Talk:Aztec calendar

Oh god dear lord why
Yes, I know, page names are supposed to be singular when possible. But we have a few problems here we need to address. First and foremost, yes, obviously, T:NO RW applies, but just so everyone understands the context, let's go over the actual factual Aztec calendar. There is the "calendar round", which exists on a 52 year cycle, and is derived from a 365 day civic/solar calendar, the, and a 260 day religious, ceremonial calendar, the. 365*52 = 18980, 18980/260=73, you can check if you want that there's no earlier common factor.

Currently this page lumps everything together under one banner even though we aren't explicitly told to do so, and, again, I recognize that we don't immediately have reason not to, but we should mention that we're already mixing the two calendars if we bring real world information into this. It's the xiuhpōhualli that has 360+5 days, but as you can see from wiki it does not have "Ehecatl day", that would be the tōnalpōhualli. Again, nothing wrong so far, T:NO RW applies, but we are conflating two different real world concepts here.

Here's the problem. Against Nature exists. It refers a few times to the "tonalpohualli calendar" as distinct from the calendar itself, it explicitly calls the 52 year cycle, the calendar round, "one full cycle of the calendar" (and note here that it very explicitly does not use the term tonalpohualli in relation to this), and it introduces the term "tonalpohualli calendar" early on and continues to use it, doing so immediately, rather than just saying "calendar" thereafter. It also refers to trecenas, which are deeply incompatible with a 360+5 day calendar (though this might technically be a violation of T:NO RW? I'm not sure what the ruling is on "you literally just have to know a single word in another, contemporarily spoken language is to understand the meaning of this"). It does not explicitly at any time refer to the xiuhpōhualli or a 360+5 day calendar, but we're given enough to establish that there are two different calendars, two different cycles at play. Against Nature does not want us to think that the tonalpohualli, which is a Mexica calendar (and the Mexica/Aztec distinction is another can of worms I'm going to have to work on at some point, I know), is the same as their calendar generally. Najawin ☎  08:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Also dear lord I feel like Burton was just trolling me with how many references to the calendar there is and how much I'm going to have to do to integrate it.


 * Looking into this more though, Against Nature even uses some of the terms from the xiuhpōhualli, "Tozoztontli", "Tepeilhuitl", "Quecholli", and "Tititl" are all used, though it's non trivial from context that "Quecholli" refers to a part of a calendar rather than a season. And obviously "Nemontemi" is used quite a lot, though this is less definitive. But these terms just don't mirror the structure of the terms used in reference to the tonalpohualli in the book, which is always two separate words at minimum, if not two for a day and then two for a trecena. (This is because they're specifying which day of the year it is by saying, say, "Ome Ozmatli‎‎", or "two monkey" [explicitly stated in the book, btw, that this is the translation], but specifying where they are in position to the 52 year count by specifying the trecena as well, which takes on a similar form, "Ce Izcuintli" is "one dog" [not explicitly given as the translation].)


 * I think it's abundantly clear that Against Nature shows there are two distinct things here. How we handle that might differ from renaming the page, but something should be done. Najawin ☎  09:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)