Talk:Maya calendar/Archives/2007/June

Moved most of the Long Count section to Mesoamerican Long Count calendar

Folks, as discussed here previously (see Talk:Maya calendar#Should "Long Count" be a separate article?? above), I've decided to be bold and return the Long Count section to its own article (reversing a Sept 2005 decision). There are a number of reasons for this, primarily (1) the Long Count calendar was used by Mesoamerican cultures other than the Maya, and (2) the subsection was too long for this general article -- note that the tzolk'in and haab' sections are also summaries that refer to a more indepth article.

I ended up writing a more comprehensive introduction and more detail. Hope you like it - edit away! Thanks, Madman 19:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this move. Furthermore, in the process you deleted the discussion about 2012. This needs to be reverted. --grr 21:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This was a *TERRIBLE* idea. Now there will be two competing articles about the Long Count, two edit wars and two articles to defend against the new agers. This should be reverted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.67.161.139 (talk • contribs) 23 Febuary 2007.

I respectfully disagree, the LC is a Mesoamerican not just Maya innovation, and I think needs to be treated as such, and not only addressed in this Maya-specific context. The same goes for other calendrical subtopics which are or could be separate articles, eg Calendar Round, 260-day Mesoamerican calendar, etc. Ultimately I'd like to see us working towards a 'hierarchy' of articles, one set at the overall Mesoamerica-level surveying the calendrical components and usage across cultures, and another set to concentrate on the culture-specific manifestations of these. It may involve some duplication, at least at first, but this could be minimised. The extra watchfulness needed to counter/redress esoteric or suspect additions should not be much more of a burden than is already the case. I'm sure we can work something suitable out.--cjllw | TALK 08:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is an overview article and should not go into a whole lot of detail on any one calendar, be it the tzolk'in or the haab' or the Long Count calendar. Survey articles are the correct way to cover large topics and the Maya calendars are certainly a large topic.

The "2012" section was not deleted, but has been moved over to the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar article and where it belongs. Madman 06:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps "2012 and the Maya calendar" should redirect there, instead of here? Most people have only heard of 2012 relating to the Maya calendar, and if that's what one is looking for, this talk page currently seems to be the only way to find it. -SD 75.7.38.24 20:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that particular string (which I think a little unlikely for anyone to type in 'search') would be better off redirecting to the 2012 article itself, which gives more succinct data about the date/year.--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)