Talk:Maya calendar/Archives/2013/December

See Also lunar calendar
Having Lunar calendar in the See also section doesn't make sense to me because the Maya calendar is not a lunar calendar. I read the lunar calendar article and even the lunar count in the supplementary series isn't a lunar calendar as defined in the article. Maybe this should be removed. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We have a new editor with an account and editing as an IP adding weird stuff to various articles and promoting Hunbatz Men. See WP:FTN. Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * He appears to be using the now-blocked IP address and a non-registered user name user:Manuel chuenquitze. I'm still interested in improving this article. One thing I'd like to see would be merging the article about the Long Count and this one. This would be a big task because of the need to merge the references and other things. Also there really should be a Mayan Astronomy article. Maybe I have the courage to start it sometime. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Which IP address is blocked? is an educational address, not blocked.  (marked up as  ) is registered. I agree with a merge, and an astronomy article would be great, but I'm not in a position to help much. Dougweller (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that I'm mistaken, 165.234.104.5 isn't currently blocked. Perhaps I was confused by the long history of abuse and blockage. Doesn't this history and recent activity warrant some long-term blockage? The reason I'm talking about improving that article is that I hope that there are other editors interested in further improvements to the article that would discuss these here. Here is a list of improvements I would like to see: Merge the Long Count article with this one. Remove the How to calculate sections from the Long Count article - The combined articles would be too long and would need to eliminate some less important sections. Remove the Maya Concepts of time section - The combined articles would be too long and would need to eliminate some less important sections. I'm sure that this was plagiarized from some eminent scholar but this section is way to philosophical and esoteric to contribute to the article. Remove the Origin of the Tzolkin section - The article is empirical, not speculative, except for this section and it cites unreliable sources (malmstrom) and s. This could remain in the Tzolkin article. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Another suggestion: The article erroneously states that the cycles of Venus were part of the calendar. They weren't but they were tracked by astronomers. For example in the serpent series of the Dresden codex. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Trecena and vienta
These coefficients of the Tzolk'in and Haab' were quite important to the post-classic people of Mesoamerica. In the Aztec calendar, each one of these numbers was associated with a god. This is not true in the Maya calendar. If no reliable source can be cited that these were features of the Maya calendar the reference to the Trecena and Vienta should be removed. Senor Cuete (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that some author has described the 13 days of the Tzolk'in as the Trecena but the 20 days of the Haab' are not described as the Vienta. To make the article consistent and to agree with definitive references, the description of the 13 days of the Tzolk'in as the Trecena should be removed. Senor Cuete (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)