Talk:Array map

From Rosetta Code

This junk 'task' (documentation lookup proposal) was made from behind a login control evasion service, which has been associated with a number of other attempts to create junk tasks and misleading cross-links, presumably as spamming beachhead manoeuvres. When asked to explain, the user(s) of the BugMeNot evasion service have failed to respond.

Proposal: deletion. Was not even intended to have a task focus, or to provide scope for useful levels of relevance, insight and value to learners Hout (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I am more wait-and-see. Conceptually speaking a collective entity (like a login control evasion service) can be treated as if it were something like a person. And, this particular collective entity has contributed some useful stuff and some useless stuff, but so far has avoided falling into worse choices.
More to the point, we currently do not require accounts have valid email addresses. As near as I can tell, currently all email validation gets you is the right to upload images - a feature which is currently disabled. If we ourselves cannot be bothered to require even a valid email address, I personally don't have the energy to get very worked up about silliness like this bugmenot thing. Instead, I am going to hope that maybe they can be convinced to be good citizens.
That said, I'm also not going to object to page deletion - this task as it currently stands is just silly. --Rdm (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the silliness is more relevant that the evasiveness. My concern here is that we have been letting these silly junk tasks through, on the theory that anything which lends itself to easy and instant response can rationally be called "popular". Apparently we have somehow been confusing easy supply with eager demand and approbation :-) Hout (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Tho on the timing of deletion, I guess that anything doubtful left long enough will start to gather flies, which won't make clean removal easier. Hout (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Deletion is simple, it only becomes hard to delete a page if the page has purpose and is worthwhile. And if that happens, you can still delete junk from on the page itself.
As for beachheads - we've seen worse, and dealt with worse before. So I think we can afford to keep the response scaled to the size of the issue. And, for now and for this particular example, I think that that means: educate. --Rdm (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
This page is worthless as is, so I have no objections to deletion. However, you could also just wait and see, or do pure wiki deletion, or improve it in a way that would be sensible; whatever seem to work best for you. The credentials of the account used to create this page are irrelevant to consider the worthfulness of the text of the page itself; the page has to stand by its own merits/demerits. --Zzo38 (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
In defence of the task... is there another task that specifically asks to map an array/list/vector? I see Fold, I see Filter, I don't see Map. --Tim-brown (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I seem to see this mentioned in a few articles i've edited. I've just responded to the one on Talk:Array_search. Please reply to that post, if you think i've misunderstood the point of this site or you believe these articles, redirects and such that i've contributed are junk.
Now the fact that i'm using bugmenot is a different issue. Your attitude towards bugmenot shouldn't affect whether the content is usable or not. I can kinda see why you'd think it's a beachhead for spam, but as Rdm said, any account can be created without e-mail verification and could just as well be beachhead accounts. --Bugmenot2 (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I have absolutely no means of knowing whether one sentence signed "BugMeNot" is written by the same author as another. Neither do I have the time or inclination to make the effort to find out. Rdm has argued that such tags could conceivably be interpreted as representing a corporate or collective entity, but a weakness of that argument seems to me to be that there is no coherent institution, practice or process of delegation behind them. They have more in common with things randomly picked out of (and perhaps repeatedly returned to) trash cans in a public park. Anyone who wished to speak (and be replied to) in the voice or guise of a coherent and persistent 'person' or contributing institution would simply need to obtain their own username and password. Hout (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

draft task

Please see Add a Task and if you are more generally interested, check out the "Ways to Contribute" column on the home page. --

Proposed deletion

When this page is deleted, we should probably link this page title with the apply a callback to an array page. Probably the best way to do that would be to make this page redirect there. --Rdm (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)