Talk:Baylor–TCU football rivalry

	College football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Big 12 Conference High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Big 12 Conference, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the American college athletic conference on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Big 12 ConferenceWikipedia:WikiProject Big 12 ConferenceTemplate:WikiProject Big 12 ConferenceBig 12 Conference articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dallas-Fort Worth (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dallas-Fort WorthWikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthTemplate:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthDallas-Fort Worth articles

United States: Texas Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

Thanks for adding the categories. I completely forgot. The Moody Blue (Talk) 17:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Revivalry?[edit]

The Revivalry is not the name of the Baylor-TCU rivalry unless there is a reference somewhere to support it that I have not found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradholbrook (talk • contribs) 18:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no one calls it that caesarscott (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ceaar, not sure what you are basing that on, but you are clearly incorrect - see below. The Moody Blue (Talk) 22:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Ubben has used it, other sports writers, the Urban Dictionary, etc. It has achieved common usage by now. 24.153.134.52 (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any references to "The Revivalry" name?[edit]

Does anyone have any evidence that the name "The Revivalry" is used by the schools or media? The only thing I've been able to find is David Ubben at ESPN.com responding to fan mail.[1] The Ubben article was posted two weeks after this page was created. While it would be ideal to have the page at a common name for the rivalry rather than Baylor-TCU; it seems this name is not common at all.--Southronite (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Moodyblue is correct, and it is being used more and more in common reference now since the teams are back in the same conference. Both schools see the annual game as much more significant. Revivalry is starting to be fairly common usage, certainly enough to use it here as accepted and acceptable. 24.153.134.52 (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Revivalry → Baylor–TCU football rivalry – I've seen no evidence that the name "The Revivalry" is used by the schools or media. The only thing I've been able to find is David Ubben at ESPN.com responding to fan mail.[2] The Ubben article was posted two weeks after this page was created. In fact on the first five pages of a simple Google search of the phrase "The Revivalry" the only mentions of Baylor and TCU is a link to this Wikipedia page and an Urban Dictionary entry. [3] Also using Google News Archives the only mention of "The Revivalry" is the David Ubben ESPN.Com Article. [4] While it would be ideal to have the page at a common name for the rivalry rather than Baylor-TCU; it seems that this name is not used at all.--Southronite (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - No evidence that this name has caught on, one sports writer's nickname for the rivalry does not WP:COMMONNAME make. (Shouldn't it be a dash instead of a hyphen?) --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 03:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should be a dash, I'll amend that.--Southronite (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason you can't be bold?

I did not want to make a mistake and move a correctly titled article. However judging from the evidence I gave above it's not even close; "The Revivalry" is only used by one sports writer . I will move the article to Baylor–TCU football rivalry.--Southronite (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support::::southronite, you as an administrator at KillerFrogs should know TCU's history. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't accurate. This name was used for the TCU-Baylor rivalry for about 70 years before the demise of the Southwest Conference, especially up to the early 1970's. Research requires more than just checking with contemporary sports writers and asking opinions on your own fansite. This is a deep traditional for this rivarly - while it might not appear numerously on the internet NOW, where do you think Ubben got it? There are some things that were in common usage long before Wikipedia even existed, and it seems that you are trying to prove a negative to get rid of something that you haven't really researched beyond a cursory internet search. There are a lot of facts that are older and more traditional than the internet, and have been in common usage long, long ago. This term was used in many places, many new stories and by many fans long before the 1994 SWC breakup. It is a common usage that is now making a comeback because the two schools are back in the same conference for the first time in a long time. Leave the article - it is an old common term for the rivalry, but it is' a common term for it. And for a term not in common usage, it sure is being discussed a lot, especially at Baylor and TCU. It is an old term making a comeback - let's remove the "move" tag, leave it and see where we are in a year. Here are a few selected links (there were a number more) where it is being discussed:

http://www.baylorfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241059&page=1
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/tag/_/name/brennan-clay
http://www.killerfrogs.com/msgboard/index.php?showtopic=156547&st=0
http://www.killerfrogs.com/msgboard/index.php?showtopic=156547&st=40#entry1162129
http://www.killerfrogs.com/msgboard/index.php?showtopic=156547&st=60#entry1162179
http://www.killerfrogs.com/msgboard/index.php?showtopic=156547&st=80#entry1162736
http://www.killerfrogs.com/msgboard/index.php?showtopic=156547&st=80#entry1162300
http://www.baylorfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241011&page=3
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Revivalry
The Moody Blue (Talk) 21:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Message board posts do not equal reliable sources and anyone can edit Urban Dictionary. Ubben is the only writer using the term "Revivalry". In fact every link you posted was created after June 24, 2012 the date of this pages creation. I also find it doubtful that the term "Revivalry" has been used for 70 years. As I linked above the term "Revivalry" does not appear in Google news archives dating over a century. I'm also not a moderator at "KillerFrogs" as I'm a University of Georgia fan and have no connection to TCU.--Southronite (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have given LOTS of evidence it is in current usage. Until you provide equal usage that it isn't, stop trolling on this page and changing it. And the discussion boards of THE SCHOOLS INVOLVED are relevant. Or do you just HAVE to have your way and no one else's, which is what it is starting to sound like. It also appears on Bleacher Report, and other sites from last year's game. Just because it doesn't show up in a cursary goole search doesn't mean much. I search the Star Telegram and American Statesman archives and found a number of references, two of which I used. The Moody Blue (Talk) 18:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just searched both The American Statesman [5] and the Star Telegram [6] and still cannot find anything where the name Revivalry is used. I gave strong evidence above that the term Revivalry is not and has never been in usage by TCU or Baylor and instead you are asking me to prove a negative. The message board post are people speculating on a name for the rivalry and people talking about this very Wikipedia page.--Southronite (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. Unfortunately titling articles on college sports rivalries with supposed "nicknames", most often quite obscure and inscrutable to the average reader, has been a curse of Wikipedia's coverage of the subject for years. The descriptive name is substantially more precise and recognizable, and more in line with use in the sources. This ought to be done with all of our articles on these rivalries, with the very rare exception where the nickname is actually and demonstrably the most common way of referring to the game.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.