Talk:alpha version

RFD discussion: October 2022–September 2023

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

alpha version

pre-alpha version

beta version

These are all SOP - particularly given that it's much more common to hear that a program is "in alpha" or "in beta", which shows that those words are simply acting as plain adjectives on the word "version". We don't currently have an entry for pre-alpha, but it works in exactly the same way. Theknightwho (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Weak delete. I work in this industry (occasionally): there are alpha and beta (and sometimes other) releases, and alpha and beta candidates, and just "alphas" and "betas". Same thing. It may be the case that these terms all derived from "alpha (etc.) version" (in which case we might want to keep it, as "mobile phone" despite "mobile"), but in that case I think we ought to have some strong sourcing. Equinox ◑ 01:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Ambivalent on this but the OED considers "alpha" and "beta" in the software sense as clippings of alpha testing and beta testing (rather than version), which seems plausible enough since their citations for the latter go back to the 1960s. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Could be a case of WT:JIFFY or similar thus, difficult to know, but maybe for parsimony as we can arguably cover the ideas on the pages alpha and beta alone weak delete. Fay Freak (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• Err on the side of keeping: these are the headwords I would use for lookup. In Macmillan. Mark using "sum of parts" label if desired. Very good page views[1]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. pre-alpha is currently a red link, btw. Ultimateria (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
• Not sure if I can vote without an account here, but as someone who looked up the word through Google and the Wiktionary definition was exactly what I was looking for (and I was very perplexed by the deletion message), I obviously want to keep this. --62.245.80.31 00:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
• Like the previous commenter I was someone who looked up the word through Google and the Wiktionary definition was exactly what I was looking for (and I was also very perplexed by the deletion message), I obviously want to keep this. The fact that pre-alpha is a red link is not a good argument to delete this, and I would say having the page arguably is a positive to help people keep the same meaning in discussions. -- 2001:4645:3D47:0:D1F6:24E6:6D:15D0; 2023-03-20T11:44Z (11:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC))

  WT:JIFFY would support entries for alpha test/alpha testing etc, if it they are earlier than the challenged terms. If we have usage examples or a good set of collocations for alpha and beta we should satisfy those hunting for the meaning of all the SoP expressions. Delete. DCDuring (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Before 1950 alpha test" was often Alpha test or Alpha Test, referring to the w:Army Alpha test, one of the first widely used intelligence tests. There was other usage of alpha test to refer to a test that was applied first to test objects, preceding a possible beta test. I found a 1950 HP Journal article that referred to alpha test as "Lab Test of Functionality" and beta test as "Marketing Test of ..." (snippet view only), which is close to modern sense. Before 1970 "alpha version" appears in Google Books mostly in comparison of different sources (eg, manuscripts) of old documents and not at all in the context of electronic devices, software, etc. This, plus the OED's treatment suggest that alpha test and beta test are the expressions that introduce the modern senses of alpha and beta. The myriad modern uses of alpha and beta in their technical hardware and software senses seem SoP to me. DCDuring (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

This was very useful to me. Don't delete it. 216.24.45.34 19:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Seeing the comments from IPs above, which look legitimate, I'm leaning keep now. This seems like a case of common sense where the utility of the existing detailed entries specifically under "... version" might outweigh a strict reading of the policy, bearing in mind that half the delete votes above are "weak" too. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

* Kept all P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Striking close by inexperienced editor. bd2412 T 15:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)