Talk:BYU–Utah rivalry

Holy-War merger
I believe Holy-War should be merged into Utah-BYU rivalry as the information is redundant. Utah-BYU rivalry is more informitave and better named however, so I think we should get rid of Holy-War Epachamo 17:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree JefeDeJefes 19:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree --Nate 03:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree - Kingutd 14:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the reason that these articles have not yet been merged is because Holy-War is a page that fits in Category:College_football_rivalries. Since the Utah-BYU rivalry page invloves more than just the football aspect of the rivalry, it doesn't fit (I put it in that category once, but a moderator removed it). CincyUte 19:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the moderator is wrong on that one. Epachamo 22:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree

I agree it should be merged.

One more vote for merging. Milkncookie 21:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

These two article should be merged. Since this article is more comprehensive, it should absorb the Holy War article. General125 23:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There is redundant information, but "Holy War" is specific to the football game. I would be okay with "Holy War" providing deeper coverage of the football game than the overall sports rivalry. Also, the BC vs Notre Dame football game is referenced in Wikipedia as a "Holy War." Not referencing BYU vs Utah in the same manner would delegitimize what has become a popular characterization of the Utes vs Cougars football game. Therefore, it may now be a question of legitimacy. Given ESPN's coverage and reference to BYU vs Utah as a "holy war," and the reference to "holy war" by other media, I think it is now legitimate necessary to have some level of specific coverage under that term in order to be accurate. See how ND vs BC is referenced as a guide. Bluerampage 00:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)BlueRampage 16 March 2007

I think the two articles should be merged, the coverage is similar. I think this one is better, but the Holy War is becoming a common moniker for the game. I vote yes on the merger.Howdythere 07:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Gotta agree on the merger. It's silly to have two articles so similar. I vote yes for a merger. Jturney 01:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

one more for the merger72.0.36.36 03:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * this should be merged . . . it would make more sense that way, I think


 * One vote for a merger, also the point of view seems biasedSackmachine91 (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't it be merged and then a disambiguation page or redirect placed at the other one? Karl.greenwood (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the two should be merged. Many rivalry games have their own page. They are listed at List of NCAA college football rivalry games. If anything needs to be changed, I think some things (the results table, for example) should be moved to the Holy War page, with a Holly War summary on the BYU-Utah rivalry page. --Glennfcowan (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly think they should not be merged. The Utah-BYU rivalry should emphasis the fact that the rivalry is across all competitive areas while the Holy War should focus only on the football rivalry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.176.193.143 (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that the two should be merged. The annual football game is by far the most popular and noteworthy of the contests. It is deserving of its own article. I think it should briefly be summarized in this article. UteFan16 (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate Tone?
Lethargy, could you be more specific? What would you like to see changed here? I'll get on it if you'll let me know. JefeDeJefes 14:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see your request until today. The article is full of information impossible to verify "Fans of these schools constantly argue about which has the better academics, which has the more attractive co-eds, which has a nicer campus..." (No original research) and does nothing but show off the topic "Few rivalries in collegiate athletics can match the passion and intensity..." (Avoid peacock terms). --Lethargy 23:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've moved those notices (merge/inappropriate tone/unreferenced) to the bottom of the page. These issues have apparently become neglected. And since this page will likely be receiving an increased number of hits between now and the Utah-BYU football game this month, moving those notices to the bottom makes the page look a little more tidy. Besides, it's not uncommon for these types of notices to appear at the bottom of a page anyway. CincyUte 22:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Unreferenced can appear at the bottom, but I have never seen a merge tag or inappropriate tone placed at the bottom. --Lethargy 23:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks!  CincyUte 23:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

2006 Football Game Summary
Please try to keep the the article as objective as possible. I made some changes on the 2006 football game summary because it was clearly written from the pro-BYU POV. For instance, the phrase "John Beck cemented his place in cougar football history" is in appropriate because its meaning and accuracy still remains to be seen. Also (and I could be wrong about this), the phrase "The Return to Tradition" isn't a name commonly used to describe this game (such as the 1988 "Rice Bowl"), nor is it specific enough to be an unequivocal reference to that game (such as 34-31, pt. I and pt. II). Methinks Epachamo just made this phrase up. Please only include details or names possessing a neutral POV or that are commonly established. CincyUte 02:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * One more note: Parenthetical team records found throughout the Highlights section are the records of the teams before the referenced game began. I purposely wrote it this way so the reader would understand the standing of the teams going into the rivalry game.  In my opinion, this is the best way to do it.  But if anyone feels strongly about doing it different and wants to edit it, please make the changes throughout the section so as to keep the team-records pattern consistent.CincyUte 02:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't argue that I'm a bit biased towards BYU(I'm very biased in fact), however, the phrase "Return to Tradition" I did not make up and has been thrown around all over the place (even on ute blogs (see ). I do go to school at BYU though, and have probably heard it around here a lot more than is commonly heard (Although down south we dont refer to the 1988 game as the "Rice Bowl").  I agree with CincyUte that it might be better to wait until that name (or some other name) becomes more common for the game. --CincyUte 15:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is common knowledge that "Return to Tradition" is BYU's moto for the 2006 football season. It is not a specific reference to their game vs. Utah on Nov. 25, 2006.  The "Rice Bowl" is a common and specific reference to the Y-U game in 1988.  It is frequently used by both the Utah fanbase and local media in reference to that game.  And now BYU fans know what game it referes to.  There is a huge difference betwen "The Rice Bowl" and "Return to Tradition."  I am positive that a definate nickname for the 2006 game will eventually emerge.  Let's just wait to see what it will be, and not make up titles in the meantime.  --CincyUte 15:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again I didn't make up the name. I agree though that waiting for a common reference is a good idea. Epachamo 18:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Saying that John Beck cemented his place in BYU's is not hyperbole nor does it remain to be seen. Even the beloved Eric Weddle stated "Beck earned a lot of respect." .  The following is a whole article on how John Becks victory over Utah made him one of BYU's greats .  Bronco Mendenhall said even before the game, "I think it's time to acknowledge that he belongs with some of the great names at BYU."  Here is an unbiased quote


 * "The passing game is where they (BYU) get it done. He (John Beck) has put BYU back on the map as the Quarterback Factory. This is the BYU I saw as a kid growing up." -- Chris Rix, Former Florida State Standout Quarterback and current CSTV analyst.


 * If you need even more convincing please read this Deseret News article where it starts out stating (regarding the last play of the game) "One play, no time remaining and nothing at all on the line. Except, of course, whether he(John Beck) would go down in history as a glorified Kevin Feterik, or one of the better quarterbacks at a school famous for quarterbacks."  It ends with a quote by Brandon Doman saying, "For him to have the senior year he's had makes him probably as good as any quarterback we've had in the history of BYU," Doman said. "But to beat Utah in the last game; I think it sends him into the history books as one of the great ones." I couldn't have said it better(although I don't think "John Beck cemented his place in cougar football history" is that bad a way of saying it.)  If you still disagree with me I can find more references on the subject Epachamo 19:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Saying that "John Beck cemented his place in BYU's history" is, IMHO abstract and likely doesn't mean anything to the audience that this Wikipedia article is directed to. Didn't he technically cement his place in BYU's history when he made the roster?  When he became the starting QB?  When he developed a reputation early in his career for being a great QB who couldn't win the big one or who couldn't win the close ones?  Having followed BYU and Utah athletics for many years, I personally do understand what you are getting at, however, you have to spell it out further.  That DeseretNews article you cite is a good start.  Further, you could elaborate that being "as good as any quarterback . . . in the history of BYU" is saying quite a lot and ranks him up there with many commonly known QB's in BYU's history.  However, by the time you explain what the phrase "John Beck cemented his place in BYU's history" means, you will likely find that it is more appropriate for the John Beck page.  I suggest you update that article with information about "cementing his place in BYU history," and then hyperlink John Beck's name on this article. --CincyUte 15:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The Rise of Utah Basketball
Why is this section called the Rise of Utah Basketball? A look into Utah Bball history proves otherwise. It makes it sound as if Utah Basketball unlike BYU football (before the Edwards Era) was poor to average prior Rick Marjerus' arrival. Wouldn't a more appropiate name be The Revival of Utah Basketball or something else?TucsonUte 19:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. Headlines can be tough.  If you think of something more appropriate, please make the change.  I'll be thinking of something as well.CincyUte 19:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Recommend New Section
Bits and pieces spread out about the rivalry could be put in one section with possible name/heading "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly". The good maybe could relate to the McBride-Edwards relationship. The Bad...the incident with the BYU fan attacking the Utah cheerleader. The ugly...Utah Bball players painting the Y red. These are just some examples for the possible section. Right now I don't think the article flows as good as it could (e.g the section concerning basketball ends with the cheerleader incident at the Edwards Stadium and the Steve Smith quote) Just something to think about but I think it could reinforce the intensity of the rivalry.TucsonUte 05:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's very important to keep things in chronological order. It would get messy if we tried some other kind of organizational structure.  However, the headings could be changed.  The reason for the current headings is that the 1980s was an era dominated by BYU football, like the 1990s was dominated by Utah basketball (even though both of those eras included important events in basketball and football, respectively).  Perhaps there is a better way to characterize these eras.


 * This article is about a year old. I have thoroughly enjoyed editing it, and have learned a TON about this great rivalry in the process.  My only regret is that it is difficult to include pictures without infringing on IP rights.  I am so glad that so many other wikipedia users have contributed to this article, and I hope that many more find it informative and impressed at what an amazing rivalry this truly is.  Thanks everyone! CincyUte 06:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Logos
the logo nazis are out. . .calling logos on rivaly pages "decorative". I disagree, but if they are identifued as illustrative and not decorative maybe we can keep them all. . .72.0.36.36 03:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No. The burden's on YOU.  If you want to change the way these logos have appeared for almost a year, YOU need to cite the rule and explain its application. CincyUte 14:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong, the logos are going to be taken down on all rivalry articles. They are been adjudged "decorative" so, if you want to screw it up for everyone keep up your arrogance. You have no permission to use to BYU or Utah logos. The burden is on you as to why you can FEATURE them as decoration in hi resolution. The burden is always on the creator of the article to provide a fair use rationale. Read the rules. 72.0.36.36 21:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * FUrther, it is not logical to say that just becasue somehting has been done your way for over a year makes it right. That is a classic false cause arguement. Try something more . . . lettered.


 * Just cite the rule. I'm not trying to be a dick.  But you can't whine about rules being broken without stating specifically WHICH rules are bring broken.  The burden is undeniably on you.   Until then, please stop making edits and allegations.
 * Further, I only mention that the logos have appeared so for over a year simply to state a fact, not make an argument. Still, it is a fact that needs to be considered.  No one has complained till now.  Suddenly an anonamous wikipedia user comes here making claims that this article's end is imminent.  "Classic false argument?"  Please don't be a dick.   Just cite the rule and we can work this out.CincyUte 22:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * take it up with Betacommand and the two others who are deleting logos without fair use claims. I couldn't care less how logos appear, but I think they add illustration to the articles. What I know is there are a few adminitrators deleting logos on rivaly pages altogether. However, they have stopped when they were in thumb boxes and made a fair use claim. You do what you want, but don't cry about it. You should know the ruleso n logos. They are for illustration, etc. Not for decoration, read the Wiki rules. It's not my job to educate you. I was trying to help you by not having huge logos on your page with no claim of fair use and you having no right to use them. Do what you want. It's you article. SOmetimes anonymous is best. . .72.0.36.36 23:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1942Utah-BYUFootball.jpg
Image:1942Utah-BYUFootball.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 00:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

First sentence 100% POV
"Few rivalries in collegiate athletics can match the passion and intensity of the rivalry between the University of Utah and Brigham Young University ("BYU")". The author simply cannot be serious--it doesn't get more POV than this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.184.105 (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * After reading some more of this article, I can now say that almost all of it is POV. The entire article needs to be re-written.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.184.105 (talk) 04:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. I'll go ahead and add a POV tag to the article.--Jonpro 21:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It is ambiguous enough that it doesn't make any biased conclusion. If the paragraph claimed the rivalry is the most pasisonate/intense, then that would certainly be POV. But it doesn't make any conclusary statements of that kind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CincyUte (talk • contribs) 23:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, whoever added this tag have blatantly shown their ignorance. BYU Utah is a fantastic rivalry that captures the hearts of minds of the state of Utah. It can also be referenced by reliable sources, which should immediatly remove any doubt that this article is biased in the way you are saying. Also, adding that the whole thing needs to be re-written without adding any reason why should not be payed any attention. I completely vote for removal of this tag if the only complaint is that it is not a very passionate rivalry. Epachamo (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It may sound POV, but it's not. Source after source among national publications place this rivalry in the top 10 or top five. Few rivalries do match it, it's true. Wrad (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Wrad. That the rivalry is significant has sourced citations under the section "The Present", in particular a Nov. 2005 article in the Wall Street Journal that has it ranked as the #4 top rivalry.  That is not POV.  Unless the POV tag is for something besides the notability of the rivalry, it should probably be removed.  Alanraywiki (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the tag and reworded the intro. It was an odd way to start the article, admittedly. Wrad (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice work. I think that reads much better. CincyUte (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BYUCougars.png
Image:BYUCougars.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"Nepotism"
I propose we remove the section titled "Nepotism." Not only does "Nepotism" appear to be a misnomer, but I don't think the facts contained within the section really add anything to the rivalry. While it is my understanding that the Presidents of each school are indeed former alums of the other school, I just don't believe it has any real effect on the overall relationship between the schools. Any thoughts? CincyUte (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. It is an interesting little tidbit of information, but definitely a misnomer Epachamo (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it should stay, it is an interesting little tidbit and isn't that what you would expect to find in an encyclopedia? It might not add to the rivalry, but it is irony in the rivialy so it still applies. 67.182.217.161 (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't consider it to be a part of what makes the rivalry great. Merely a "interesting little tidbit," as you say; probably more appropriate for inclusion in some sort of Trivia section.  Perhaps the biggest problem with this paragraph is the title.  I think "Nepotism" is a misnomer. CincyUte (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As the original author of this tidbit, I conceed Nepotism may be a misnomer, as nepotism implies that favoritism had been used in the hiring process, and it can't be said that favoritism was a basis in the hiring process. I intentianally put this section near the bottom of the list to indicate its lower relevance. The section this tidbit was included in discusses what makes this rivalry unique, not great. The irony of the situation is delightful, and I believe it is unique to Utah-BYU. I am going to reintroduce it, while changing the title to Irony.

Article is too long
This article is getting too long. One solution would be to create new articles that present all the information. For example, we could have an article "BYU - Utah football game highlights" Epachamo (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's a very good idea. I think it would also be nice to have a seperate article that contined the Football and Basketball results chart, as well as another chart that listed the schools' head-to-head records in the other sports (baseball, women's sports, etc.).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CincyUte (talk • contribs) 22:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Highlight Updates
Today may be a good time to mention this: we need to be careful when we add recent game summaries to the HIghlights section. Obviously, only the really exceptional games should be included, and I don't think BYU's basketball victory on Feb. 20, 2008 qualifies. But whether or not we decide to include it, or any other game for that matter, the game nicknames (such as "LaVell's Last Miracle," or "The Rice Bowl") should only be included where there has been a well-established nickname. Usually it takes a long time for these nicknames to stick. CincyUte (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Overflowing with POV, Unencyclopedic Content
This article is a wikitravesty. It is literally overflowing with peacock words, unverified superlatives, and irrelevant, unencylopedic information. I personally think it should be deleted and rewritten from scratch. The fact that BYU and Utah fans argue about which school has more attractive co-eds is both a.) unverified and b.) unencylopedic. We don't need to know every little facet of life that this rivalry touches. Most people who are familiar with the idea of rivalries will understand this. Continuing onward, the section titled "Why is it Great?", while a well-intentioned look at the uniqueness of the rivalry, is absolutely inappropriately titled. Furthermore, there ARE other rivalries that exhibit these same five characteristics (Religion, Successful Programs, Location, Longevity, and Reciprocity), Notre Dame-USC for example (where Location refers not to geographic proximity but the clash between small-town Midwest and big city Southern California), Notre Dame-Michigan (while not continuous, each school's oldest rivalry), St. John's-St. Thomas (two of the most succesful MIAC schools and the preminent Catholic universities in Minnesota) or many many others. The point is, BYU-Utah is a good rivalry that should have a wikipedia article to reflect this. However, as with Academic Boosterism, the rivalry's quality should be apparent from the facts presented. It should not need to be reinforced or inflated with numerous mentions of how it is one of the fiercest and most passionate rivalries in college sport. Lmeister (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Lmeister completely, though I don't think we need to just delete and start over. I have removed some POV and just blatantly unsubstantiated claims from this article, particularly those that try to compare it with other rivalries.  Really, the only real things that are unique about this rivalry is the Mormon aspect as it contains the two schools with the largest student populations of Latter-day Saints as well as the fact the Brigham Young founded both schools.  The "why is it great" section should be removed since it is discussed throughout the article why the rivalry is significant both athletically and culturally.  Just watch out for "weasel" phrases ("some people say")...unless you have a reliable third-party source, don't put it in the article.  --JonRidinger (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As the person who started and wrote the bulk of this article (including the portions of which you have voiced your concern), I must say I agree with your points and appreciate your attention to this matter. CincyUte (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, yeah, this article has some serious tone problems, but it makes me smile. Hopefully it can be made more encyclopedic while retaining the spirit of the rivalry. Cool Hand Luke 23:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I placed tags for both additional sources and the overall tone of the article, which currently reads like an essay versus an encyclopedic article. There are still an abundance of peacock words ("greatest" for example) that have no sources while phrases like "any way you look at it" are not encyclopedic.


 * The small paragraph mentioning the Lehigh-Lafayette rivalry is really not relevant to the article here. If the info in that section on this specific rivalry is important enough it should stand on its own.  If not, then it shouldn't be in the article.  Personally, I don't believe the longevity of this rivalry is "unique" though it is among the oldest rivalries in college sports.  In fact, many of the "unique" characteristics aren't that unique at all.  The LDS factor is unique because the schools both have strong LDS ties, but nothing more.  There are many rivalries which have a state school vs. a private religious school or even two schools of the same religion (particularly Catholic schools).  The most important aspects are the fact that both schools were founded by Brigham Young and both schools have sizable LDS populations.  If anyone can find sourced info on the perception that Utah has been "anti-Mormon" that would be important too.  Even the successful programs section is hardly unique to this rivalry as most of the major rivalries in this country are between successful programs (Ohio State-Michigan, Auburn-Alabama, etc.).  It seems as though the article is trying to build a case for this rivalry being important rather than presenting it as already important.  --JonRidinger (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Ucucha 02:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Brigham Young University – University of Utah rivalry → Utah–BYU rivalry — Koavf changed the name of the article without discussing it — at least I have not seen the relevant discussion. The name has gotten a lot longer. I believe this change is a step backward. Article titles recommends calling an article by its most common name. Several examples are listed: Bill Clinton not "William Jefferson Clinton" or Hulk Hogan not "Terry Gene Bollea".

The article had operated under its old name for nearly four years without confusion or anyone suggesting the name be changed. In my opinion, "Utah—BYU rivalry" is a better name because rarely are the full names of the universities used in the athletics context. Also, most other college atheletic rivalry pages do NOT use the full name of the universities involved: see, e.g., Notre Dame – USC rivalry, Michigan – Ohio State football rivalry, or Florida – Florida State football rivalry. Consequently, I am requesting a revert of the name change. If you disagree, state your reason here and try and build a consensus. (Which is the way the name change should have been done in the first place: see Consensus). And a brief look at Koavf's talk page suggests he has a habit of changing article names without discussion. —Ute in DC (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would support a move back to the original name since I have never heard it referred to using the full names of each school. Further, it was already discussed at Talk:BYU Cougars football that "BYU" is more common than "Brigham Young" for the common name of the school, so "Utah-BYU" or "BYU-Utah" rivalry would be appropriate. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I support the move for the reasons listed above. UteFan16 (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The short name may seem good for readers who are familiar with the rivalry, but is rather misleading for everybody else, I am afraid. In particular, I would bet that 99% of the readers who recognize the name "Utah" will understand it to mean the state, not the university. Generally speaking full names are preferred even when the abbreviation is more common than the name: see "United States" rather than "US", "United Kingdom" rather than "UK", "Federal Bureau of Investigation" rather than "FBI", etc. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Using precedent of other article titles for similar topics shows that the common name of the schools are used rather than the full names since Wikipedia article titles should reflect the most common name. A glance at Category:College (American) football rivalries in the United States shows the common university names are used (the way schools are referenced in sports) rather than the full name, even between schools that share the name of their respective state (like Maryland – West Virginia football rivalry).  Even with United States, the article is titled "United States" even though the full name of the country is obviously "United States of America" with both "US" and "USA" redirecting to United States.  Since the opening paragraph clearly explains who "BYU" and "Utah" actually are, titling the article with the common names would not be confusing.  It's one thing to use POV terms in an article, but the title should reflect what it's most commonly referred to as.  "Brigham Young University – University of Utah rivalry" is not what this rivalry is referred to as.  --JonRidinger (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I disagree that "full names are preferred even when the abbreviation is more common than the name." That guideline does not appear in Article titles. Among those guidelines, though, are that the article title should be "Recognizable – Using names and terms most commonly used in reliable sources, and so most likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article" and that it should be "Consistent – Using names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles." As mentioned, "BYU" and "Utah" are the most common terms for these athletic teams. To be consistent with the article titles I linked in my initial post, and the article titles that JonRidinger linked in his reply above, the old title should be used. In none of the referenced articles are the full names of universities used.


 * Finally, I'd like to address the idea that "99% of the readers who recognize the name 'Utah' will understand it to mean the state, not the university." I agree, but I dispute the implication that readers will be confused. When I think of "Utah" I too think of the state. But in context of the phrase "BYU-Utah rivalry", the meaning is clear. —Ute in DC (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

this line is ridiculous
"The matches have proved to be so intensive and compelling that in 2008 Deseret First Credit Union decided to sponsor the matches between the two schools" -- It is extremely unremarkable that a local credit union was solicited, and agreed, to kick a couple bucks worth of an ad contract toward this game. The tone in this sentence is beyond comedy. I would like consensus to delete everything from "the" to "that." BlueSalix (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)