Talk:Mesoamerican calendars

message: I've removed the following claim, which (although provided with a reference) is incorrect:
:They are the first to have created a calendar. 
While the provided source probably does say something along those lines, an article in Business Mexico is not an authorative source for this kind of information. Just when the Mesoamerican calendar system was first developed is not known, but the earliest-known examples date from around the (mid-) 1st millennium BCE; a number of other calendar systems (eg Egyptian calendar, Babylonian calendar) are attested at least a thousand years before this.--cjllw | TALK 01:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First calendar? 

message: it is writen :
"The 260-day period was divided into periods of 13 days called in Spanish a "trecena" (no indigenous word for this period is known). The days of a trecena were counted from 1-13 (except in the Tlapanec area where they were counted form 2-14). The first day of the trecena, and the god who was its patron, ruled the following thirteen days. If the first day of a trecena was auspicious then so were the next twelve days."
PLEASE : where is the source and the proof of the settlement "in the Tlapanec area where they were counted from 2-14" ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.228.73.236 (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Handbook of Middle American Indians article by Alfonso Caso. Pace Seler, Caso was the first to systematically study and compare calendars of mesoamerican peoples so I think he is reliable. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Tlapanec info is also given by Munro Edmonson, another Mesoamerican calendar scholar. He also notes the numeration in the system at Teotihuacan went from 2-14. Have added the cite, and also given the full citation reference to what (I presume) was intended for Caso 1971, as it seemed to be missing. Correct me if I'm mistaken. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Trecena

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Descripción histórica y cronológica de las dos piedras que con ocasión del nuevo empedrado que se está formando en la plaza principal de México, se hallaron en ella el año de 1790-1b.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 4, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-08-04. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng  {chat} 17:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Descripción histórica y cronológica de las dos piedras que con ocasión del nuevo empedrado que se está formando en la plaza principal de México, se hallaron en ella el año de 1790-1b.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: The article says: "the calendar usage wasn't synchronized between all of the communities of Mesoamerica." Munro Edminson studied this and came to the opposite conclusion.  Senor Cuete (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  52 year cycle 

message: The new illustration titled "Visualization of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar" is stupid. It add nothing to the article, is redundant and it should go.  Senor Cuete (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visualization of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar 

message: The citation needed tags in this section have been there since 2012, 2008 and 2013. Since nobody can provide a reliable source for these extremely dubious claims, this whole section should go.  Senor Cuete (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correlations 52 year cycle 

message: This article mostly describes the Aztec calendar. The 260 day calendar was universal but the Mexica altered their 365 day calendar sometime during the post classic period so it doesn't coincide with the Mayan Haab'. This is a pretty bad article. For example the correlation section is really wrong.  02:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aztec calendar 

message: These edits mostly cite Miller and Taube. In my opinion, Miller and Taube is a horrible source for articles about Mesoamerican culture. If it were up to me, It would be considered an unreliable source. Consider what it says about this in the Tlaltecuhtli article: "Miller and Taube provide an extensive bibliography but use no footnotes so it's impossible to know what sources identify Tlaltecuhtli as a female figure. They identify their main source for Aztec mythology as the Florentine codex however Book 1 of the codex, the Gods, does not include this god.[5] In order to be a reliable source a publication has to be a primary or secondary source. Since Miller and Taube does not refer to either of these, it does not qualify as a reliable source." There is more in the article as well. The article in Miller and Taube about the Mesoamerican calendars suffers from the same problems. In addition Miller and Taube give two dates in the Long Count and some western calendar (possibly the Proleptic Gregorian calendar) and neither one is correct. The Maya calendar, Mesoamerican Long Count calendar and Aztec calendar articles are pretty good and cite much better sources than Miller and Taube. The Mesoamerican calendars article is pretty bad and needs a lot of work, but hopefully it can cite reliable sources, not Miller and Taube.  Senor Cuete (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Senor Cuete, I didn't change anything in this article except making the intro shorter. So this matter has nothing to do with me. Good editing! Eio-cos (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by user: Eio-cos