Talk:Array map

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)

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. --