Talk:Analytical engine

message: Does anyone know where I might find plans of either engine?
BrentB
Plans which would be useful to a machinist are non-existant.  The site linked in the article provides sufficient detail for designing a new machine that functions under the principles of the Analytical and Difference engines.  The Science Museum in London, England currently has in it's archives the design sketches which Babbage produced within his lifetime.  These are substantially complement, however they only provide a description of the parts and their relationships.  These would need to be translated into dimensioned drawings to fabricate actual parts.  A difficult process, but one which is very doable, and one that I am attempting to perform at the moment.  Still figuring out how to talk to the museum's archive department and obtain full-scale reproductions of the necessary docs. -- wackyvorlon
I wonder if they ever will become available online or in print. Maybe Google will scan them. I know many professional drawings have been made of the machines and also thousands of pages of sketches are in existence. Though, as wackyvorlon remarks, they can not be translated to metal directly.SvenPB 14:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mechanical Drawings 

message: I removed the following sentence from the start of the Design paragraph "ada byron was the real inventer. ". It is unsourced, not formatted and clearly (to me) spam. If anyone can prove otherwise, find a source and feel free to stick the sentence back in. Spacerat3004 19:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are exactly right - Ada had nothing to do with the design of the machine.  Her involvement was mostly in translating and adding clarifying notes about the machine.  Her main innovation (and there is some debate about whether even that was hers) was on the software side of things.  Her notes describe things that modern programmers would recognise as loops, subroutines and libraries - and as far as we know, she was the first person ever to write about such things.  So certainly it is wildly incorrect to say that Ada was the real inventor of the Analytical engine - it might be correct to say that she is the inventor of many of the constructs of modern programming languages - but even that is a matter of some debate.  I really feel for Ada - she must have been the most frustrated programmer in history!  Having all of those great ideas for how to program a computer - but no computer to actually run them on! SteveBaker 20:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The statement was part of vandalism by an IP (see here). You should have just reverted to the previous version. I have now restored the deleted content. -- Petri Krohn 05:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: A recent anonymous edit credits Lovelace for the design of the machine along with Babbage. The cited source was the Lovelace page on wikipedia. I am not aware of any evidence to support this and reverted the change. --Senjaz (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ada Byron's involvement. 

message: This is a very negative article, which fails to reflect the problems that Babbage would have found himself up against.
Chasnor15 (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ...such as...?  What?  SteveBaker (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Negative

message: Do we need those statements in the first paragraph to be bolded? I think that it makes the article seem sensational and that there is no need to emphasise them.
Davidedmeades (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bold in First Paragraph?

message: Applying moores law from the three minute estimate, and assuming that it applies from 1971, would give a 1941 descendant of a babbage engine a calculating time of about 5 nanoseconds. ahead of a modern pc.. in the 1940s  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.86.50 (talk) 08:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Random note

message: The top of the page blames Babbage for being 'disagreeable' and for 'alienating his machinist'  The reference provided says nothing about Babbage alienating his machinist.  According to more studied texts, Babbage's machinist was a Scotsman who saw the project as a source of income rather than taking it seriously.  It was an unfortunate match up.  The machinist cut parts to beyond tolerance required, and appears to have over charged.  When funding ran out, the machinist left with all of his tools, which was very damaging for the project.  Law suits found that the tools indeed belonged to the machinist as in those day without a contract saying otherwise that was the rule.  I'm sure the machinist found great use in tools for building difference engines...   It is unprofessional for a machinist to over charge independent of the temperament of the contractor.  There are a number of indicators it is the machinist who was difficult to work with, not the other way around.  Serious literature on Babbage's work place fault on failure of the project on a combination of the lobbying work of the head of the government navigation table 'calculators' office against further funding, the over billing practices of the machinist, and the fact it really was an expensive machine (the government spent about the price of steam locomotive on it),  and where was the private funding?.  -- due to the reference not saying what we are told it says I am removing this part about alienating the machinist.  Someone would do us a favor to put in more information with proper references about the lobbying against the machine by the calculators and the over billing on the part of the machinist.  Tom Lynch (www.linkedin.com/in/ThomasWLynch)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.61.105.195 (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the analytical engine ever built? 

message: this section is inaccurate.  Babbage's work was known in Europe, affected a design that came out of Sweden and no doubt was subsumed into the large industry that came about for mechanical calculators that surpassed he simple Pascaline.  Howard Aiken cited Babbage as an inspiration for the Mark Machines.   Henry Provost Babbage built parts of Babbage's machines, and published on them (~1875).   I do not know why this myth that Babbage's machines were 'lost' persists in so many writings today.   I will add the bit about Henry to the article.  Tom Lynch (www.linkedin.com/in/ThomasWLynch).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.61.105.195 (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  influence 

message: It was announced on "this week in Tech" that there is currently a fund raising effort to try to get the Analytical engine built.  It is being put together by John Graham-Cumming under the name "Project 28".  Should an reference to this be included in the article or a link be provided? http://plan28.org/ WalterFletcherIV (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure. According to http://www.pledgebank.com/babbage/info - as of today (Jan 22nd 2011) only 4,000 people have pledged their $10.  The manifesto of the Plan 28 team says that they need 10,000 pledges by the end of January...but looking at the sign-up rate after an initial rush of enthusiasm in the first few weeks, the growth rate of pledges has been down at below 100 per week.  At this rate it'll take 4 years to get to the line - and they only have just over a week.  Worse still, the Plan 28 website says that they need 50,000 to sign up - not 10,000 as Pledge Bank suggests.  However, as of Dec 11th, John Graham-Cumming said that he's in negotiations with one or more commercial backers - so it's still perfectly possible that this could happen - despite lack-lustre support from the masses. SteveBaker (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Graham-Cumming/Plan 28: Project to build Charles Babbage's Analytical Engine  

message: the references for this page suck. The only good one is the science museum. number 3 does not work. It suggests the mill of the analytical engine was a difference engine curved in on its self. Well show me your wordpress page with sources if your going to say that. Thats a potent statement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.127.105 (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: It looks like Plan 28 is now on the way to building a replica Analytical engine - with a goal to complete it by 2021. SteveBaker (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconstruction News 

message: In searching for sources for some of the statements in the article, I came across this book, which appears to have plagiarized this article.  The text in question was present in this article before the book's 2007 publication.--Father Goose (talk) 05:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "The free encyclopedia"...so long as he credited Wikipedia per the terms of GFDL, that's actually perfectly OK (I don't think we were using CC-BY-SA 3 back then though). SteveBaker (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing to indicate that the author did credit us.  Not that there's any action we can take anyway.  Still, that's the first time I've seen our work plagiarized in a book.--Father Goose (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It happens quite a lot actually.  But if you're sure there is no credit given per GFDL then the correct action would be as outlined at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks#Non-compliance_process (although that leans heavily towards websites that plagiarize without giving credit).  However, note that the only person who can do this is the person(s) who wrote the text that was infringed.  Wikipedia doesn't own the copyright on the content submitted by our editors!  However, if you can find someone who contributed to the 2007-ish version of the article that was plagiarized - then they should send one of those letters to the publisher of the book.  If one of the original authors were to pursue it, it's possible that they could sue the publisher or the author. SteveBaker (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whoops! 

message: "Analytical Engine" is capitalized in some parts of this article and uncapitalized in the article title and lead.  Which should be conformed to the other?  It seems to me that even if this was never the machine's "name" it has de facto come to be used as such, and therefore we should adopt capitalization.  I'm not sure what the majority of sources do but I'm fairly certain that many of them do capitalize. Robert K S (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The preponderance of sources on Google Books capitalize the term: .  I believe we should as well.--Father Goose (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking through those old books, you will find many, many capitalized words that would never be capitalized today. Wikipedia does not capitalize difference engine, and I see no reason for this extension of that idea to be capitalized either. It fits none of the criteria for capitalization in the style guide. Krychek (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analytical Engine: capitalized? 

message: I have rewritten the influence section.  For the record, the Cohen reference says the following about Aiken and Babbage:
:Page 61: "One of the persistent beliefs about Aiken is that his thoughts on computing and computers, and the design of [Aiken's calculators], were strongly influenced by the concepts and proposals of Charles Babbage."  [text goes on to expose the legend]
:Page 69: "Although there seems to be no way to learn the actual date on which Aiken approached the Physics Department and encountered the Babbage wheels, there are some convincing reasons why this event would have occurred in 1937, at about the time when Aiken had written up his formal proposal for IBM and would have had real hope that his machine be built.  The chief reason for this date is that Aiken would surely not have approached the Physics Department with a request for space if he didn't have a real prospect of his dream machine's becoming a reality.  ¶ When he was writing his proposal Aiken's knowledge of Babbage's machines, particularly the Analytical Engine, was severely limited; it was the kind of information gleaned from meager secondary sources [in which the Analytical Engine was treated only summarily] rather than from a reading of Babbage's own writings about his machines, as in his autobiography."  [Continues with evidence in support]
:Pages 70-71: "...Baxandall [in his 1926 book Calculating Machines and Instruments, an annotated and illustrated catalogue of the collection ofthe Science Museum] did not stress the fact that Babbage intended to have his machine print out the results directly in molds from which stereotype blocks could be made for printing (thus eliminating errors due to transcription, typesetting, proofreading, and printing).  Aiken did not mention this feature of the Babbage engines; rather, he presented it as his own innovation."
:Page 71: "The conlusion to which we are led is that Aiken initially learned about the work of Babbage primarily through [the Baxandall catalogue and a brief article by Ludgate].  It was from these sources that he derived the summary (and somewhat erroneous) statements about Babbage's machines found in his 1937 proposal to IBM.  That Aiken was generally ignorant of Babbage's machines explains the otherwise puzzling fact that, though Aiken continually expressed admiration for his illustrious predecessor, the architecture of [Aiken's calculator] was little influenced by Babbage's architecture."
:Pages 71-72: "Reviewing all the evidence, and taking Aiken's oral testimony at its face value, one would have to conclude that Babbage did not play a major role in the development of Aiken's ideas about machine architecture.  By his own account, Aiken came across detailed information on Babbage's Difference Engine and Analytical Engine only after he had completed a general plan for a digital super-calculator of his own and proposed it to Harvard's Physics Department. ¶ There is no evidence that Aiken declared indebtedness to Babbage for any particular features of his own inventions.  Rather, it seems, Aiken praised Babbage in order to enhance his own stature.  By lauding Babbage's intellectual prowess and conceptual achievements, Aiken seems to have been saying in effect that in his bold pioneering effort he, Howard Aiken, was not alone.  He was suggesting that he was in some sense like Babbage: a radical inventor whose stature was not fully appreciated by his contemporaries, a member of a small group of great men (including Pascal and Leibniz) who had pioneered the art of mechanical computation.  By declaring his personal admiration for Babbage, and paying tribute to other illustrious predecessors, Aiken was not immodestly staking his own claim to a place in history. ¶ It also seems that, as he got deeper and deeper into computing, Aiken--fatherless since his early teens--adopted Babbage as a kind of father figure, somewhat as, in earlier days, he had done with the high school teacher who assured him of an education, with Edward Bennett at the University of Wisconsin, and with E. L. Chaffee at Harvard.
:Page 68: "I had one last question about Babbage to put to Aiken: Had he ever actually gone to the Science Museum at South Kensington to see any of the Babbage machines?  'I went to the South Kensington Museum after the war,' he replied.  'I stayed with the Comries, and Comrie made arrangements for the museum to be opened up so that I could get to see the Analytical Engine.'  The museum was 'still in a shambles,' but Aiken did get to see the 'mill' of the Analytical Engine (corresponding in its functional role to the CPU of a modern computer)--'and it was,' he said, 'the greatest disappointment of my life.'"
I take my answer off the air.  Robert K S (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, one other thing.  In the Mauchly colloquium talk, Mauchly makes the statement quoted below.  If we can find what he's referring to (the "professional societies", the "some people"), it would be worthwhile adding this, if not to this article's "influence" section (since the Analytical Engine project involved no toolmaking), then perhaps to a counterpart section in the Difference Engine article.  "...[T]here were in later years professional societies who were attesting to the fact that, due to the attempts at construction of a Babbage difference machine and due to the innovations which Clement and his people had embarked on in order to construct what Babbage was starting out to do, that the whole industry of making calculating - not calculating but fine instruments we'll say  - the whole industry of making fine instruments and doing instruments work in England was thereby advanced, that he made a real contribution. Some people thought the money which was spent on the partly complete difference engine was still amply returned to the British government by reason of the fact that the efforts to build this had contributed to the art of fabrication of fine instruments." Robert K S (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  My rewrite 

message: A Logic Named Joe is particularly noteworthy as a prediction of massively networked personal computers and their drawbacks, written at a time when computing was in its infancy. --Pawyilee (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiction 

message: I just fixed the memory size -- check my maths in case I'm wrong.
I found the article saying that:
There was to be a store (that is, a memory) capable of holding 1,000 numbers of 40 decimal digits each (ca. 1.7 kB).
This seems to be out by a factor of 10. I have changed it to "17 kB".
The article "The 100-year leap" states that:
In his plans Babbage described an Engine with 100 storage locations holding 40 decimal digits each (which is roughly equivalent to 1.7KB).  He even anticipated the need for ever more memory, describing an Engine with 1,000 storage locations (17KB) and external storage (he would have used punched cards where we use disks).
I assume this is where the article got it from, and why it was confused. Here's my maths for the version with 1000 storage locations:
\log_{256}(10^{40}) bytes = 16609.6 bytes = 16.22 KiB.
So probably (if my maths is correct), it should read 16.2 kB (interpreting kB as kibibytes) —MattGiuca (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Using external data storage in the form of punched cards was always a part of his plan - and it's not clear what (if any) limits there might be on the capacity of that.  As for the "RAM" memory in the form of stacks of gearwheels - it all depends on how much of the stuff he might have decided to manufacture.  Since his addressing scheme used 40 decimal digits for the address, he could have addressed more gearwheel memory than the entire mass of the solar system could contain.  So the actual amount that a working engine would have might depend only on how much money a customer would pay for such a thing.  Since the machine was never built, it doesn't really make too much sense to discuss how much memory it had - only the limits of how much it could have had.  That said, since we have reliable sources for the 100 and 1000 number versions, we should mention both. SteveBaker (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memory size 

message: Despite holding a master's degree in administration, I have found most of the language used in the article wholly incomprehensible in that it uses technical terminology reserved for programmers. To make the article accessible to the general public and therefore more of use, I suggest a deep rewrite by laymen by refraining from technical terms. It took me reading the whole article before inferring that the Analytical Engine was basically some sort of calculator.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.59.70.238 (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If only you had read the first sentence instead, which instantly shows your inference to be completely wrong. It is so much more than a mere calculator – namely a general-purpose computer (to appreciate the difference, read Calculator#Calculators compared to computers and the illustrative example at Computer#Stored program architecture) –, and you don't have to be a specialist in anything to understand that; you just need general education in English, since the article says it explicitly. I'm at a loss to understand how somebody with such a gross lack of attention if not reading comprehension can achieve a master's degree in anything. In this case, it's clearly the fault of the reader to miss the forest for the trees. There's never a need to read through an entire Wikipedia article to know what it is about because the introduction section provides a handy summary, and while I admit that there are exceptions, i. e., badly written or outright vandalised articles in desperate need of amendment to conform to Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards, this article is not among them, neither now nor at the time when you posted the inquiry – I've checked the article's history to be sure. So the fault lies with the reader this time, not with Wikipedia. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article style rewrite for non-specialists 

message: A group called "Plan 28" has been collecting funds to build a replica Analytical Engine since 2010. This Wikipedia article said "the project is underway". The project has a blog, a Twitter feed, a Facebook page, a mailing list, a T-shirt, and a donation account. What it doesn't have is results.  As of October 2013. no actual design or construction of anything seems to have occurred.  Last press coverage was over a year ago. Updated article accordingly, per WP:CRYSTAL. John Nagle (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plan 28 rebuild 

message: What is this word "instigonometric" in the caption of the photo of the punchcards at the beginning of the "Design" section? I have a very limited education and this is far beyond me, but I note that:
*It is redlinked.
*The Wikipedia has never heard of it. No other instances of the occurrence of this word occur in the Wikipedia (including anywhere else in this article).
*Google seems never to have heard of it. A Google search on "Instigonometric - inputting" (to weed out mirrors of this article) returns, essentially, nothing. I am not a Google maven tho and perhaps I am doing this wrong. (Google does give many returns for the word "instigonometric" alone, tho.)
*Google Books returns essentially no results for this word appearing in any book, ever.
*Neither of the books given as refs for the caption return any results for "instigonometric".
I'm wondering if this is perhaps an archaic word, a foreign word, or a typo? Google replies to requests to search on "instigonometric" with "do you mean trigonometric?" so perhaps this is some sort of mangling of the word "trigonometric"? Given the term "instigonometric", Google Translate detects this as Esparanto but is unable to provide an English equivalent. It appears in this Indonesian-language paper so I wonder if it is Indonesian? Does "fungsi instigonometric" mean "trigonometric function" in Indonesian and this Indonesian term has somehow gotten into the article?
If it's none of these and is real, it seems pretty obscure even for readers who can solve for x, could we replace it with a more accessible term? Herostratus (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: They might mean trig functions, which can be approximated using polynomials.  --Shanedidona (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

text: The image was originally added with this edit , with the caption "Two types of punched cards used to program the machine. Foreground: "operational cards", for inputting instructions; background: "variable cards", for inputting data".  This was changed to (at least roughly) the current text with this edit:  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Analytical_Engine&diff=prev&oldid=547446881]. in what appears to be vandalism.  I have attempted to put this back together, but given the length of time since the vandalism, I'd appreciate if someone could review.  Rwessel (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Instigonometric functions" 

message: The article says 1000 words of 40 digits, which is what I've heard previously.  The only reference I've been able to see that has a number is the third external link which says 50 digits (the others I've checked are either dead or don't include the word size).  This number has popped up over at Computer program, where apparently the Tanenbaum reference (#6, there), which I also cannot see, says 50 according to another editor.  Some of the earlier discussion on this talk page implies that 40 *was* well referenced.  I'm just hoping to get the inconsistency cleaned up.
: Allan G. Bromley (1998). "Charles Babbage’s Analytical Engine, 1838". IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 20:4 says 40 digits. I'd trust that article over what Andy likely mentions in passing (could easily have been a typo, been misremembered, or taken from another source with such a mistake). —Ruud 18:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  (BTW the fact that Bromley's article is not used in this article, while several unscrupulous looking websites are, seems a bit worrying to me. —Ruud 18:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Tanenbaum wrote, "The store consisted of 1000 words of 50 decimal digits used to hold variables and results." This sentence is in the section titled, "Milestones in Computer Architecture". However, he also wrote something peculiar in the same section: "Since the analytical engine was programmable in a simple assembly language, it needed software." Of course, "words (computer science)", "software", and "assembly language" were not vocabulary words in the mid 1800s. Timhowardriley (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Terminology aside, I read that as a somewhat awkward statement that the machine would have been useless without software.  It make more sense if you drop the “since”.  Rwessel (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of digits in store/memory words 

message: I have added the references Collier1970 and Bromley1982 (Bromley1998 is a reprint of Bromley1982). Some statements in this article can be verified by this sources. --84.119.110.166 (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  References added 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Analytical Engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070208051923/http://cse.stanford.edu:80/classes/sophomore-college/projects-98/babbage/ana-mech.htm to http://cse.stanford.edu/classes/sophomore-college/projects-98/babbage/ana-mech.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100724084105/http://special.lib.umn.edu/cbi/oh/pdf.phtml?id=245 to http://special.lib.umn.edu/cbi/oh/pdf.phtml?id=245
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101111055745/http://invention.smithsonian.org//downloads/fa_cohc_tr_mauc730223.pdf to http://invention.smithsonian.org/downloads/fa_cohc_tr_mauc730223.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A illustration to show and compare with basic computer architecture. See
* 1 (from here or here = Figure 1.12 Block diagram of Babbage’s analytical engine Source: From Computer Architecture and Organization 2e, J. Hayes, copyright © 1988, by McGraw-Hill Companies, pg. 14 Reprinted by permission)
* mechanical design (it is possible some mapping for correspondences?)
Other comments:
:"His Analytical Engine is the forerunner of the architecture of modern computers. It had a storage unit, arithmetic 'mill' or unit and punched card input/output. The building technology was based on gears and linkages."
:"... the Babbage Analytical Engine (...) based on essentially one model of architecture: the von Neumann"
: http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/rpamula/cs101/computerhardware.htm
--Krauss (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add  architecture diagram to this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Analytical Engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511205136/http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/onlinestuff/stories/babbage.aspx to http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/onlinestuff/stories/babbage.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Firsr computer 103.251.59.223 (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charlse babbage and adda make comuter 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved as requested.  ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS)  21:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Analytical Engine →  – There is no reason to capitalize "analytical engine" -- compare difference engine, a similar concept by the same inventor. Krychek (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 23 March 2023 

message: Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelace were in an episode of Doctor Who. S12 E2 "Spyfall Part 2" 70.106.209.62 (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Popular Culture