Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bootstrap (word origin)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, defaults to keep. Note that the page has been redirected to bootstrapping. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bootstrap (word origin)[edit]

Was placed on prod by another user, but three users had edited it previously and I am unsure. I feel it belongs on AFD; the reason for prod was that the article is a dictionary definition. Esteffect (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I nominated for PROD) on the basis stated then that word etymology is part of a dictionary definition and thus this fails WP:DICT. Ros0709 (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The origin of a word is not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However the history of the expression "Lift one's self up by one's own bootstraps" might be. Borock (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, the title even makes it clear that it's just dictionary information. --Rividian (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsider My purpose in creating Bootstrap (word origin) was to provide a linkable page that presents the image of the leather boot with a visible pull strap in a short article on the history of the word evolving into multiple metaphors that can be linked from Bootstrapping (disambiguation) where the link to Bootstrap (word origin) will be seen by people who click on Bootstrap. I have added the link in Bootstrapping. It is not likely that such people will search on Boot and if they do they will probably exit because they are interested in bootstrapping, not footware. I tried to put the image on the Bootstrapping (disambiguation) page, but that was reverted because images are not allowed on disambiguation pages. If I put the image in Wiktionary, it is not likely that the person searching Wikipedia for Bootstrap will access the dictionary because they already know generally what bootstraping is and they want more than a defination. I don't think it would be appropriate to add the boot image to every one of the links from the disambiguation page such as Bootstraping (computer), Bootstrapping (finance), etc. etc. So where should I put it where it will be seen by those who would be interested? Please take another look at Bootstrap (word origin). Greensburger (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can certainly see the point of having this, it avoids repeating the same explanation on a number of articles. However it may as well be merged into the Bootstrapping page. I notice this content has been introduced there before, and removed citing Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), but this strikes me as a place we could ignore all rules. the wub "?!" 14:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the moment, Bootstrap redirects the the Bootstrapping disambiguation article. I would propose that Bootstrap instead be made into the primary topic, it being the obvious origin of all other uses of 'bootstrapping.' Within the Bootstrap article could be links to the sundry related derivative uses. I'm not sure if this should be done by simply adding the content of this article to the current Bootstrap page, or possibly simply moving this article to Bootstrap, moving the current Disambiguation page to Bootstrap (disambiguation) and then linking back to it. I do think the current title is inappropriate though. Ce1984 (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, more exactly rename it to Bootstrapping: let it be the default, main article for the topic, let it have the default redirects, while removing the default redirects from the recent Bootstrapping disambiguation page, and renaming that to Bootstrapping (disambiguation).

Argumentation: As far as I know, bootstrapping is a strange concept. It is neither a single concept, nor a bunch of unrelated concepts. It is a powerful common pattern, a sweeping analogy with its deserved place in the Platonic realm that manifests itself in many faces in the various sciences. Moreover, its semantic is not static: scientist use the term with new meanings as new manifestations are being explored. For example, we can talk about bootstrapping also

in biology: when we assume that first macromolecule-based living beings emerged "on top of" self-reproductuve clay christals. The biological faces can give rise also to analogies in architecture': How can we build a vault with one hand? The vault should be ready from the very beginning, because a half-complete vault collapases at once. First we build a hill out of stones, then we build a vault on top of it, putting the stones one by one onto the top of the hill, then we remove the stonehill from under the vault. Richard Dawkins uses this analogy in explaining the possible origin of recent self-replication big molecules and life.
in communication: the prisonars in Tzarist Russian prisons developed a means of communication: they "knocked" messages to each other on the wall. The old prisoners had to teach this "knocking alphabet" to their new prisoner-mates: they had to explain what the coding system was, how the patterns of knocks could be assigned to the letters of the Russian alphabet. But the knocking code had to be explained also by the knocking on the wall, because the captives had no chance to meet personally or exchange letters! How could they resolve this circulus vitiosus? First, they used a simpler variant. They coded each letter of the alphabet by that many knockings as the number of the letter in the Russian alphabet was: one knock, A, two knocks, B etc. This simple system could easily be taught by simple examples "Who are you?" etc. Later they taught to the novice a more sophisticated coding system "on top of" this simple one.
in the foundations of mathematics: if we build a system of logic, we often use set theory for "holding" collections, we often use natural numbers for indexing etc. That seems to be a circulus vitiosus: set theory and arithmetic is based on logic, logic is based on set theory and arithmetic? In fact, the problem can be resolved by a kind of bootstrapping: we build first a "dummy" version of arithmetic and set theory, integrated deeply in the very syntax of our system of logic, then we build our system of logic, afterwards we can use our system of logic to build the "unabridged" arithmetic and set theory.

The examples show that

the various faces of bootstrapping share a common, deep underlying pattern
bootstrapping concept is not a closed, static concept, but an evergreen developing one, with more and more new manifestations.

All that implies that a disambiguation page is not the good way to cover the concept of bootstrapping. The "main" bootstrapping artice must explain the origin of the word, and the common, deep underlying pattern, mention the many faces, manifestations, narrate the history, the dynamics of the concept, and enumerate the may various manifestations. Disambiguation pages should not be used for explaining a family of related concepts. Disambiguation pages are good for enumerating unrelated concepts that are casually pronounced materially with a common word.

Of course the disambiguation page may be still needed: there may be such meanings of word "bootstrapping" that are not covered by the above common pattern, but are an entirely casual. I am not an expert in that, but I suppose, Bootstrap Bill Turner is such a meaning of the word. This belongs surely to a disambiguation page, but many of the scientific meanings are related, covered by a shared common pattern, lead by a powerful analogy, these belong rather to an explanatory main article.

In summary: I propose

Renaming Bootstrap (word origin) into Bootstrapping, that will be the main article, it should have the default redirects,
extending the explanation of the "common pattern" in the concept family of bootsrapping
Keeping the etymology part and the image, they are very good in the "common" main article
removing the default redirect from Bootstrapping (disambiguation)
mentioning (and shortly explaining) Bootstrapping (computing), Bootstrapping (compilers) and Bootstrapping (linguistics) in the main article, because they are certainly covered by the "common pattern" of the concept of bootstrapping. At the same time, maybe deleting them from the disambiguation page (this can be debated).
Keeping those links in the disambiguation page, that are unrelated to the "common pattern" of the concept of bootstrapping
Each "subarticle" (e.g. Bootstrapping (computing), Bootstrapping (compilers) and Bootstrapping (linguistics), Bootstrapping (finance)) may have a link to the disambiguation page, and also a link to the main page ({{see also}} template, {{for}} template).

An analogy: there is also another concept that has many special, but related faces. It is shamanism. The concept is debated: African sourceres, mediums are usually not called "shaman" (because they do not undertake a soul travel), while South-Amrican, Siberian, Bushman ad Eskimo mythological specialist are called shamans, because they share some common patterns (e.g. the soul travel).

Now the articles about shamanism are organoized in the following way:

There is a main article about Shamanism, it is this that has the default redirects, e.g. shaman redirects to shamanism.
The main article explains the "common pattern" and it links to "subarticles" like Shamanism in Siberia, Shamanism among Eskimo peoples, Shamanistic remnants in Hungarian folklore etc.
there is a disambiguation page for Shaman (disambiguation). It is rather a marginal page: no default redirects point to it. It enumerates such unrelated meanings like computer programs etc. named as "shaman".

I am not an expert in the following fields (far from that), but I think that bootstrapping is not the only concept that is "problematic" somehow and still has its article.

As far as I know, life has no "official" definition, we have no bulletproof method for recognizing every possible life form, still, we have a main article about life. And it has further links to the many faces to the plethora of life forms. I admit. there is also a Life (disambiguation), but it is rather marginal.

M-theory is another interesting topic. As far as I know, M-theory is not yet developed as a single theory. We do not know its "centre" yet. What we know are its "faces", special manifestations. Still, we have a main article on M-theory.

Physis (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Physis I think Physis is correct in that this is a fairly unique situation, and I think his solution is ideal. I also find it funny that the length of text in his comment is probably about double the length of the article proposed. The above is stated so eloquently that I think Physis would be the ideal candidate to write the article, and I'd say be bold, make the changes, and then we can go from there. ce1984 (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. :-) Borock (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. So I converted Bootstrapping/Bootstrap from a disambiguation page to a full article. The Bootstrap (word origin) article is now redundant and may be deleted. The Bootstrap article still needs work, expanding each section with a sentence or two to summarize each referenced main page article. Greensburger (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's only a redirect anyway. Besides, the actual page, Bootstrapping, is fine as a disambiguation page. Green caterpillar (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First try for justifying the motivation. Thank You for the reassuring words, and I am sorry for the long absence. During that, I was trying to write a first sketch with primary topic about bootstrapping. Because of Wikipedia's verifiability policy, the main question was: is there at last one notable source, which definitely states that the several manifestations of bootstrapping are indeed deeply related (and not only superficially)? If this were not verified by notable authors, then new article would raise huge edit wars. But, for luck, I have found a deciding reference: Richard Dawkins definitely claims in his book River out of Eden, that embryogenesis is a bootstrapping process, with the same underlying pattern as the booting process of punched tape fed computers of the 1950s. Thus, the relatedness of at least two different manifestations have been justified by a notable author. According to this, I have prepared a first try, how the motivation for primary topic artcle can be justified: User:Physis/Bootstrapping. It is still in embryonic stage (at least its stage fits well with its own topic), but I hope it can help to prevent at least an edit war about the overall verifiability of the very idea. Physis (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.