Talk:Mesoamerican ballgame

Cohodas, Gillespie

The last names Cohodas and Gillespie are repeatedly listed as sources for this material, but the page provides no further information about these references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BooksXYZ (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, both of these authors have written various articles about the ballgame. With no year in the reference, it is impossible to pin down the exact source. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

How common are ballcourts?

My earlier text based on my observations, reading, and research was: "Every Pre-Columbian ruin of any size in the area contains at least one ballcourt, often several."

Anon editor (from 66.245.27.203) removed that and added the text: "but most prehispanic Mesoamerican communities had none at all."

I've removed both statements from the article. What is your source on that, 66.245.27.203? Can you give examples of mapped and explored sites with no ballcourts? Or does "communities" include hamlets and villages with no permanent structures? Explanation and clarification welcome. Wondering, -- Infrogmation 18:18, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You must distinguish not only the site but the period of occupation. Ball courts seem to have been special civic-ceremonial architecture, and while sometimes they were built in very small communities--say 10 houses or less--others may have had hundreds of homes and no ball court--this is true for every period from Early Formative to Late Postclassic. Indeed, ball courts seem to have been an earlier phenomenon in southern Mesoamerica than in, for example, the Basin of Mexico. Remember, too, that the presence of a ball court implies at least a trading link with the lowlands, as the trees that supplied the rubber for the balls do not grow in the highlands. There are lots of misconceptions about ball courts; one is that all/most Mesoamerican communities built and used them. Specifically, as to mapped and explored sites with no ball courts: look at all major regional survey reports for the Basin of Mexico, Puebla, and Valley of Oaxaca. Many have been published by the University of Michigan and Penn State Univ (and other sources); authors include William Sanders, Jeffrey Parsons, Richard Blanton, and Stephen Kowalewski. I've been on over a thousand sites in the Mixteca Alta and Valley of Oaxaca, and almost all lacked ball courts.--signed, fellow Mesoamerican scholar

Okay. I have to admit I was mostly thinking of Maya sites; in Oaxaca and Central Mexico I'm mostly just familiar with the larger more famous sites. Can we be more specific, perhaps starting with something like that ball courts are common in Peten sites but rare in Oaxaca (or whatever the cases may be)? Cheers, -- Infrogmation 09:32, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Non-cultural details scarce

What's the aim? How do people actually play? 119 06:16, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I came here looking for the rules of the games as well. MMad 12:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all that is known about the pre-Columbian ritual/game can only be inferred from the archaeological record and interpretation of imagery- there are no inscriptions or texts from that era (that can be read) which explain or describe the rules, or even (directly) the purpose.--cjllw | TALK 22:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

poc-ta-tok

I´m writing about the same subject at the german wikipedia [1]. I´m not an expert. Actually, I only have done some google research. My problem is, that I can´t confirm "poc-ta-tok". In this [2] Vocabulary book it ist called "pitzal" for instance.

The term "ulama", another problem, is used in the text in a way that goes around the problem. Maybe that is clever. Because, I guess the word has nothing to do with ballgame, but with rubber. I will write ( hope no one will erase that) that it is the Aztek word for rubber and the people who grow it at ~1500. So, there is no olmec-connection, in my view. That is not from me ( it´s internet), but it explains a lot. Yours, Zahnstein --62.227.72.108 08:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Great writing here

sorry for the off-topic, but I have to say this- I love the transition in 'Versions of the game' from paragraph 4 (game was extremely violent, graphic descriptions of injuries, skull of losers makes new ball, "stories of the ritual ballgames between the Maya Hero Twins and the demonic Lords of Xibalba") and paragraph 5 (And it's fun for the kids!).

I just moved out the demonic part here in refactoring but I think that the transition still stands. --Homunq 17:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Ulama game article?

I would agree with the merge, under the name of Mesoamerican ballgame. Madman 20:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you're wrong in that Ulama is a separate game, likely a descendent of the Mesoamerican ballgame. Separate articles are needed. An older and ever-so-slightly wiser Madman 13:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that separate articles are needed. Kaldari (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Rules, people, rules!!!!

Ok, great. We have the origin, the history which was all very interesting. But, I mean, we need the rules and the gameplay.

You'll have to invent them yourself (only if you do invent them don't put it in the article). Nobody knows the rules.Maunus 16:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Besides this, the article seems to suggest most scholars associate the hip-ball game with the rules cited by the Spanish witnesses, as well as the bigger courts and rings. If so, it would be interesting to see if they've actually used a test group of athletes to see if people can actually play a game with those particular rules using only their hips, particularly with a ball weighing 4 pounds. Ulama is not a hips-only game. Keeping a ball bouncing with arms and shins is feasible, with hips there wouldn't be rallies more than 2 or 3 shots. It's hard to believe the hip-ballgame was played on the big ring courts or with ulama-like rules. The mural dipicting hip-ball suggests the ball isn't high up in that game, maybe the bounces don't matter there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.56.228 (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Check out this YouTube video. It appears that these re-enactors only use their hips. Madman (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yabbut is their ball 4Kg heavy? And even they have a hard time keeping the ball off the ground. I honestly can't picture it, unless there is something nobody has though of yet, such as the ball being suspended from a wire or something.2.80.239.111 (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Another article to merge to here

I think the new article Ceremonial Ball Court should be merged and redirected to here. -- Infrogmation 00:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the merge proposal, although perhaps at some point there'd be justification for having separate articles on the ballcourt structures and the ballcourt game/rituals. The new article also only covers aspects relating to the Maya, whereas ballcourts are one of the common pan-Mesoamerican defining aspects.--cjllw | TALK 04:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Considerable overlap with Maya Hero Twins entry

Retelling the Popol Vuh story, with a lot of unnecessary detail, unfocuses your own story. Retal 00:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is true, and I pulled out large chunks unrelated to the ballgame. It still needs work, particularly (I believe) on the long paragraphs discussing the cosmic meaning of the game. Madman 13:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Chichen Itza - court size

Please correct! There are two different sizes for the chichen itza ball court given in the court section!

Patrick —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.182.74 (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Images

Great Ballcourt of Chichen Itza.

I've uploaded a 360 ° panorama of the Great Ballcourt at Chichen Itza. Just wondering if it was germane to place in the main article (or other articles) to give a sense of scale for the size.--Rojoxiii (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

This article could use a little brush up language-wise —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.52.45.238 (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

History Channel

Just saw the show "Decoding the Past" on History Chan. They said that they now believe it is the the winning team's captain which is sacrificed as winning the game makes him worthy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.11.103.62 (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

This pops up on occasion. Being the sticklers we are here, we're looking for some more academic than the guides at Chichen Itza or even the History Channel. There's certainly a lot we don't know about this game (starting with the rules). Thanks, Madman 01:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I visited Chichen Itza this week and with our tour guide, he also confirmed that the winning team's captain was sacrificed to the gods. I don't know how much professional information you need about him, but he claimed to us that he was of strictly Mayan decent (he left his village to go to college), graduated with a Masters degree in archeology and astronomy and currently participates in speaking all over the world. His Spanish name is Antonio Cuxil (couldn't find his Mayan name), and his credentials are confirmed in several sources. I cannot find any papers or books he has written, but I just thought I'd throw that out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.144.227.226 (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...and yet, with all those qualifications and worldwide speaking engagements, he spends his time hauling gringos around on a look-see before they cram back into the tour bus? Somehow, I don't think so; either he, or you, are having a laugh. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So you think those qualifications are worth much, economically wise, in a country other than the US? And even there...2.80.239.111 (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

We can add this to the article once it is found in a secondary source. We really really cannot cite "the tour guide at Chichen Itza". Madman (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

With the scholars professing ignorance on the subject, WP shouldn't really take a side.2.80.239.111 (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Too Heavy on the Mayas

The article dwells a bit much on the Mayas in connection with the ballgame. In fact, the ballgame was as common or even more so among the Aztecs, and it was from them that the Spanish learned about it. Perhaps the original contributor here is more acquainted with the Mayas, but for balance and accuracy, someone should contribute more about the Aztecs and the game. If I have the time..... Tmangray 01:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think we're all just working on our projects. Madman 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a section on the Aztec ullamaliztli.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution. Re:the rendering of Nahuatl words-I've heard the pronounciation of these words and in my own experience, besides slight variations among native speakers, I find that neither the "o" nor the "u" renderings fully captures the actual vowel sound. This probably also accounts for the alternate renderings one finds for all the cognates of olli/ulli. Tmangray 17:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The actual explanation which I didn't include in the article is that the long o vowel of nahuatl has a tendency to be raised to sound a bit closer to the spanish u sound than the short one. almost everytime you find the letter u used as a vowel in a 16th century document it corresponds to a long vowel. In fact in some dialects the contrast of long and short o has become a contrast of o and u instead. I have removed your additions of the spanish spelling, because that part of the article is trying to render the actual Náhuatl usage. The u-spelling is simply a spanish mishearing of the sounds in the nahuatl language that are unknown in spanish. In my opinion it is an injustice to the nahuatl language to not render the actual words but rather their hispanified counterparts. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

But the actual words were not originally rendered in roman letters. It's the pronounciation relative to a given language, in one case Spanish, in the other, English. It's all approximation. The Royal Spanish Academy in their online dictionary uses the "u" as the best rendition relative to their language, although I agree that the sound is not a true "u" sound, but having heard it spoken myself, I can't say it really sounds like a true "o" either. Then there's the fact that it shows up with the alternate spellings. There should be at least some mention of this so that readers are not confused. Tmangray 22:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously a problem which arises in connection with transliterating all languages. The various official pronunciation systems are of little use to the casual inquirer since they require considerable study of their codes and navigation of jargon describing them. These should be posted for those who can use them easily, but some accommodation should also be made for others, even if this requires the use of crude approximations. It might also be helpful to link to any online voice files with native speakers pronouncing the various words. This of course carries its own limitation in that pronounciations vary even among native speakers, but it would still be useful. Tmangray 22:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no native speakers of classical nahuatl, which is a dead literature language. The only way we can attain knowledge of how the sound sounded in classical nahuatl is by the descriptions given in the early grammars - none of us have heard how it was pronounced in classical nahuatl. Carochi consistently writes the vowel as "ō" while he remarks that the sound is not as low as the spanish o. The transscription of classical nahuatl is not governed by the royal spanish academy, nor should it be used as in the historical sources. The transcription of classical nahuatl is best rendered by scholars of classical nahuatl, and no scholars of classical nahuatl spanish or english speaking render the long o vowel of classical nahuatl with the letter u. Carochi, Olmos, Launey and the american nahuatl scholars use the letter o, sometimes with a diacritic (macron) to write this vowel. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Royal Spanish Academy is most certainly the ultimate authority on transcriptions into Spanish, not classical Nahuatl scholars. I would be very much surprised if the Academy doesn't utilize the foremost scholarship in determining such things. I'm also surprised to hear that there are no native speakers of classical Nahuatl. Are none of the hundreds of thousands speakers of Nahuatl in Mexico today considered more authoritative about pronunciations of their own language than people in academia? And why is it that the surviving ballgame is rendered "Ulama" and not "Olama"? And why is so-called "classical" Nahuatl the only source to be considered for transliteration? Isn't the common speech, which is most likely like the Nahuatl still spoken in Mexico today, as valid if not more valid as representative of Nahuatl generally? Because of this, and the acknowledgment that the "o" used to transcribe classical Nahuatl by one scholar isn't quite as "low" as the Spanish "o" (which is clear when you hear Nahuatl spoken today), why shouldn't alternative transcriptions be mentioned? Tmangray 03:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Classical Nahuatl was the dialect spoken in mexico city at the arrival of the panish. It has a great literary corpus and the early sources are in this language. The current speakers of Nahuatl speak any of around 30 different nahuatl dialects some of which are very different from classical nahuatl. And no these speakers are not considered to be more authoritative on the pronunciation of a language that they have never heard. Just like you couldn't be considered an authority on Old English unless you had actually studied it. As for the spanish academy the thing that I have been trying to tell you is that I am trying to render the words in actual nahuatl, not in spanish. The spelling with u is a spanish transcription while the transcription with o follows the normal orthography for writing Nahuatl - so the real academia doesn't enter into this discussion at all. The reason the surviving game is called ulama is that it was so named by spaniards. There are no(natural) Nahuatl communities in Sinaloa where it is played. Classical Nahuatl and not modern nahuatl dialects is the source for transcriping words from aztec culture for several reasons. 1. it was the language spoken by the aztecs of tenochtitlan, and most (all) early sources arefrom their language. 2. it was a lingua franca before the arrival of the spaniards. 3.it has literarure, what none of the modern dialects have. 4. its the only language that we know to have even used the word o:llamaliztli, other communities may have called it differently. 5.alternative transcription is mentioned and used in different parts of the rarticle because I realize that it is the normally used orthography by non-nahuatl scholars, but I try to make a distinction between this ultimately spanish word and the words actually used by the aztecs themselves.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 05:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Name of the game?

Back in middle or high school, I was taught this game was known as Tlatchi, and google turns up quite a few hits under that name. I seem to remember the old D&D Hollow World boxed set campaign also referred to it by that name. Rather than alter this page, I set up a Tlatchi page, which now redirects to this one.

Tlachtli was the name the aztecs called the game, other cultures called it by other names as you will see if you read the article.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Article needs work

I thought perhaps we could spend some time trying to better document this article and remove or document some of the more outlandish or broad-sweeping statements:

• "The goal was to knock the ball into the opponent's end of the court" - Do we know this?
• "A loser's skull might be used as the core around which a new rubber ball would be made." - Seems unlikely.
• "Brightly painted deer hides adorned with feathers were worn around the hips and provided some additional protection, as well as adding to the rich attire of the players." Um, OK, if you say so.

In general, the article seems to be something that has grown up over time by the steady addition of sentences here and there by various authors, so perhaps it can copyedited into a tighter, better documented, and more nuanced article. FYI, Madman 13:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your good work on the article. Regarding the skull in the ball, between depictions in art of skulls in ballgame balls and the Popul Vuh, I know there's been some scholarly speculation that this was done (needs citation, I know), but I don't know that i has been demonstrated to be so. -- Infrogmation 19:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems that the decapitated severed head becomes the ball in some sort of metaphysical way, and some scholars have speculated that the skull actually substituted for the ball (though it could hardly bounce properly ! :), but do they really build an actual ball around the head? Thanks for weighing in, Madman 22:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

After significant research, I removed the sentence stating "A loser's skull might be used as the core around which a new rubber ball would be made." There have been no balls recovered that contain skulls (ref: Filloy Nadal or Hosler articles) and I have read nothing that hints of this practice in any of my other sources (Scarborough and Wilcox The Mesoamerican Ballgame and Whittington's The Sport of Life and Death: The Mesoamerican Ballgame, both recent collections of scholarly articles.). Now, the http://www.ballgame.org/ website does mention this ("Some balls had human skulls at the core. Rubber strips were wound around skulls to form a large hollow ball.") but I haven't found anything else anywhere. I would be happy to add this back if someone can find a citation etc. Thanks, Madman 01:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I conversed via email with the curator of the Mint Museum, which sponsored the The Sport of Life and Death: The Mesoamerican Ballgame travelling exhibit and, in a loose way, the website above. She indicated that she was not aware of any evidence that skulls were actually used within the rubber balls, and that any depictions showing skulls superimposed on balls were metaphorical in nature.Madman 18:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have finally tracked down a couple of mentions of skull-balls by two prominent archaeologists: Mary Ellen Miller and Linda Schele. They were essentially speculating on the possibility, and I noted this in the article.

I also found the source of the "Brightly painted deerskin . . . " sentence above, which was also Miller. She was particularly referring to Maya players. FYI, Madman (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Today, I removed the following sentence: "In some versions of the game, the feet were used as in modern football soccer." due to lack of any supporting documentation. Madman 18:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Proof?

The earliest documentation of this game comes from the 1800s. This documentation of its existance is relies heavy on original research. True there is a similar game being played today, but what proof have we that the games played today were ever played in these particular "courts". My problem is mostly about the so called "ancient ball courts" and their actual use. Where's the proof linking the modern games with the "ancient ball courts"? Please don't cite me any modern writings. I want actual proof that very specifically links the game with the courts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.141.144 (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The earliest documentation written in latin script comes from the 16th century, written by spanish conquistadors ad native croniclers who saw the game being played. The connection of the ancient ball courts with the ball game comes from huge amounts of epigraphic evidence AND hieroglyphic texts clearly stating that the function of the ballcourt structures were to play ball. You should read the article actually, it's all in there.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 18:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the illustration in the article from the Codex Borgia should alone be demonstration that the association of the activity with the physical architecture is not a 19thC invention. And far from being 'orginal research' in the sense used on wikipedia (ie some contributor's own personal interpretation), there can scarcely have been a publication on Mesoamerican archaeology and architecture that does not mention the connection.

True enough, there are a number of popular contemporary accounts which assume a lot more about the actual gameplay and purpose than more serious research avows, but that doesn't seem to be the intent of the query here. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Came to the talk page for this reason. There's zero skepticism or academic inquiry into this. The entire thing is speculative, every single instance, without citations that aren't just more speculative works of fiction or people trying to insert further information gleaned from their own imagination. This is disappointing. I grew up under the premise that all of this was true. But the reality is we have a bunch of statues that could be anything, a couple of hand stones that are more probably for grinding flat stone surfaces / stone masonry, and a couple of reproduction rubber balls whose labels fell off and now their providence is unknown.

I suppose it makes sense when one journalist declaring something and a thousand others cutting and pasting his work has been deemed a primary source. But it's shocking how little evidence there is for any of this. 2001:8003:2956:4300:50FD:2CD8:8930:2A5B (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mesoamerican ballgame/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Well written, accessible, no apparent omissions or balance issues, images are used properly and with no copyright problems. I saw a couple bad sentence transitions, which I fixed, but other than that, excellent, professional writing here. You pass.

I would suggest nominating this for WP:FA next, so that the really nitpicky issues can be worked out. --erachima talk 21:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

They sacrified the losers, or the winners?

The local guides explain that the captain sacrified was of the WINNER team, with the idea to offer only the best to the gods. They say also that both captains were always willing to win, for the death by sacrifice was considered a glorius ending. If there is no proof .of this being false, perhaps this version should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.96.143.93 (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That'd be the wrong way around -- in order for a statement like that to be included we'd need demonstration that it is verifiably made by a range of reliable sources. Local tour guides and their tales would meet neither of these criteria, I'm afraid. While there's clear iconographic evidence & portrayals of captive/'loser' sacrifice, AFAIK nothing really indicates the reverse. --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

How do we know the iconographic evidence & portayals are of "captive/loser" been sacrificed, rather than the winner of the game? 99.232.166.204 (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Yu Li

Precisely; there's no references cited in the article demonstrating that the losers were sacrificed. Therefore, I have temporarily changed it to a neutral stance until more references are found.--Canned Soul (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Pot-a-tok??

What is the source for this strange word?77.162.130.139 (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed suspect material

I removed the statements referenced by Brian Fagan's The Seventy Great Inventions of the Ancient World because this book is a popular press book (i.e. not scholarly) whose focus is not the ballgame. In this book, Fagan makes overly broad statements which are not supported in scholarly treatments of the ballgame. For example:

The stone ballcourt goals. . ."changed the game entirely though, since an immediate win could be attained from them by tossing the balls in the ring, or points could be scored by simply tossing the ball so that it touched the ring."

Since we don't know the rules of the Mesoamerican ballgame with any certainty, we can't say that the rings "changed the game entirely" nor have I seen any other reference to idea that touching the ring with the ball scored "points". The use of the word "toss" is also problematic since (so far as I have read) the players never "tossed" the ball except to serve.

The other quote is:

"With the Aztec version of the game, the skulls of losing teammembers were even placed in a 'skull rack' beside the field, and their blood was offered as 'food for the gods'. "

This implies that the entire losing team was sacrificed. It is not known with any certainty exactly who or how many were sacrificed.

In summary, Fagan is not a reputable source, at least as far the ballgame. I would want these excerpts verified by some sort of scholarly material before including them in this article. Thanks, Madman (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

hihohjkjjjgghhhyggghhyyyyyyyt₳฿฿฿฿฿฿฿฿฿฿฿₵₵₵₵₵₵₵₵₵₵¢¢↔↔↔↔↔↔ §kaksnmcndhbshndmccokjbjhjjhmhgjhjhgjhjhvghkjh,khjhkj §8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.41.122 (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Mesoamerican ballgame/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article was listed as GA over five years ago. Judging by it's state when listed, I'm going to assume that simply the times have changed and GA criteria has become more strict. My main concerns are as follows:

• Verifiability. There are numerous unreferenced claims, some entire paragraphs, all throughout the article. Statements like “Since the Toltec king apparently no longer understood the purpose of his pact ... this ball game match signified the beginning of the end of the Toltec reign” seem likely to be challenged and may not meet minimum required references.
• Lead. Today we generally try to ensure the name of the article is mentioned in the lead, and in bold (MOS:BOLDTITLE). The paragraphs are rather short (MOS:PARAGRAPHS) and perhaps should be consolidated to match WP:LEADLENGTH. Lastly there may be unnecessary inclusion of citations when they could be supplied elsewhere in the article (WP:CITELEAD).
• Prose. There are bulleted lists throughout the article that I feel could better be presented as prose (MOS:LINEBREAKS).
• Layout. Specifically with images. The positioning may disrupt the flow of the article, especially when floating them to the left at the start of a section (MOS:IMAGELOCATION). Also some images are strangely positioned in the Notes and References sections (WP:LAYIM). The References section itself seems rather unorthodox. While a list of general references is fine, I feel there is a lack of text-source integrity.

I do not think this article is a lost cause, but it may take a good amount of time to get up to today's GA standards. Let's hear what other editors have to say before delisting it. — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably not up to today's GA standards; however I have solid sources on the ballgame; if I have time I will try to work through to see if I can salvage the article. As for the images and formatting, that should be easy enough to sort out. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've made a first pass at the References section to separate the cited sources from further reading. Unfortunately, there is a lack of referencing consistency - and some cited sources are not listed in the refs; others refer to surname only, where multiple sources from the same author are listed. Quite a mess.
• I've also reformatted some of the pictures, and removed most of the forced image sizes.

More to follow. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is not up to the current standard. Thanks for doing this and for any work to improve the article that you are going to do!User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Article looks much better now, but I still see issues with verifiability, the lead, and prose. I'm afraid I'm going to have to proceed with delisting this article... but don't let that discourage you from improving it! If I see it at WP:GAN I'll be happy to review it again. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Nahuatl pronunciation

Shouldn't (Nahuatl pronunciation: /oːlːamaˈlistɬi/) be (Nahuatl pronunciation: /oːlːamalˈistɬi/). With the emphasis character after the 'l'? Senor Cuete (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mesoamerican ballgame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910095804/http://www.mesoweb.com/pari/publications/journal/404/Handspan.pdf to http://www.mesoweb.com/pari/publications/journal/404/Handspan.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mesoamerican ballgame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070524065929/http://www.denison.edu/collaborations/istmo/n04/proyectos/corazon.html to http://www.denison.edu/collaborations/istmo/n04/proyectos/corazon.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Linking to Aztec society

Hello friends. I feel like it would a good idea to link this article to the Aztec society article where you mention the ballgame and what it means particularly to the Aztecs. The Aztec society article mentions the ball game and is linked to this article as well. Is anyone against this idea? Tdbdh4 (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mesoamerican ballgame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070221182955/http://www.doaks.org/Social/social09.pdf to http://www.doaks.org/Social/social09.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)