated is the very first thing mentioned, i.e., that, the Maya Long Count is a "non-repeating" calendar. Now I know there are many people who agree with this, apparently the "consensus" of people editing that Wikipedia article do.. and, there are also some other people who would actually disagree. Most often it's those who believe that the ancient Maya thought the world would end at the completion of the current Long Count/dawn of the 14th Baktun. Of course, this is a highly debatable assumption especially since the modern day descendants of the ancient Maya themselves don't believe this at all. In either case, the Long Count article states that the calendar is non-repeating whereas in this article here on the Maya "calendar", which would actually be better named "Maya calendars" (plural) or "Maya Cycles of Time", there is a major contradiction to this base point. There is also a difference between espousing religious or mythological beliefs and the actual linear measurement of time. In this article's reference to the Piktun that you mention, it states that "December 21, 2012 is simply the day that the calendar will go to the next b'ak'tun, at Long Count 13.0.0.0.0. The date on which the calendar will go to the next piktun (a complete series of 20 b'ak'tuns), at Long Count 1.0.0.0.0.0, will be on January 16, 5167." There are actually two things wrong with this statement. First, to state that the Long Count calendar would have a new count of 1.0.0.0.0.0 in 5167 is stating a premise that the Long Count holds six placements to accommodate the Piktun. It doesn't and for good reason. That would be an abnormally high count to consider for simplicity sake. It's too big of a number that's not necessary to mention. There comes a common point when it's useful to stop mentioning a numerical count, which can go on to infinity. I guess we could also say that today's date is December 11, 2012, of the 1st Epoch since the birth of Christ, or use a place notation for the Holocene Era that adds exactly 10,000 years to the currently world-dominant Anno Domini (AD) or Common Era (CE) system. Thankfully we don't. Anything beyond the mention of a millennium outside of serious scientific research is.. well let's just say not particularly useful. The second thing wrong is another conflicting prognostication assuming that we know how the ancient Maya would be numbering their Long Count after the completion of the 13th Baktun. That too would be incorrect.

A good reference to read more about how the next Long Count cycle might or might not have been numbered by the ancient Maya is located at: http://www.traditionalhighcultures.org/MayaMath&WorldAges.html.In this article written by Lloyd B. Anderson of Ecological Linguistics in 2008, he states the following: "The most contentious point of debate seems to be whether the date 13.0.0.0.0 is a point in the future at which the Maya expected anything significant to happen, at which they expected a long count to begin again, or some world cataclysm to occur, either in a physical sense or in a cosmological sense. Considering the first part of this, have we written the dates 14.0.0.0.0 and those that follow it correctly above as the Maya would have? Or would they have written 1.0.0.0.1 for that same date, because a count had begun again after 13.0.0.0.0 (or a new count had begun, however we should think of it)? Unfortunately, we simply don't know."

To the point, one can't state an agreement with the premises of the Long Count article, i.e., that it's non-repeating, that it consists of the 5 general subdivisions listed in the article, and that it turns over at a reference date of 13.0.0.0.0 using a 5 place notation ending at the Baktun.. and then discuss accomodating a 6 positional count to accomodate Piktun or even more. To be consistent and non-contradictory, you can't have it both ways. Also, to delete a very useful graphical reference showing exactly this same type of information about how the Long Count is broken down while also arguing the need to merge this type of information provided in the other article shows another contradiction. And.. I am also wondering why you would let this apparently wrong information (to you) stay on page for at least a year if you truly knew it was "wrong" as opposed to being merely against it because it was from a commercial site as you've reasoned numerous times before? It would have been better for you to stick to the commercial site argument, even though to me this still means nothing and isn't a valid reason even referencing the Wikipedia external linking policy itself. It's seems your new objection is now a bit of a bait and switch tactic to attempt a discrediting of the information provided on the chart by now disparaging the creators of it and the site that is showing it, namely Angel Tenes and Xcano Media at www.mayan-calendar.org.

Regarding this new page that you brought up on a totally different site located at http://www.worldend.org/2012/doomsday/pg3.html, which comes from the "TALE OF AN END WORLD PREDICTOR & MAYAN CALENDAR DOOMSDAY PROPHECY" written by Angel Tenes (not authors) and starting at http://www.worldend.org/2012/doomsday/pg1.html, there are a few things about this modern day "tale"/story you should know. For one, it obviously isn't written about Jean Meeus, the Belgian astronomer, nor about anyone else who is currently living. As it clearly states on the first page of this tale, it's about an "end of the world predictor" who lived at the "end of the last millennium" and was of "Anglo Saxon Celtic ancestry" which is not even nearly Belgian. But, I'm glad that you did mention the link to this fictional story anyways. While I don't feel that fictional tales are an appropriate source to use for referencing in articles such as this one, this story does happen to be an extremely well written piece that does illustrate a lot of the reasons why so many people currently believe that the ancient Maya predicted an end to the world based on many of the modern publications that have been put out. It also shows why Wikipedia is being heavily criticized by so many right now. Too many of you regular editors don't know how to accurately read and interpret materials, and then as a result of this, you are very quick to wrongfully disparage the soundness and reputation of others because of your own personal lacks in understanding. So you know, I was already aware of this story. In fact, many are including one of the most universally respected organizations on this whole subject, the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. (FAMSI). It's on their website that I first found it. If you go to their "List of Links to Articles About 2012" located at http://www.famsi.org/research/vanstone/2012/2012articles.html, you'll see that in their listing of only 25 links provided, they reference both the Mayan-Calendar.org site and this other WorldEnd.org story at their 2nd and 3rd spots. With the exception of a few mentions, such as UT Austin professor David Stuart's personal blog, and these two article pages written by Angel Tenes, all of the other links provided are to national news reporting agencies or very prominent institutions of higher learning. Noticeably absent is a link to this very Wikipedia article that we’re now discussing. Can you wonder why this might be?

Ya know, my response here to you, Maunus, and Dougweller for opposing the allowance of a very useful chart reference has gone much much longer than what I anticipated it would or should. I guess I just felt it's important to spend some time explaining why Wikipedia itself is not usually perceived as an authority on "many" if any subjects at all. Like I stated before, there is too much that is often missing, not able to be provided because of what appears to a constantly lurking group of self-appointed public information police.. who act as if a clumped group that's ready to quickly stamp out the contributions and reputations of many others merely because they're not constantly on this site editing away like how many of you longtime regular editors do. It's unfortunate that so many of the Wikipedia editors don't really even full understanding the topics that they're editing. It is actually hurting the public good because of the popularity of this site. Another constant problem, is that a lot of misinformation on topics is allowed to stay in these articles. This is done with the rational that because they come from a traditionally printed book or some other form of national publication, they must be credible. That too is incorrect because not everything that is published is true. I could go on and on.. but I won't. Just like the Long Count, at some point you just need to stop. Besides, I really don't have this much time to be writing away in here like what I'm doing now. My God, this simple little rebuttal might even be longer now than the actual article itself. I guess this is what happens when writing about a topic like this that's so timely as this one now.

Okay, so finally, here it goes. The way to figure out the accuracy of the statement that the Long Count is 5,125 years is as follows:

Using your calculator, if we understand that 1 Baktun cycle is 144,000 days, and we know that 1 tropical (solar year) is 365.24 days (rounded off), then we are able to calculate the numbers of years that exist in 13 Baktuns or one complete Long Count calendar cycle. Because 365.24 days is one year, if we now divide the length of 1 Baktun or 144,000 days by the length of 1 year we then get 394.26 years for every 1 Baktun, i.e. (144,000/365.24=394.26). Now the last step which isn't show in either of these two Wikipedia articles mentioned, is to multiple the 394.26 years of 1 Baktun count by 13 times. In doing so, you will arrive at the calculation of 5,125.38, i.e. (394.26x13=5,125.38) or rounded off to 5,125 years. A second way of calculating this same result is to take the 144,000 days of a single Baktun cycle and multiply it by 13. In doing this, you will arrive at 1,872,000 days in a full 13 Baktun Long Count cycle, i.e. (144,000x13=1,872,000). So then now, if you take 1,872,000 days of 13 Baktuns or 1 Long Count cycle and then divide this number by 1 solar year or 365.24 days, you will arrive at the new number of 5,125.39 years or still rounded off as 5,125 years. The difference of the initially result of 5,125.38 using the first method and the other result of 5,125.39 using the second method is the difference between using our complete understanding of the exact full length of a true solar year and the abbreviated number of 365.24 days. That is, as of 1/1/2000 the mean solar year was measured to be 365.242 189 7 or 5 hours and 48 minutes and 45.19. This number changes with latitude and time. Like the extra number of place notations in the Long Count, it's not necessary or desired to calculate further for a precision in the number of minutes, and seconds of a day, If you have a hard time understanding the way I've explained it here, then you may wish to solicit the help of Jean Meeus who you apparently know to help explain it better than what I've done here. As you can see, I'm hardly the kind of person who knows how to keep things short. I'll say it again. Simplifying complicated topics is better than making then more complicated than they need to be. This is the reason that that link to the initial chart given was a good thing.

I'm posting a new external link to another very good article, "The Long Count Mayan Calendar System", by Keith M. Hunter author of "The Lost Age of High Knowledge" 2011, located at: http://www.ancient-world-mysteries.com/long-count.html. If you take the time to read it fully, the whole article that is, the book is also excellent and recommended too, you will understand more about the Maya Long Count and its 5,125 year cycle. Hopefully, you will allow this new link to remain. It doesn't have any ads on this page. However, the site does provide a link to the author's own book. But, this shouldn't be a reason to remove it. If it is removed, this will be once again another unequivocally example to the public about why Wikipedia is not a good source for information. Unfortunately, it is the quality of the editors who control over what's kept in the articles - when they truly don't have a complete understanding of the topics that they are editing. You have proven this by calling the 5,125 Long Count cycle "a bunch of crap". It's unfortunate you did that. This is an example of how you Senor Cuete are one of the problems to the confusion that's happening on this very important topic being discussed today. If you take the time to fully read the materials before you delete them, you'll understand the topics you're editing much better. You and many of the other editors in Wikipedia are continually proving daily you constantly don't do this. Too much is being deleted out. Other stuff that shouldn't be staying is kept but causing confusion. Too many editors in Wikipedia are attempting to act as an expert when they are not. This is the reason why it's not a good thing to have too many people trying to use too many sheers on one sheep at the same time. They will get in each others way making things more difficult and messy than needing to be. Things written from the perspective of one person and one point of view are less confusing. Whether their viewpoints are right or wrong, they're still usually not contradictory.

One last note. In this excellent article by Keith Hunter that I'm adding now, you will see that he speaks of the calendar resetting at 0.0.0.0.0. This is an example of how an author can take a premise that the calendar cycle is repeating. This is also an example of how that an article on the Maya calendar can take a position that's conforming to some reported ancient mythology and it's assertion that the ancient Maya thought the world ends on a new cycle - or that it doesn't, which is conforming to the idea that it continues in a never ending progression starting from 3114 BCE. To make the article here in Wikipedia more informative for the public, this type of issue should be discussed in the article itself. If you read the very first posting on this topic by 213.122.68.176(talk) at 11:34, 15 November 2002, it states that "This cycle is 1,872,000 days in length and terminates on Winter Solstice (December 21) 2012 AD". This is true. The determinant of whether a future count is recorded as 14.0.0.0.0 or repeats at 0.0.0.0.0 again is a matter of future human society.. and how well it will fully appreciate and understand the wisdom presented by the ancient Maya. User: 66.69.117.14810:59 12 December 2012

Removed Hunter's personal website - I see he had to self-publish his book. You can always ask at WP:ELN if editors there think the link should be here. Dougweller (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Jean Meeus is surprised to find out that he's dead. He didn't know that. If there was any evidence for a 5125 year cycle it would be in the article. All distance inscriptions and long reckonings use 20 bak'tuns in a piktun. Examples of this are in the Long Count article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar#Piktuns_and_higher_orders. Exactly zero inscriptions mention a 13 bak'tun cycle. When you find one it can be in the article. December 12, 2012 is actually 12.19.19.17.11, not 12.19.19.17.9 using the GMT correlation. To convert 12/12/2012 to 12.19.19.17.9 you would have to use the Thompson correlation 584285 days. The only place where you can find the 5125 year cycle is in the context of the 2012 Mayan Doomsday hoax. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Doug: Thanks for removing Hunter's site. It contains obvious factual errors such as the Long Count starting on 0.0.0.0.0. All inscriptions use ...13.0.0.0.0. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Since you keep commenting back on this, apparently Wikipedia is also forum.

Your continual assertion that the doomsday tale at http://www.worldend.org/2012/doomsday/pg3.html states Jean Meeus is dead is more than just wrong. It is intentionally misleading and misguided. What the story specifically says is: "Using these precise calculations made by Meeus, it was realized by our end world predictor that.." You may wish to be more careful about misrepresenting facts, especially regarding the living, i.e., both author and astronomer.

Your statement that "zero inscriptions mention a 13 bak'tun cycle" is incorrect. Regarding the 13 Baktun cycle, another merge to this article should also be done with the Wikipedia article on "Tortuguero (Maya site)" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monument_6 which does mention the Tortuguero Monument 6 explaining that it's "the only known inscription depicting the end of the current 13-Bak'tun era in 2012." Not only is it the only known inscription mentioning an end to the 13th Baktun. It's also the only using 13.0.0.0.0 (aka Dec. 21, 2012).

Other sources beyond Wikipedia's inner sanctum of brevity which are also highly regarded and do reference the 5,125 year 13 Baktun Long Count cycle are:

Dr. John Carlson, director of the Center for Archaeoastronomy, who is quoted in NASA's website that, "According to Maya theology, the world was created 5125 years ago, on a date modern people would write 'August 11, 3114 BC.' At the time, the Maya calendar looked like this: 13.0.0.0.0." Read article at http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/14dec_yesterday/

Tim Padgett of Time Magazine who writes in the article called, "Not So Apocalypto: What the Mayan Calendar Tells Us About Latin America in 2012" that "from the academic to the apocalyptic, because 2012 – specifically the winter solstice on Dec. 21 – marks what many scholars believe is the end of a 5,125-year creation cycle on the Mayan calendar." Read article at http://world.time.com/2012/01/04/not-so-apocalypto-what-the-mayan-calendar-tells-us-about-latin-america-in-2012/

John Roach for the National Geographic who writes in the article called, "End of World in 2012? Maya "Doomsday" Calendar Explained" that "It's true that the so-called long-count calendar — which spans roughly 5,125 years starting in 3114 B.C.— reaches the end of a cycle on December 21, 2012." Read article at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/12/111220-end-of-world-2012-maya-calendar-explained-ancient-science/

Mayan-Calendar.com also makes an important observation that states, "It's important to point out that this is just one possible scenario for how the Long Count functions and flows. There are other scholars who believe that the count would not reset to 0.0.0.0.1, but rather continue with 13 as the bak'tuns, being 13.0.0.0.1, and then 13.0.0.0.2, and so on up until the 14th bak'tuns, being represented as 1.0.0.0.0. Lloyd Anderson has presented this scenario on his website at www.traditionalhighcultures.com/MayaMath&WorldAges.html. Since we have no texts presenting dates within the first bak'tun's range of 400 tuns, this particular question remains an academic debate."

Regarding December 12, 2012 being written as 12.19.19.17.9 instead of 12.19.19.17.11, in all honesty, this didn't have anything to do with the Thompson Correlation (although that's a funny coincidence w/the 2 days lol). As previously mentioned, I don't have a lot of time to be writing on these Wikipedia article issues. The long rebuttal seen above was initially started two days earlier than posted. When I did the spell check for words, proper nouns, and dates it didn't pick up on the 5 positions of the Maya Long Count. It's funny how our current software has a hard time with these modern transcriptions/interpretations of ancient dates. Thank you for the mention nonetheless.. ;) User: 66.69.117.14810:59 15 December 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.117.148 (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTAFORUM#FORUM Senor Cuete (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Reverting edits by user:The Good Doctor Fry

I thought about it for a while and eventually decided to revert the good faith edits by user:The Good Doctor Fry in the Long Count section. The reasons are:

1. His calculations are correct vis. the Calendar Round but the big event in December is the completion of a bak'tun, not anything to do with the Calendar round, lords of the night, or year bearer. Inclusion of these adds confusion to the text, which probably could be more clear about 13.0.0.0.0.

2. It looks to me like the author might be the owner of the cited page and this would violate the prohibition against original research. The cited page contains errors which are contrary to the information in the Maya calendar and Long Count pages. For example: 13.0.0.0.0 might occur on 12/21, or12/22, 23 or 24 and that a 13.0.0.0.0 occurs every +/- 5125 years. These are wrong because the GMT correlation is correct and since there are 20 bak'tuns in a piktun another 13.0.0.0.0 won't occur until 1.13.0.0.0.0. so this is not a reliable source.

3. Due to the great hoopla surrounding the 2012 Mayan doomsday hoax, this article is vandalized several times a day and also edited carelessly. It's always a good idea to discuss changes to the article here before making them. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Senor cuete

Question

As far as I can deduce from this dicussion 22 21 december 2012 will correspond to 13.0.0.0.0 and the following day is 13.0.0.0.1. Am I wright? I must make sure of this to avoid the mistake on the {{Maya stela}} template.Japf (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

No. December 21 will be 13.0.0.0.0 and the 22nd will be 13.0.0.0.1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.85.176.77 (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok. It was a typo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japf (talk • contribs) 10:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

New additions from Dev94

Some parts could be used, but the mention to the vague year is wrong. The first vague calendar known to the european scholars was the egyptian calendar. This calendar had exactly 365 days with no leap year rules, and was called vague because was not as precise as the Julian or the Gregorian calendars, since it accumulates an error of 1 day in each 4 years. The Haab calendar is a vague calendar for the very same reason, and no other else.Japf (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Lock this article

please Senor Cuete (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Edit request on 18 December 2012

Hello, somebody can add this section?

The sound of Tzolkin

File:TZOLKIN - The Sacred Mayan Calendar.ogg

TZOLKIN - The Sacred Mayan Calendar

In 1995, Maria von Boisse translated the mathematical matrix of the Tzolkin to musical notes and set to sound in this. The final version of the work was developed in collaboration with Hubert Bognermayr in the electronic Försterhaus in Linz.

Ninxit (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Vacation^nine 14:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Why? What is the problem? One justification would be nice. --Ninxit (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Nixit also asked me why I deleted this edit on my talk page. I replied: Because the goal of myself and the other editors is to write an accurate, encyclopedic article, supported by definitive references. The file you added is not consistent with that goal. Due to the 2012 Mayan doomsday hoax, the maya calendar related articles are constantly being blasted with new-age spiritualistic interpretations of the Maya calendars that are inaccurate, unreferenced and detract from the goal. For new-age modern interpretations of the Maya calendars you could edit the 2012 phenomenon article.

Also because this of this constant stream of valdalism and un-helpful edits (and generally on Wikipedia) It's a good idea to discus your proposed edits here first so editors can tell you why they disagree, rather than making edits that will be reverted. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

The sound is not a tribute to the hoax, it is just the translation of the Tzolkin in music as a long an hard scientific work together with an pioneer of the electronic music art. Pictures of the Tzolkin are allowed and the sound not? Thats not logically. --Ninxit (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you understand the Tzolkin while you are listening to that sound? Japf (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you understand the Tzolkin while you see the associated glyphs? --Ninxit (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

YES Senor Cuete (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

The glyphs were created by the Maya not some new-age techno music guy. It's going to be very painful to be an editor of this article until after 12/21. Maybe the thing to do is to let all the new-agers run amok and then revert the article to some stable version like the one that was up a few days ago. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

OK, forget it. Maybe you are a bit paranoid? We let it be, that's probably healthier. Good luck. --Ninxit (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Visualization of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar

I think that the new image "Visualization of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar" is awful, adds nothing to the article, is redundant and should be removed. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Which baktun is it?

This article states, within the Long Count section, that "December 21, 2012 is simply the day that the calendar will go to the next b'ak'tun, at Long Count 13.0.0.0.0." However, the Baktun article states "[t]he current (13th) baktun will end, or be completed, on 13.0.0.0.0 on the Solstice (December 21, 2012 using the GMT correlation). This also marks the beginning of the 14th baktun, as such a term is usually used among Mayanists."

Am I misinterpreting what's written, or is one article 1 baktun off from the other? Ometecuhtli2001 (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)