Talk:Tie (draw)

message: Um...where on earth did we get the idea that American football is the only major sport in North America that allows ties? News flash people: the USA is not the only country in North America. Association football is huge in both Canada and Mexico, and allows ties, without all the convoluted requirements needed in American football.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.254.167 (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: American Football

message: I think this article should discuss tie-breaking methods in general, both for sports and elections.  I got inspired to do this while discussing the issue of ties in voting system. 
Actually, on second thought, a seperate article on tie-breaking methods might be good to have too, especially if this one gets too long. I'll just be bold and start editing and see if someone else chimes in. Scott Ritchie 18:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Where to go now

message: No consensus to delete. Removed VfD notice and entered at Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. Deletion debate below. Cecropia 02:48, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Old deletion discussion

message: Does the bit about Austin and Taryn actually mean anything? dolph 23:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Sentence

message: As an American, I am a bit confused. I understand that there are different ways that a tie vs a draw are acheived, but do these two different results have different consequences as far as standings and the like are concerned?Wschart (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricket 

message: It says in rare circumstances in basketball time or other circumstances prevent a game to be completed.  Has this ever happened?  (Obvious things I can thing of would be terrorism, or possibly major injury - a player dies suddenly perhaps?) Jimw338 (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There's supposedly this Kentucky basketball game that ended in a draw. –HTD 16:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  When? (Basketball) 

message: I've asked for a reference to document the statement made that the Japan Series must end by Game 8.  I believe the correct format of the Series is that a team must win 4 games outright to win.  Games 1-7 are played with an innings limit (currently 12) and can end in ties;  Games 8 and beyond are played with no innings limit and no ties are possible.  So the Series can theoretically go beyond Game 8 if more than one of the first 7 games end in a tie, although in practice this has never happened as yet and only once was even Game 8 necessary.  I don't yet have a reference to back up my claim, but the 1975 Japan Series is the reason why I think it cannot work the way it is currently described.  In 1975, Hankyu Braves won 4-0-2, with 2 games ending in ties.  But Game 6 was still deemed necessary;  so a 3-0-2 record wasn't sufficient to win.  Had Hiroshima Toyo Carp won Games 6, 7, and 8, the Series would have been tied 3-3-2 and a deciding Game 9 would have been necessary.  The format as currently described was, I believe, an exceptional format used only for the 2011 Japan Series.  In 2011, due to restrictions following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, the Series was capped at a theoretical maximum of 8 games.  This was the only year such a format was used, although in practice it doesn't make much difference because the Series has never gone beyond 8 games.  Dash77 (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baseball -- Japan Series 

message: :The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Not Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 10:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Tie (draw) →  – Brackets aren't used for alternative names. 90.255.15.152 (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 14 May 2023 

message: :Tie (draw) → ? – Brackets still aren't used for alternative names. 90.255.15.152 (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 7 June 2023 

message: :The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Tie (draw) →  – Draw is an alternate name for a tie, not a descriptor. An alternate name is not a valid disambiguation.2A01:5A8:30D:955E:2DFD:434:EC54:2156 (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not feel the need to reference the previous RMs, because the main reason the first one was opposed was because Tie (competition) is ambiguous since it can also refer to two-legged tie and the second one was opposed because barely any time had passed since the previous RM which is not the case here.--2A01:5A8:30D:955E:2DFD:434:EC54:2156 (talk) 08:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

text: The article only covers tie as a result and not as a synonym for game though, right? In that case, I do not see the problem with "Tie (result)". As for the cricket thing, can't we just have "Draw (result)" as a redirect to this page like how we currently have Draw (tie) redirect here.2A01:5A8:30D:955E:E587:3405:FA18:4AFC (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but just pointing out to others that don't like the dab term, that anything else suggested has to avoid that confusion. Draw can mean other things too e.g. 'cup draw'. If you don't follow football in the UK this is probably getting confusing :D YorkshireExpat (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Suppose I ought to throw cup-tied in as well, which means something else altogether. YorkshireExpat (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Yes, they are synonyms. Like BarrelProof said, specific sports might have their own definitions of tie and draw, but when talking in general, people use them pretty much interchangeably.--2A01:5A8:30D:955E:197F:C5F5:82BA:64AB (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, they're technically different things, and the situation in cricket illustrates this well. A tie (often called a draw in an ENGVARish sense) is where the scores are equal after a defined period of play. A draw is an inconclusive result, which is what happens in chess and cricket. I think I'm favouring a split. YorkshireExpat (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think splitting is unnecessary, so I would be fine with "Tie or draw". Again, those are special definitions in particular sports. The fact that that the instance where the scores are equal is also called a draw proves that to an ordinary person, tie and draw pretty much mean the same thing. Like it was already said, a person who is not very familiar with chess could easily call a draw in chess a tie and "correcting" them would be unnecessary since even if they are not using the correct term for chess games, everyone will understand what they mean. --2A01:5A8:30D:955E:197F:C5F5:82BA:64AB (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Amakuru: If draws and ties are really as "emphatically" different as you suggest, then it makes no sense to put such unlike terms together in the title, especially in this parenthetical form. However, like 2A01 above, I see nothing to suggest that the terms are not synonymous in their general senses, and this presumably goes for most readers. (And so it would also be odd to put synonyms together in the title.) ╠╣uw [talk] 20:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

text: This is probably the best option.--2A01:5A8:30D:955E:197F:C5F5:82BA:64AB (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose this. See my comment above, possible confusion in British English with a tie in the sense of a sporting fixture (which might also be called a 'game'). YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is already at "Tie", so potential ENGVAR arguments should not be litigated. This RM is about the disambigution, NOT the primary name. -- Netoholic @ 20:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm opposing a move to tie game. I'm not suggesting we should move from "tie". "Tie game" is at best confusing, and at worst meaningless in British English. "Tie" on it's own is understood, as evidenced by its use in the sport of cricket. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tie game is a clear Americanism, so should not be moved here. This would be the worst outcome in my opinion, as it's changing Tie (draw) which uses US and British terminology to just using an American term that isn't used in British sports at all. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Tie (the American term) is already the article title. Draw currently just serves as a disambiguation. The entire point of this discussion is that draw is not a valid disambiguation because it is just another name for tie in a different ENGVAR and alternate names should not be used as disambiguation. Not saying I am in support of tie game, just noting that this is not a good argument.--2A01:5A8:30D:955E:40C7:94BD:6255:21AC (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tie game is an American-only term. Tie is occasionally used in non-American sports. Therefore, there is a change towards US-centric terminology by doing this. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, fair point.--2A01:5A8:30D:955E:40C7:94BD:6255:21AC (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

text: But that's what I said? YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 4 April 2024