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

RfC: 364.99 days in a year makes no sense.

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 tour 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 tl: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