Talk:Maya calendar/Archives/2013/October

Adding Lunar years to the chart
Shouldn't the chart also list Lunar years? and any other significant type of year? Misty MH (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Edits by USER:Howard McCay
Most authors describe the Haab' as a vague solar year. Your change to the word "approximate" makes it sound like the Haab' was an attempt to correlate the Haab' with the solar year. Is this what you want to say?

You wrote:" Smaller cycles of 13 days, the trecena, and 20 days, the veintena, are important components of the Haab'." This is incorrect. The trecena is part of the tzolk'in and the Vienta is a component of the Haab'. Also these terms are not discussed much by authors who write about the Maya calendar, rather they were more important for the similar Aztec calendar.

"One extra trecena each Calendar Round is needed to reconcile the Calendar Round with the solar year." I can't understand this. The calendar Round is 18,980 days. Adding 13 = 18,993. How does this "reconcile" this with the solar year? The Tropical year is currently 365.2421897 days, see:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_year#Mean_tropical_year_current_value. Dividing 18,993 by 365.2421897 doesn't produce an integer. Even though this is only off by .001 years I don't see how this reconciles the Calendar Round with the Tropical year. This edit violates Wikipedia's policy in WP:Original research. This is an interesting factoid but to be included in a Wikipedia article, edits must be verifiable and cite reliable sources. If you can find some reliable source that says that was significant to the Maya it can be in the article.

"The third position of the Long Count loses 5¼ days each year." Wrong - as noted above the Tropical year is NOT 365.25 days. The 365.25 day year is the Julian year. This is also WP:Original research

"3.10.0.0 Long Cycle days are very close to 69 years." Not if you are referring to the Tropical year. (1.4.7.0.0 Long Cycle days are exactly 480 Julian calendar years.) Huh? Were the Maya aware of the Julian year. Again this is WP:Original research and was this important to the Maya? If so cite a reliable source.

"So if 0.0.0.0.0 is 6 September (Julian calendar) -3113 (astronomical year), then 0.3.10.0.0 is 6 September -3044, 0.7.0.0.0 is 6 September -2975, and 1.4.7.0.0 is 6 September -2633." There is no such date as 0.0.0.0.0. As clearly stated in the article, all known inscriptions use 13.0.0.0.0 for the start of the current creation. 0.3.10.0.0 is September 3, -3044, NOT September 6, using the GMT correlation that is described at length in the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar. 7.0.0.0 is September 1, NOT September 6. You are correct that 1.4.7.0.0 is September 6, -2633. How does citing a few correlated dates improve the article and aren't these WP:Original research? The best way to do calendar conversions is to use a computer program. It's much less error prone that manual calculations. I'm glad that you are using the Julian calendar rather than the foolish Proleptic Gregorian calendar.

If you read the whole article you will see that the 819 day cycle and the Nine Lords of the Night are explained with citations later in the article.

I recommend that you carefully read the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar as well. If this was my article I would merge it with this article. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)