This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot(talk | contribs) at 11:24, 16 February 2024(Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Stub" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Time}}, {{WikiProject Mexico}}, {{WikiProject Mesoamerica}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 11:24, 16 February 2024 by Cewbot(talk | contribs)(Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Stub" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Time}}, {{WikiProject Mexico}}, {{WikiProject Mesoamerica}}.)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.MesoamericaWikipedia:WikiProject MesoamericaTemplate:WikiProject MesoamericaMesoamerica articles
I removed a few paras recently added in this anon edit, consisting mostly of highly speculative and esoteric OR-type attributions or supposed correlations between historical events and k'atun-cycles. Assuredly, k'atun-cycles have no influence over or relationship to events such as the Crusades, the Protestant Reformation or the invention of the printing press. Even if some contemporary esotericist source(s) may claim something similar, unfortunately such purely fanciful inventions have nothing to do with actual Maya calendrics and have no reason to be mentioned here. Certainly, not as if it were a commonly-accepted interpretation, which it ain't. --cjllwʘTALK07:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
