Talk:Tie (draw)

American Football

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)

Nobody said it is. The sentence says "such as" and implies that there are more. However, American Football has the largest fanbase of any sports in North America, and therefore is a good representative. Ekcrbe (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Where to go now

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)

Old deletion discussion

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

---

• More like a wikitionary or something page to me. Antonio Martin
• I don't know. It may be possible to squeeze an article out of it. Maximus Rex 08:01, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Rework. Not familiar with game theory, but isn't there something related to game theory that says that a fair game is one where a tie/draw situation can be achieved? Dysprosia 08:09, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • You are probably thinking of a zero sum game. Pete/Pcb21(talk) 08:28, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • No, whether it is zero sum is totally unrelated to whether a tie is possible. But needs a real article or nothing. Revise or delete. -- Jmabel 09:05, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep only if it's possible to expand it. Exploding Boy 10:32, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Valid subject, but sub-standard article. Revise or delete. Cribcage 15:07, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I've tried to expand it, with a bit of data on sports in which ties are possible, and a note about stalemate. Smerdis of Tlön 11:43, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Also added a line about cricket. --Zigger 08:12, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)
• Keep - Tεxτurε 15:23, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• I'm going to give the revision a shot, adding knowledge from other sports. CharlieZeb 18:10, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Last Sentence

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

Cricket

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)

When? (Basketball)

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)

There's supposedly this Kentucky basketball game that ended in a draw. –HTD 16:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Baseball -- Japan Series

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)

Requested move 14 May 2023

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)

---

Tie (draw) → Tie (competition) – Brackets aren't used for alternative names. 90.255.15.152 (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Tie (competition). Per WP:RETAIN, changing from the North American English usage of "tie" to another variety of English in "draw" should not be done either without a sufficiently valid reason (and no, "usual elsewhere" under these WP:ENGVAR guidelines does not general count as such a valid reason). Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose. Amakuru's point below about "Tie (competition)" being ambiguous with Two-legged tie now makes me think there is really not a very good alternative to the current "Tie (draw)" title. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Zzuzx11's suggestion, particularly as I have never heard of "draw breaker" when it comes to sports/game shows. Looks like draw breaker is a different type of definition by looking at Google search so Tie (competition) makes more sense. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. This article has had its present title since its inception in 2004, and is not remotely broken or in need of fixing. The title makes sense because a tie is a form of draw (and also not the only form or draw, as you'd never call a chess game "tied" for example). So "draw" here serves to differentiate the page from the other types of tie. Also there's no WP:RETAIN aspect, "tie" and "draw" are used on both sides of the Atlantic, depending on the context, and this hasn't ever been at a nationality-specific title anyway. Both of the above suggestions make this article demonstrably worse, for no gain. (And Tie (competition) is definitely not appropriate, as it would be ambiguous with Two-legged tie, which also pertains to competitions).  — Amakuru (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  An excellent point re Tie (competition) is definitely not appropriate, so I think I now agree this article title should stay put. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  I've boldly stricken out your !vote, @Iggy the Swan: Red Slash 17:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Amakuru Red Slash 17:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think the current title is good, but the proposed title isn't better. I also don't see any good alternatives. Better just leave it. 162 etc. (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Amakuru, and also the fact that would be a clear change of ENGVAR. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  k fixed 90.255.15.152 (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  What do you mean "fixed"? You shouldn't change the request halfway through when people have already commented on it. "Tie (competition)" is no good for the reasons stated above, anyway. Suggest this request be withdrawn, there is no reason for a move.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Comment I've reverted the deletion of this RM discussion by User:90.255.15.152. I'm interpreting that as a withdrawn from the OP; there are no votes in support of the requested move currently. This should be early closed; I'm already involved in the discussion, so best if an uninvolved editor does it instead. 162 etc. (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 7 June 2023

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

• Speedy close it's been 18 days since this user last started an RM for the name, and that RM had clear consensus against moving. Also tie is a type of draw, so the reasoning is incorrect anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  What are the other types of draw? 90.255.15.152 (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close. We only just litigated this. Suggest WP:TROUT to the OP for failing to WP:Drop the stick.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 4 April 2024

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)

---

Tie (draw) → Tie (result) – 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)

• Rename per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. No reference made in the nom to the previous RMs whatsoever. In short, nothing has changed since then. This title was a long-discussed compromise between various competing arguments and different ENGVARs, which works for the majority of people, and shouldn't be touched with a bargepole. Also, tie and draw are not direct synonyms: some draws are not ties which means describing this tie as a type of draw is accurate.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

• Support. Per WP:NCDAB, the parenthetical element should be the generic class that includes the topic, or the broader subject/context it applies to. "Draw" is neither and doesn't meet our DAB guidelines. "Result" is more clear and accurate, given that it's the class that includes the other results of winning or losing with which it's naturally associated. ╠╣uw [talk] 15:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Result" is not good. The article has a section "Resolving ties or draws". But if it is resolved, is it still the result? In the NHL, for example, a "regulation tie" is never the result of a game. Likewise, I could say that two teams played to a draw in he first half. Or that the game is tied while it is ongoing. There are exceptions to every rule and this title does not seem odd of confusing to me. Srnec (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for same reasons as last RM, particularly the comment there from Amakuru which explained in detail why this is an acceptable article name. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: making this just about ties would mean that some information would have to be removed. Many sports have only the concept of a draw, and not tie in this sense. We have to be careful; in those sports that don't have 'ties' in this sense, tie is a synonym for fixture, e.g. 'cup tie'. Also, in cricket a 'tie' and a 'draw' are different things (the article currently covers this). I think if we were to change the title along these lines, that should result in a split. YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Suppose I ought to throw cup-tied in as well, which means something else altogether. YorkshireExpat (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support or move to Tie (competition outcome) or Tie (competition status): I see no discussion of the suggested title in the previous RM discussion. There was a clear reason articulated for not using "Tie (competition)", but that's not what anyone is proposing now. I agree with the nom that the terms 'tie' and 'draw' seem roughly synonymous, and we don't use article titles like "Home (domicile)", "Cat (feline)", "Anura (frog)", "FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation)" or "Person (human)" on Wikipedia. We should consider what ordinary people consider a title to mean. Specialized and regional definitions of 'tie' and 'draw' can (and probably should) be discussed within the article, but the title does not need to fit into the specialized jargon used in every particular type of formalized competition. In general, a tie is not a type of draw; rather, the two terms basically mean the same thing to most people in most contexts. If someone who is not a chess enthusiast tells me that the outcome of a chess game was a tie, I know that neither player was victorious, and insisting that they're not quite using the correct jargon could be rather rude. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Removing "draw" from the title would change this article's scope as noted above, since chess draws, cricket draws etc. are in no sense of the word ties and would therefore no longer be covered by the article. If people don't like the parentheses, perhaps a composite title such as tie or draw or even tie / draw might be the way to go. Or just split into separate tie and draw articles. Noting that these terms are emphatically not synonyms of each other. They are more like a Venn diagram with two separate sets and some overlap.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• move to tie game as WP:NATURALDIS preferable to the awkward selection of potential parentheticals. -- Netoholic @ 13:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

This is probably the best option.--2A01:5A8:30D:955E:197F:C5F5:82BA:64AB (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Alright, fair point.--2A01:5A8:30D:955E:40C7:94BD:6255:21AC (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

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

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Standoff (draw)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Standoff (draw) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 3 § Standoff (draw) until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)