Template talk:Maya Calendar

Suggestions for improvement of this template are welcome. If some can help me to make the glyphs for the Haab' months and the glyphs for the time units it would be nice. Since there is some discussion about the correlation constant, I added this as an adjustable parameter. You can choose whatever constant you like.Japf (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

As you can see several glyphs may be generated with different correlation constants.Japf (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Today's glyphs in the Maya calendar

B'ak'tun	K'atun	Tun	Winal	K'in	Tzolk'in		Haab'

Today's glyphs in the Maya calendar (Correlation constant=584285)

B'ak'tun	K'atun	Tun	Winal	K'in	Tzolk'in		Haab'

Today's glyphs in the Maya calendar (Correlation constant=400000)

B'ak'tun	K'atun	Tun	Winal	K'in	Tzolk'in		Haab'

Correlation constant

I would be careful about allowing one to pass a correlation constant to the template. There is really no doubt that the GMT correlation is correct. If no constant is specified, then it should be used by default. Maybe if one uses a different correlation then the template should display this fact prominently. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Why are you using the Thompson correlation? Only a handful of people use it and their reason for doing so is stupid. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I explained this in the portuguese version and was a little lazy for repeating it here. First, I just used the correlation for 23.12.2012 because the sites that explained me better the way that this calendar functions agree whichother with this correlation.[1][2] For I've read later, the mayanists (the scientists) are divided between the GMT and GMT+2 correlations and can't decided which is correct. There is a second reason for my choice- all the esoteric and stupid sites, that anounce the end of the world, prefer this "end of the world" at 21.12.2012 which is a more meaningfull date since it corresponds with Winter solstice. Since I don't believe in prophecies and don't believe in "the extraordinary knowledge of ancient civilizations" I was moved to the other correlation just for disturb a little this folklore. If you know some fact that may change my ideas, you can name it. Nevertheless the correlation constant is a parameter that can be changed.Japf (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

All of those stupid sites are correct. Only a hand full of "authorities" (Floyd Lounsbury and about two of his supporters) use the 584,285 correlation. It's NOT the GMT anything correlation. It's the Thompson correlation and it's wrong. If you use for your template then every time you add it to Wikipedia it will be removed. Senor Cuete (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

It happens that the two sites I followed support that handfull of authorities. If you garantee me that the majority of mayanists ese the 584285, I will change it. Japf (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here. When Japf removed the option of an arbitrary correlation, he hard-coded the GMT correlation, 584283, into the template, so he is not using the "Thompson/Lounsbury" correlation, 584285. — Joe Kress (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Please decide! I am already confused about these correlations. Forget the numbers, and start to think in dates. Which is the date for 13.0.0.0 in your opinion? This template was set to give 23.12.2012 by default, and Señor Cuete convinced me to change for 21.12.2012, or at least I thought he told me that...Japf (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Your template is now correct. I didn't notice that you had indeed used 584285 when you originally hard-coded the correlation, which Senor Cuete did not like. The correlation now in the template, 584283, is the dominant correlation used by Maya scholars. Note that Mesoamerican Long Count calendar#Correlations between Western calendars and the Long Count calendar does use 584283 to equate 13.0.0.0.0 with December 21, 2012. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Tzolk'in and Haab' numbers

For me, putting the number of the Tzolk'in and Haab' glyphs in parentheses after the name of the glyphs is confusing. I would either eliminate these or not put the other numbers in parentheses. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I found the parentheses around the Arabic numbers associated with numeric glyphs irritating. The Arabic numbers associated with numeric glyphs should remain, but without parentheses. I have no opinion regarding the numbers associated with named glyphs. — Joe Kress (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

All the suggestions were introduced. I don't agree especificly with removing the numbers below tzolkin and haab vintenas, since me and the most of humanity do not know the order of those symbols. So today is . Is this in the end or in the beginning of the "month"?Japf (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Can I put this template in the Maya calendar related articles, just like it is now?
• I pretend to create a template with the full stella so I am trying to create the figures for the time periods with the following images, based in this references [3][4]. Unfortunately my skills only include geometric figures. I just can't draw the more usual heads. I gladly accept any contribution for the making of those heads.Japf (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If you got those images from pauahtun.org then you better be sure that they aren't copyrighted. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I made those images myself, of course I had to be based on some references [5][6]. I tried to inovate a little, and put some changes to avoid copyright problems.If they are too similar to the ones from pauahtun.org I can modify them a little more. This glyphs may have some kind of "ideal form", and since I am not specialist I cannot distiguish an essential feature in the glyph from a personal and artistical interpretation of the pauahtun collaborator. If I need to modify them a little more I need to be helped to know what is essential and what is superfluous. Japf (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If you copied them and modified them, then they ere "derivative works" and are copyrighted by the original creator and you are in violation of intellectual property laws of the USA and other countries and rules of wikipedia. To be legal and acceptable to Wikipedia you need to own the copyright or they have to be in the public domain. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Well, If there is some problem it is better to delete them. I only copied them with my eyes. It is the same? But do you think some one can copyright an alphabet? The problem is that. Imagine if some one makes a new font for the latin alphabet. If I copy this font I am in violation of the copyright, but I still can use the latin alphabet for writing every day. I will ask to CJLL how didi he do with the Tzolkin months.Japf (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I must admit, I was instantly reminded of Ivan Van Langingham's stylised glyphs at pauahtun.org when I saw these ( , etc). The resemblance is probably a little too close. Also, in my opinion the pauahtun.org ones look too idiosyncratically stylised, and probably require a prior familiarity with more naturalistic glyphs to easily recognise.

One thing I'd thought of in the past, but hadn't got around to, was deriving some imgs from glyph drawings that are out of copyright, such as those by Cyrus Thomas or Teoberto Maler. I think Thomas' Day signs of the Maya year is available for download at Internet Archive, for eg. They might look a little underdone compared to modern artists' representations, but at least they could serve the purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CJLL Wright (talk • contribs) 02:26, 27 June 2009

Thank you. I will check those glyphs, and see want I can do.Japf (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC) I only colud find the day symbols, but this has been already done by you.Japf (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

In this reference [7] it is stated that the figures are reproduction from the codices and monuments, so it should be no problem. What do you think?Japf (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If you created the images yourself then you're OK. Personally I prefer the head-variant glyphs for the Long Count, rather than the symbolic ones. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I prefer too, since they are more usual, but I am only able to draw geometric figures.Japf (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)