This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

College football High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma 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.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by OU Task-force (assessed as Mid-importance). United States: Texas / University of Texas at Austin 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas - University of Texas at Austin.

There's a broken URL in the second paragraph of the section titled "Series history". I'm not sure how to fix that. Could someone with more experience take a look please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usuallyfantastic (talk • contribs) 22:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of the Red River Bridge War is silly. the Bridge war was in 1931 and the Shootout started in 1900. The fact is that the shootout refers to boundary disputes between Oklahoma and Texas and the Red River War. The disputes often included Rancher interests and Indians in the disputed area. The reference to the red river Bridge War should be removed. SaltySailor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.217.52 (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the 2011 game is complete, I would be much obliged if somebody with the necessary privileges would update the information. Relevant news article can be found here. 70.113.200.133 (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Cotton Bowl sets East to West so there is no South or North end zone. Just wanted to clear this up. This is why the game is played near noon because the sun would affect the player's vision if it were later in the afternoon.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.50.183 (talk • contribs) 10:11, March 13, 2009

Not so. The stadium field is on a NW and SE line, not East / West. Look at any aerial map. In recent decades the game is played at 2:30, occasionally at 11:00 A.M. No game is scheduled because of the sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.134.29 (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A rewrite of the Meetings section is sorely needed, but I do not have the time nor desire right now to undertake it. Hopefully someone else can or this can serve as a reminder for me in the future. This section reeks of WP:RECENTISM. Very little is provided prior to 1990 and what is provided is hit-and-miss (no writeup for 2002, 2004, & 2006). Ideally, I would like to see this broken down by era or decade. Following the 2009 matchup would be a good time for all 2000-2009 sections to be merged into one decade or Brown/Stoops era section with a length of 2-3 paragraphs.↔NMajdan•talk 18:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't stop thinking about this so I decided to take a look at coaching tenures, win/loss records and team ratings to come up with a way to break down the article when it is rewritten. This is just a guideline, not set in stone so this can be improved. Here's what I got along with some brief explanation of how I came up with it:

• Early days of the rivalry (1900-1923)

Obviously, this is the place to start. Texas went through many coaches and OU had coach Owen from 1905-1926. The location jumped around between Austin, Norman, Houston & OKC. No other easy way to break this down. Also the earliest years will be the hardest to find sources, so it makes sense to group more years here. Texas dominated the early years going 14-8-1.

• Move to Dallas (1929-1945)

First year the game was permanently moved to Dallas was 1929, so I thought this was a good way to start a new section. Texas had a little bit more stability at head coach with Littlefield and Bible. OU this time went through 5 coaches in this amount of time. Texas improved its early-rivalry dominance going 13-3-1.

• The rivalry intensifies (1946-1957)

This era is when the two teams really began to improve. Texas came into the game ranked #1 in 1946 (OU unranked) and for the rest of this era, at least one team was ranked every time they played including 3 games where OU was #1 and 8 games where one team was in the top 6. This was also the time of OU's 47 game winning stream under coach Wilkinson. 1957 was the first year of Texas's lengedary coach Darrell Royal. OU gains control in the rivalry in this era going 9-3.

• Texas regains control (1958-1970)

Some of these titles may change as more research is done. The current title was decided considering during this era, Texas went 12-1 including a 9 game winning streak, still the longest in the series. This era covers most of Royal's tenure (all but the first year and the last 6). With the exception of 1958 & 1963, OU was down most of this era while Texas was ranked in the top 4 eight times. OU's lone win came when both teams were unranked.

• Battle at the top (1971-1988)

Again, titles can change. This era covers the end of Royal's term and all of coach Switzer's and coach Akers's. In this era, every game but one featured one of the teams ranked in the top 10 including 9 games where both teams were ranked in the top 10. Of all the sections I have layed out, this is the one that stands out that may need to be broken into two sections. OU went 11-5-2 in this era.

• The underdogs and the brief decline (1989-1997)

I would assume this would be the shortest section given the smallest time slice. This era covers the Mackovic term at Texas and the Gibbs/Schnelly/Blake era at OU. Texas was ranked in the bottom half of the polls in 1994-96 and unranked the other years while OU was ranked in the middle of the poll in 1989 & 1992-95 but at the top of the poll in 1990-91. Despite those rankings, OU only won one game. Texas regained control in this era going 6-2-1.

• Resurgance to national prominence (1998-present)

This final part of the article can mostly be culled from the already written sections while summarizing what exists and filling in the holes. The section covers the Mack Brown/Bob Stoops era. This era is probably the most balanced of them all with OU going 6-4.

Sources:

• http://soonerstats.com/football/series/details.cfm?oppid=7
• http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/big12/texas/coaching_records.php
• http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/big12/oklahoma/coaching_records.php

Again, none of this is set in stone. Just throwing ideas out there for anyone else to look at and/or for myself when and if I ever to revisit this article. But that is seven sections (eight if you break up the 1971-1988 section), so this would make for a lengthy article. The best precedent for this article looks to be the Michigan – Ohio State rivalry article.↔NMajdan•talk 18:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 2009 section is clearly written with a favorable bias in favor of the University of Texas. While I may re-write it, I'm a bit busy at the moment. Thought I'd post it up.

Warbirdadmiral (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Rewriting this article is on my long-term list of things to do and if I ever do get around to it, I'd probably remove a lot of the individual game writeups. They suffer dramatically of recentism and the 2009 is completed unsourced and yes, very POV. It definitely needs to be cleaned up. I still have to do the write-up for 2009 Oklahoma Sooners football team.—NMajdan•talk 18:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished my write-up of the 2009 game at 2009 Oklahoma Sooners football team#Texas. Feel free to copy over to this article what you need. But, it doesn't need to be as long.—NMajdan•talk 21:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A small edit war has been going on for quite sometime regarding if it is "OU-Texas or Texas-OU" or: "Texas-OU or OU-Texas". This occurs especially during the leadup to the game each year with constant editing of this including deletion of Texas-OU or OU-Texas. I myself am from Dallas and hear it only as "The Texas-OU game" however I have many friends in Norman who refer to it as "The OU-Texas game". I have edited this several times over the past few years citing that we should use alphabetical order in regards to which comes first (even though I refer to it strictly as the Texas-OU game) and to address any vandalism attempts at deleting one reference. What do you all think? Snump (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is unlikely any way to take a widespread poll of the populous, but anyone with a basic insight into the landscape of the country would tell you that it is more commonly referred to as "Texas-Ou" than "Ou-Texas", and therefore "Texas-Ou" should be listed first. I am all for the page being kept free of vandalism and the game being listed in bot fashions, but in this instance majority rules.Jexes23 (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical order would be the better option you cant list by which state you you live in. I live in Oklahoma and refer to the game as OU-Texas but I know that folks living in Texas use Texas-OU, which is fine but for this page it should be listed in Alphabetical order to ovoid pov issues and be in line with WP:Neutral point of view which is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies.--SteamIron 10:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although as I previously stated I live in Texas and commonly refer to it at the Texas-OU game but see it as affecting WP:Neutral point of view since Oklahoma refers to it as OU-Texas. For the time being I will keep reverting changes to OU-Texas first to keep with WP:Neutral point of view. Snump (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well its not affecting point of view just on your part as I refer to it as OU-Texas so its both of us hence why Alphabetical order is a good idea to avoid point of view issues.--SteamIron 22:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality that is outlined by Wikipedia policy is met by having the game listed in both manners by giving both points of view. So with that established you should refer to the section of your previously linked article on "Due and undue weight". Using your logic that those who live in Texas more commonly refer to the game as Texas-OU and that those who live in Oklahoma more commonly refer to the game as OU-Texas it would only then be fair to take a look at the collective demographics of those states. The 2010 census estimates the population of Oklahoma to be around 3.7 million people, while that same census estimates the Texas population at around 25.1 million people. With the probability that the game is referred to as Texas-OU by almost 7 times as many people as those who refer to it as OU-Texas; (by your own logic) listing OU-Texas first gives undue weight to a minority position.Jexes23 (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are not going to look at census estimates read the policy on this issue--SteamIron 15:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Local bias will always be local bias no matter how large of a population there is; therefore alphabetical order keeps the neutrality of the article's introduction. Overall consensus at this point appears to be in favor of alphabetical therefore I'm reverting it back. Snump (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on this we cant look at local bias no matter what as there will most likely be a larger population for the foreseeable future in Texas then in Oklahoma but that does not matter cause if we went by population there would be undue weight in the usage of Texas- OU which is what we want to avoid at all cost so the usage of alphabetical order is the best way to fix this issue. If Jexes23 continues to disagree I might ask an Admin to step in and mediate the situation.--SteamIron 21:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a consensus, and since one cannot be reached the thing to do is to remove the line altogether. The article functions without the unofficial terminology. Jexes23 (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you do not agree with the outcome does not mean that a consensus hasn't been reached. We are holding to the neutrality of WP's guidelines and are attempting to keep a common name in the article since both are common references to the gamename. People rarely refer to the game by it's bowl name but use the more common regional terminology. Therefore they will also search for it under those terms as well. We have attempted to discuss this on here but you have only provided one argument based upon the census on the areas and not WP's guidelines. Snump (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked an uninvolved Admin to come take a look at this to see what the say about this.--SteamIron06:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thanks Dcheagle. Snump (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A search query of the game will lead you to this article no matter if that line is present or not. While someone who commonly refers to the game as such will know what page they are on with or without that line. We've all read the neutrality policy, hence the reason I mentioned "undue weight" which is outlined in just that policy. Two people disagreeing with one is not a basis for a clear majority. After two weeks of the line being changed back and forth over and over, I think removing the line altogether is the best compromiseJexes23 (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sorry but complete removal is out of the question.--SteamIron 06:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't strike me as a discussion. Hopefully you let the neutral admin know that compromise was out of the question, because you said so.Jexes23 (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I said was complete removal was out of the question I'm willing to compromise but not to that.--SteamIron 06:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can go in one of two orders or be removed. So what is the compromise that you propose once the only compromise to speak of is off of the table? Jexes23 (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hey, let's stop butting heads. Alphabetical order is one compromise; another option would be going by number of external references from reliable sources. I'm not saying this is the option I support, but here's what I'm thinking;

Texas-OU

• Bleacher Report says Texas-Oklahoma multiple times (1, 2)
• The Dallas Morning News says Texas-Oklahoma (1) (of course, they're stationed in Texas, so one could argue bias)
• FanHouse says Texas-Oklahoma (1)
• Sioux City Journal says Texas-Oklahoma (1)
• USA Today says Texas-Oklahoma (1)

OU-Texas

• The Seattle Times says Oklahoma-Texas 1)
• ESPN says Oklahoma-Texas (1)

I found more Texas-OU references than I did OU-Texas, but I spent ten minutes looking. However, I'll leave it up to you guys to decide. That's just an unofficial suggestion. Officially, I'm here to ask you guys to stop edit-warring, or I'll have to start handing out blocks. Please, be mature. Next person to revert without consensus will be blocked, so don't do it. m.o.p 07:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The number of external references is a good measure in my opinion, and I would guess that the reason for the difference is because, for whatever reason, disproportionately more people refer to the game as the "Texas-OU" game than the "OU-Texas" game. Jexes23 (talk) 2:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I still believe we need to use Alphabetical order as its the best way to avoid any issue that is to rise from some thing like this. Any one can come on here and say because we list it as Texas-OU, OU-Teaxs that we are giving the fans in Texas more weight then the ones in Oklahoma so alphabetical order in this case would give equal weight to both sides. The whole point is to give both sides equal weight while not having any POV issues which I believe we have. I live in Oklahoma and I support the Sooner's and call the game OU-Teaxs but I leave the POV issue at home where it should be and yes if we do it alphabetical OU will come first but who cares about that all that matters is that we avoid any and all Pov issues and look forward to next years game in one of the best and historic Rivalrys in the country.--SteamIron 08:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the 2012 football season, which began at 11 this morning, is officially over (roughly 3:00 PM CDT, Sat Oct 13) I just want muddy the water by saying that I, a native of Norman, never referred to it as anything but "the Texas game" until forced by a move to Houston into communicating with foreigners:-)Treethinker (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Recent games subsection is a bit of a mess. It is broken up into a series of very short blurbs, most of which do not indicate the year of the game being discussed. Since there are five paragraphs, it initially seems to address all games since 2008. However, the last paragraph appears to be a continuation of the prior game discussion. It would be much more readable if the specific games being discussed were noted (by year). It also seems reasonable to keep the discussions in a single paragraph for each game (unless the game is important enough to warrant its own section above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.54.34 (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up some and added 2013 game. Someone who knows the history of the game better please check. I added the stat that brought me here, though - two defensive linemen scored in one game! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.54.34 (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of the games former name is already addressed in the "series history" section. It does not need to be inserted into the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jexes23 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction is an overview of the article so its ok to mention the name in the the introduction.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 23:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's "ok", but that doesn't change the fact that it's redundant and unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jexes23 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok per WP:Lead the lead is meant to be a overview of the article that way first time readers who know nothing about the subject can read that and know that they have found the right page that covers the subject that there trying to learn about. So Red River Shootout should in the lead as it was the name for this game for years before the name was changed and its necessary and not redundant.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 02:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you insist on the edit, I'll at least make it grammatically correct since that seems too tough for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jexes23 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have always heard it refereed to as the Red River Shootout. SaltySailor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.217.52 (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Red River Showdown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20031104185936/http://www.oudaily.com:80/vnews/display.v?TARGET=printable&article_id=3f84da355f862 to http://www.oudaily.com/vnews/display.v?TARGET=printable&article_id=3f84da355f862

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Red River Showdown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070929115030/http://www.statesman.com/sports/content/sports/stories/longhorns/10/08/8texnotes.html to http://www.statesman.com/sports/content/sports/stories/longhorns/10/08/8texnotes.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove all entries to the series prior to 1930 as they are not part of the overall series and while you are at it please remove the championship game.--Concerned fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:9800:C0C0:89F6:6ED8:9229:F7FA (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. The "Game results" section of rivalry articles displays all games played between the two teams, including games prior to a existence of the rivalry, games played before the rivalry's (article's) name was adopted, games played in the post-season, and similar. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with UW Dawgs, this article is about All meetings of the two teams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:9800:C0C0:89F6:6ED8:9229:F7FA (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

uh ok????--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 02:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*I am opening this discussion again ~ I disagree with both of the above editors ~ the red river showdown is about a regular season game between UT and OU at the cotton bowl, it is not about anytime OU or UT plays football together ~ it is specifically about the game in October ~ a national championship game is not a red river showdown ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like it being a chronicle for all games between the teams. If nothing else keep it in the scoring table, count it in the H2H results, reference that they played twice that year, and link to the game summary elsewhere. Ekrekel (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2018 big 12 championship game result between Texas and Oklahoma should not be considered part of the Red River Rivalry because of the following differences between the Red River Rivalry and the big 12 championship game:

1a) Red River Rivalry is the "annual" game played between Texas and Oklahoma. 1b) The big 12 championship game is the annual championship game between the top two big 12 teams with the best conference record at the end of the regular reason.

2a) Winner of the Red River Rivalry receives the "Golden Hat" trophy, governor's trophy and NROTC trophy. 2b) Winner of the big 12 championship game receives the big 12 championship trophy.

1a & 2a are already listed in wikipedia as defining what the Red River Rivalry game is. Should the big 12 championship game be included, it does not meet the definition of the Red River Rivalry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satman 99 99 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the page, there is a section for overall game results. Removing a match-up will be misleading. --Jpp858 (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am opening this discussion again ~ I disagree with both of the above editors ~ the red river showdown is about a regular season game between UT and OU at the cotton bowl, it is not about anytime OU or UT plays football together ~ it is specifically about the game in October ~ a national championship game is not a red river showdown ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Jpp858, while the game wasn't at the Cotton Bowl. None of the rivalry game pages are listed for just games at the location see the World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party or the Deep South's Oldest Rivalry. It is still an OU–Texas or Red River Showdown game despite the Golden Hat Trophy not being on the line. See this, and this which indicate that. We should not erase everything prior to 1929 either if that is what you're suggesting.–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oppose Support I'm not wanting to erase anything from prior to 1929 ~ it is called the ATT Red River Showdown played at the Cotton Bowl per the info box and the lead respectfully ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Sorry I'm not asking to remove any information about any games that Texas and OU played ~ what I was asking is is in the info box ~ the last red river showdown was October not Dec ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment referring to UW Dawgs ~ the articles name is Red River Showdown not games played by Texas and OU ~ the info box should reflect the articles name ~ I'm not asking to remove info about the other times Texas and OU played from the article, there should be a mention of all the other games ~ but the info box should reflect the articles name ~ if not ~ rename the article ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've posted a link to this discussion at WT:CFB so that editors who frequent college football articles can find this discussion.–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose removing, as while the page is about the Red River Rivalry, the overall series records between UT and OU are listed and, as Jpp858 stated above, removing a select few matchups just because they weren't played with a specific trophy on the line or at a specific stadium, would be misleading. I would like to think that this discussion would not be taking place if the article were titled "Texas–Oklahoma football rivalry", rather than specifically referring to the "Red River Rivalry". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment UW Dawgs alluded to this and I will echo - if we determine that games not specifically titled "Red River Showdown" (i.e. not in Dallas, playing for the trophy) are not fit for this article, rather than having the article encompass all meetings between the teams, several other articles will need changing and lots of editors will need updating (Several pre-trophy games in the Battle Line Rivalry come to mind); perhaps a simple footnote denoting "the trophy was not on the line for this game" or some such would be a simpler fix. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose removing. UCO2009bluejay and PCN02WPS make persuasive points. The article is titled as per the current rivalry nomenclature, but it should encompass the rivalry as a whole. In this regard, it is similar to articles like Illibuck Trophy, Apple Cup, Governor's Cup (Kentucky), and Little Brown Jug (college football trophy) which cover the rivalries as a whole including years when the games were not so designated. Cbl62 (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am WP:AGF here, because I view it as an honest disagreement. But WP:COMMONNAME dictates that the game should be called the Red River Showdown, because everybody (media) outside of Oklahoma and Texas calls it that. Also if not, based upon the other articles by team-team name the teams would be in alphabetical order. And anybody who lives in the two states (like Mitch and I) would attest an all out edit war (by anon IP trolls) would break out if the page was shifted to that name.–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose WP:COMMONNAME currently gives us "Red River Showdown". The subject of the article is the Oklahoma-Texas football series, regardless of era, (lack of) branding, or sponsorship. All games regardless of era or context are included in the article. Future games scheduled in the series are included. The last game played in the series was Dec 1, 2018. MOS:INFOBOX gives us ...summarizes key features of the page's subject. Dec 1, 2018, is the last game played in the series as shown within Red River Showdown#Overall game results. The proposal is for the infobox to contradict the article (or perhaps omitted intent is to also expunge the Dec 1 game from the "Overall game results" which would be consistent with that argument). Regardless, the article is correct/consistent as-is AND also consistent with sibling rivalry article treatment as noted above. Side note, there is enough ongoing IP vandalism on this specific topic to request page protection. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note, page protection is now in place re IP edits on same. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This article while named Red River Showdown is about all matchups between the two schools regardless of where, when or what trophy was on the line. Nowhere in the almost 114 years of history have either school come out and said that the title Red River Showdown only applies to games played in October at the Cotton Bowl stadium in Dalles, Texas during the Texas State Fair. Heck, the only reason the game is played in October at the cotton bowl is because of a contract between the schools and the Cotton bowl stadium owners.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 06:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment @Dcheagle: ~ nice to meet you ~ I disagree with you ~ being from texas ~ the red river shoot out is the only game in October ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then we can Agree to disagree, but I still stand by what I said above.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 04:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

still WP:AGF here but I wonder what Texas fans might be saying if the roles were reversed? I predict by mid-October this will be a non-issue anyway. -UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hey @UCO2009bluejay: ~ nice to meet you too ~ I don't understand what you are asking with the roles being reversed~ I restarted this conversation only because of the dates in the info box ~ I have no question on adding other games to the article ~ I mean being from Oklahoma ~ I don't know if your a sooner fan or not. ~ I don't take it that seriously as to have any grudges against Oklahoma ~ matter of fact I love going to the rodeo and watching the little people race those Sooners around the ring ~ WP:HUMOR ~ but if for say like ~ like the Iron Bowl between Alabama and Auburn ~ that article is a good example of a type of rivalry ~ I don't think that every time that Auburn or Alabama play each other in a championship game they call that game the Iron bowl also ~ thanks once again nice meeting you ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Under the current structure of the SEC divisions, Alabama and Auburn wouldn't meet in the SEC title game due in part to the fact that they are both within the same division. The Big 12 has no divisions, therefore OU and Texas are going to potentially have more chances to play one another in the conference title game for the foreseeable future. Also under your viewpoint, that was stated in a comment above that the RRS name only counts for the October games which have only been played in that slot since October 19, 1929. Therefor under that logic, 14 games would need to be removed as they did not take place in October, thus they too are not RRS games.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 06:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Big 12 Championship was the 114th meeting of the Red River Showdown as stated by both schools in the following links Oklahoma:OU Captures Fourth Straight Big 12 Title Texas: No. 9/9 Football preview: vs. No. 5/5 Oklahoma /(Dec. 1, 2018). So whether you like it or not both schools agree that the Big 12 title game was a red river showdown game just without the Golden hat on the line.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 23:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it just a bunch of IPs that are doing this? Or could someone be doing this incognito?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That'a all I've seen. I also added in the lead a couple of days ago ~ "(except in the 1903 and the 2018 seasons, where the rivalry met a second time)" with a good source ~ maybe the IP's don't know how to read the article first before doing their edits. ~mitch~ (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As of late its been IP's or newly signed up users that are making the changes, my adding of the links here was just to be able to point users here when reverting in the hops of them seeing that the schools do in fact count it as an RRS game. And I realize that the removal edits are beginning to slow down but I still see myself and a number of other users having to undo edits once or twice a day.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 03:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the fundamental flaw in the logic in this thread is that it's combining two ideas. The people here who want to leave championship games in are thinking of this article in terms of it being broadly about the rivalry in general. Those here who want to leave championship games out are thinking of this article in terms of it being strictly about the annual game. Absolutely nobody thinks that the game should be omitted from talking about the rivalry broadly, the discussion is whether or not the game should be included in an article specifically about this game.
The problem is, the first paragraph of this page says "It is an American college football rivalry game played annually at the Cotton Bowl..." and yes, it was edited to say "except...where the rivalry met a second time", but it then goes on to talk about it happening during that particular week and such. Moreover, OU's official athletics website reference to the Red River Showdown specifically states that "The Oklahoma-Texas game, played each season at the Cotton Bowl in Dallas, a location approximately halfway between the two campuses, is one of the country's most spectacular sporting events" (emphasis mine):AT&T Red River Showdown. Another fundamental problem with conflating the rivalry with the game is that the rivalry between the two schools exists beyond the scope of football, and this page makes absolutely zero mention of the fact that there's a healthy rivalry in basketball as well. Furthermore, there is precedence within Wikipedia for being specific about titled games, specifically the Rose Bowl Game, in that neither the 2010 nor 2014 BCS National Championship Games are considered Rose Bowl Games, despite being bowl games played at the Rose Bowl and officially hosted by the Tournament of Roses. That's because the proper Rose Bowl Games had already been played for that year. Note that this is different from the 2006 Rose Bowl Game which was concurrent with the BCS National Championship Game.

Personally, I'd propose that one of two edits takes place.
♦First, the article could be renamed "Red River Rivalry" and broadened to include other sports; with a section within it about the college football rivalry, within which the Red River Shootout/Showdown is discussed as a specific series. This has the benefit of both acknowledging the overall record between the two teams as well as being more clear about the specific nature of this specific rivalry game. Additionally, it wouldn't slight the other athletic competitions between the two schools. This could be done similarly to the Bedlam Rivalry.
♦Second, the article can be changed to accurately reflect the specificity of this game, and properly list Texas as the most recent victor of the Red River Showdown, and create another Wiki about the Red River Rivalry broadly, which reflects the entirety of the series between the two schools and includes other sports.
Either of these two edits would be entirely acceptable, but this page as stands right now is absolutely unacceptable.DTXBrian (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose DTX Brian's proposals support Dcheagle this page is about the OU-Texas football rivalry. I'm finally going to come out and say it. Last year, if OU won in Dallas last year, and Texas won the Big XII title game, none of these Texas IPs would be trying to change the page (some in Oklahoma likely would)! In October this will be a moot point, unless somehow the results are split again at some point. Full disclosure, yes I'm in Oklahoma, and if the results were flipped I'd still be arguing that the Big XII game would be the most recent RRS game.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep in mind for the foreseeable future OU and Texas will play every year at the Cotton Bowl, which is unusual for rivalries which are home and home. That is all it's implying.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's rename the page "OU-Texas Football Rivalry" and have "Red River Showdown" be a section within that article, which is in line with the first of the two suggestions I made. It more accurately reflects the nature of what everyone is trying to turn this into. It's either a page about a game, or it's a page about a rivalry. One or the other.DTXBrian (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page is about the rivalry and game which is the same dang thing.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 11:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The rivalry and the game are not one in the same. The rivalry extends beyond football. And the specific football game, by that title, is an event that occurs one time per year. I've pretty well scoured news sources from Oklahoma City, Austin and the Dallas metro area, the official websites of both universities and both athletics programs, national news sources and sources such as ESPN and Sports Illustrated. I cannot find one single instance where anyone at all refers to the 2018 Big 12 Championship Game as the "Red River Showdown." This obsession with insisting that that game is part of the RRS canon seems to be something which exists only on Wikipedia. But if you can find me one reasonably official source outside of Wikipedia which refers to the game as a "Red River Showdown" game, then I will immediately apologize and drop it and never bring it up again. Just find one and put it here, please.DTXBrian (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an ESPN article that calls the October game "the first Red River Showdown."-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Fansided (Texas) blog that refers to it as "a Red River Showdown rematch in the Big 12 Championship Game."-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WFAA "To get prepped for the 2018 Red River Showdown, Part II, in the Big 12 Championship, here are eight things to know about the historic rivalry between two of college football's blue-blood programs:"-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, I apologize, and will drop it. But there is still the lingering question of what to do about basketball. If we're going to include games informally called "Red River Showdown" in this, then this deserves to be included, no? "The 20th-ranked Sooners lost 75-72 in a Red River Showdown at Texas on Saturday night." DTXBrian (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the football matchups, not everything has to go into the same article if someone wants the create an article about the Red River Showdown in basketball they can.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 19:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose DTX Brian's proposal This article is about the OU-Texas football rivalry which includes all games between the two schools including the ones that were not played in the cotton bowl or in the month of October, of which there are 14. Some people seem to think that OU and Texas have only ever played one another in the Cotton Bowl during the second weekend of October when in fact that is not true. And I concur with UCO's statement that if this had been the other way around yall Texas fans would be all for keeping the Big 12 title game in, which I would be all in favor of even though I'm an Oklahoma fan.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 22:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose DTX Brian's proposal Hey! ~ I'm a Texas fan and when I found a RS that called it a rivalry, I edited it in the lead hoping that it would be put to sleep ~ it would not have mattered to me 'one way or another' if Texas would have won or not ~ so go easy on Texas fans were not as stupid as we look ~ plus the chicks really love it when I wear my spurs ~ WP:LOL ~mitch~ (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC) ^[1][reply]

The BigXII Championship is NOT a part of the Red River Shootout, Rivalry, Showdown, etc. It would be very simple to note the Rivalry game series as well as the all time series record with a notation referencing the games that are out of scope. Raz65iii (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for registering, today, and making your first post to the Talk page[1]. This article is about the all-time series between Oklahoma and Texas, including games before the current branding of "Red River Showdown." WP:COMMONNAME gives us the current article name of "Red River Showdown." The page displays all game results from the series. And you're welcome to read the above section which clarifies this exact issue has been covered extensively by the CFB project and every rivalry article is treated in this manner. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I registered or posted is immaterial to the point but thank you for passive aggressively mentioning it. The regular season game is independent of any other meetings and should be reflected as such. If it is truly regarding the all time series, then it is not accurate to refer to it by the title of the regular season match up. But I guess because “every rivalry is treated in this manner”, your misguided reasoning is justified. And just FYI, UF-UGA is an example that contradicts your “every rivalry is treated in this manner” statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raz65iii (talk • contribs) 04:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we go by that logic 14 games will need to be removed cause 13 of those predate the naming of the rivalry with the champ game being the 14th. This is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact, and that fact is that both Oklahoma and Texas have stated that they count the Big 12 champ game as being a Red River Showdown match up. And what they say has way more weight in regards to the rivalry then any of us fans have to say.

@Mitchellhobbs:, @Dcheagle:. This article could use some updating, the Post-2000s era is too long (and for its size omits 02-04 for some reason.) But also suffers from recentism. The article doesn't mention or barely covers some major parts of the rivalry including the Jack Sisco incident, the 1984 non-INT, or Switzer's spygate. But for some reason can go into detail about 2005, and 2007, which really isn't that important in the scheme of things. Thoughts-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @UCO2009bluejay:~ I'm cleaning up for the night but I will do my best tomorrow ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOL ~ I'm not much of a sports writer ~ So I won't be of much use, but I will look at it closer ~ Also - I wonder why no one has edited last weeks game in (not even on Texas Longhorns football)? ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]