Talk:Haabʼ

1508 Haab period and 1507 tropical year length
I've removed the speculation based paragraph and used references to rewrite the paragraph which was concerned about whether the Maya knew about the solar and Haab year length discrepancies. Dylanwhs (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Im not sure about this line... "There at least two inscriptions with periods of 1508 Haab from Palenque".
 * From what I understand, there are two inscriptions of approximately 754 haab which add up to 1508 haab... almost.
 * The source material here has been misunderstood. The reference says "Two dates express a 1508 haab interval"
 * In other words "two dates express 'one' 1508 haab interval" Yourliver (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Feel free to correct the wording as you see fit. Dylanwhs (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This would give a tropical year of 365.2422 days. Remember that europeans determined this value more than 1000 years later.Japf (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge?
Any reason not to just redirect this to the article on the Mayan calendar? Maya calendar (other than that airport code HAAB redirects here?) RJFJR (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd oppose a merge, I think this topic is significant enough and there's easily enough depth in source material to sustain as a separate article. Even if currently there's some duplication btw the two, this could readily be expanded and developed into other detailed directions that would not be suitable for the overall Maya calendar article.--cjllw ʘ  TALK 02:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Requesting Pronunciations
I think it would improve the article if someone could give pronunciations (IPA) of each of the month names. I figure I'd ask here instead of putting "｛｛Pronunciation-needed｝｝" next to every single month name! —sburke@cpan.org (talk) 05:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

No obvious relation?
Isn't it obvious that the Tzolkin has a geo-physical relation? Isn't the human gestation cycle geo-physical? If not what is? --Xact (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not and absolutely not. What do you think geophysical means? Maybe you should look it up. And so what? How would such a wild conjecture improve the article? How would it not violate OR, FRINGE, etc.? And this is an article about the Haab', not the Tzolk'in, so what are you talking about?

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Haab'. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120823124027/http://www.imcce.fr/en/grandpublic/temps/saisons.php to http://www.imcce.fr/en/grandpublic/temps/saisons.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Bolles is wrong
Adding this section gives undue credibility to an unreliable source that is clearly wrong. Wikipedia articles should reflect the mainstream consensus on topics. The mainstream consensus is that the Maya DID NOT adjust the Haab' to keep it in synch with the tropical year. You could cite numerous gold-standard references to back this up. If this was true it would have caused the synchronization between the Tzolk'in and Haab' in calendar rounds to change every four years. This is not true. The synchronization between the Tzolk'in and Haab' has been continuous from the pre-classic to the present day. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)