Talk:Fail-deadly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fail-deadly article.

Article policies
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.


The dead man's switch page says it is a fail-safe device. That makes more sense to me, but I don't know enough to feel confident to remove the link from this page and move it to the fail-safe page. Anyone know for sure? We should certainly be consistent, whatever the real situation is. -- S

Is seems consistent, look at the beginning of Dead man's switch. I used that to clarify. Besides, note that "safe" for the bomber means no risk that the bomb does not explode.--Patrick 13:42, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] How about "Success-deadly"?

If a suicide bomber's entire strategy is to explode the bomb and being shot or overpowered causes the detonation of same, it seems to me as though he/she has "succeeded"! -- Jack 2006/01/13

No, because he did not get far enough into a thick crowd before being overpowered by officers. Besides, the term "fail" in fail-safe still stands, even though if something dissipated safely it's not truly a failure. Both terms refer to backup salvaging strategies when the original plan fails. --Geoffrey 02:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)