Talk:Fail-deadly

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fail-deadly article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Technology / Cold War / Post-Cold War

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)
	Post-Cold War task force

Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects 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.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Untitled[edit]

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)

How about "Success-deadly"?[edit]

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)[reply]

This entire page should be deleted. It is completely unsourced, and I have not seen a single credible reference ever using this term, outside of Wikipedia entries. It sounds to me like an invention of the author. - Roberto 4/13/10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.164.77 (talk)

It was referenced in Dr Strangelove, but that's the only time I've ever heard the term used. Spigot Map 19:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO someone should either find a valid reference for this (apparently bogus) article or have it deleted. Wikipedia is a springboard for so much personal contrivance. It's just amazing. Needless to say, someone will actually cite this mess (or its countless mirrors) as an authority and next year this barfy word will be on CNN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.118.143 (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]