Talk:Manchester Baby

message: I think the change in the opening sentence to "The Manchester Baby, also known since its replication project as the Small-Scale Experimental Machine (SSEM),"  is not as clear and straight forward as the previous  and now current version with I have reverted to.  I think this change - the content of which was argued about for a long time should be discussed further if needed. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of opening sentence

message: Could someone more adept at editing please add this image of the replica:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SSEM_Replica.jpg
It shows the computer itself much more clearly than the image in the Infobox.
It's from the Main page's "On This Day", 2022-06-21, so rights are OK.  BMJ-pdx (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Eastfarthingan (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional image of replica, please 

message: Our background section said "The Colossus of 1943 was the first electronic computing device...". I've modified this to add the ABC computer as well as Colossus. The reason was the wording; the Colossus was partially programmable, while the ABC computer was not, but the ABC computer was definitely an electronic computing device, albeit one that solved a single algebraic problem. If the wording had included something about programmability then I'd happily leave ABC out, but as it stands, ABC is relevant (in any case it's quite a milestone in the history of electronic computing, so it's nice to include it). I hope this makes sense? I know claims of earliest in computing can get very emotive - I have no axe to grind here, and don't want to tread on anyone's toes. Elemimele (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABC computer and Colossus 

message: One thing that became very clear in our previous discussions of the name "Small-Scale Experimental Machine" is that that name was coined by Burton as part of the replication project, adapted from the publication with " – a small-scale experimental machine" in its title, and had never been used in print before then, unlike "Baby" which was widely used (see User:Dicklyon/Baby#By date for details with dates).  But my attempt to clarify that was reverted as contensious.  Why?  I think I was correctly softening an overly broad claim. Dicklyon (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that there's no evidence of the use of "small-scale experimental machine" in print before the rebuild, except as the subtitle "a small-scale experimental machine", and if they referred to it as "the small-scale experimental machine", they certainly didn't think of that as a name.  And there is evidence of "Baby" in print (as early as 1947 iirc), so it's not something the journalists made up, as Tootill (iirc) said.  And my investigations that included conversations with the principals helped explain the evolution of the use of the name, which Lavington did not capitalize until after our conversation.  If you'd like to see the emails, or want their email addresses so you can ask them yourself, email me.  I am not intending to try to use these private conversations as reliable sources, but as "background" to help interpret the subtleties, such as the implication that it was "also know as the Small-Scale Experimental Machine", which if supported by sources at all would have to be lowercase.  I thought my edit to the lead would be an uncontroversial resolution of this misinformation, since it's supported by reliable sources, and true instead of misleading. Dicklyon (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not convinced that you have reliable sources to support your claim/research/argument  - and our opening The Manchester Baby, also called the Small-Scale Experimental Machine (SSEM)  is something that we have reliable sources for. The lead does not say has always been called SSEM or anything so I don't think can be viewed as contentious. We will have to agree to disagree on the reliability of Lavington, Burton and Tootill claims/views. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: My wording change only weakens what the lead claims, so shouldn't need additional sourcing.  The current version, by not restricting the time scope, tends to imply it has always been called that, which is clearly not true.  You can see for yourself, searching books for "small-scale experimental machine", that every occurrence in the first 20 years after the machine was made is in the context of citations to the paper with subtitle "a small-scale experimental machine" (with various capitalizations).  Tootill's personal recollections of what they "called it" is not very relevant to what it was "known as" if that knowing was only in private.  Reliable sources never called it that.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifying the "also called"