Any number of these conflicts might resolve Yes this year, once they enter the Wars or Major Wars category on Wikipedia's List of Ongoing Armed Conflicts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts
I will be fairly liberal with what counts as a conflict. So if the U.S. and Israel declare war on Iran and start accruing losses in one Wikipedia entry, both of those pairings could resolve Yes together. Multiple belligerents fighting as part of a broader conflict with a different Wiki heading still count as long as their (para)militaries are actually fighting each other. So, the Arab-Israeli conflict in 2024 did count for Israel/Lebanon but did not count for Israel/Iran. "Anyone" conflicts can resolve to any conflict involving the listed country. At the end of the year, all unresolved conflicts will resolve No.
A conflict will only resolve N/A if the definition of the countries involved becomes broadly disputed in a high traffic trading event with no reasonable solution after asking mods. One guy misreading the wikipedia rules won't result in an N/A, but 12 people arguing about a 5-way civil war with publicly denied international intervention might. If a wiki entry is added to the Wars or major Wars category merely because of a retroactive addendum to its 2024 numbers, that will not be sufficient to resolve it Yes for 2025. Coterminous states such as Rojava count for their synonyms (in this case, Kurdistan).
Update 2025-02-07 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Clarification on Kurdish-related conflicts:
The market will use the bundled Kurdish Separatist Insurgencies Wikipedia article as the basis for resolution on Kurdistan / Anyone.
In particular, conflicts such as those involving Kurds in the Syrian Civil War will not count unless they show sufficient deadly involvement in the last 13 months, similar to how the Arab-Israeli Conflict entry is treated.
These conditions apply both for this year and last year, though they could change if the situation escalates.
Update 2025-02-08 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): For the Nigeria / Cameroon conflict:
A resolution of Yes will be given if Wikipedia continues to list both countries as belligerents.
The conflict must be in active fighting at the time of evaluation.
1,000@Panfilo Can you give some background on your pick of Kurdistan / Anyone as an option? Seeing how, for example, Syrian and Iranian Kurds are not a homogenous group, I'd like more clarity on what you consider will trigger this? Is it any one Kurdish group's conflict ascending to war, or will you combine, say, what happens in Turkey with what happens in Iran?
@GazDownright My hope is that Wikipedia will make this a relatively clean resolution because there is already a bundled "Kurdish Separaitist Insurgencies" article on the page. Kurds in the Syrian Civil War don't qualify for this or last year (yet) for the same reason the gigantic Arab-Israeli Conflict entry doesn't cause a bunch of entries to resolve; insufficient deadly involvement in the last 13 months. That could of course change.
@Panfilo Okay, I think I get it. Wikipedia experts being the judges, and us needing to price in a certain volatility. Thanks.
@GazDownright unless Wikipedia redefines the table entry to only include one of those countries when it moves up!
@Panfilo And I guess similarly, if the Cameroon - Nigeria conflict grow, and it changes to, say, Nigerian Delta War, this still resolves YES?
@GazDownright As long as Wikipedia considers them a belligerent and they are currently in the active fighting, yes!