Talk:Manchester Baby

Change of opening sentence

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))

Additional image of replica, please

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)

Done. Eastfarthingan (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

ABC computer and Colossus

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)

Clarifying the "also called"

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)

• I reverted your modification and unnecessary complication of the lead because I think this was a contentious issue where your finding based on your research rather than reliable sources was used to justify this view of the name But I think we could do with a reliable source that indicates the Burton made up the SSEM name if you want to push it. We have a reliable source - that you argue was wrong that says that it was the original name. You might be right and the reliable source wrong .. but I think should have a reliable source rather than your argument to substantiate this. That is my view. But also it felt a bit naughty/provocative to me for you to do this when it was on front page. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC))
  • On the name … Lavington says this: “Certainly, the instruction set finally chosen by Kilburn for the June 1948 computer was different from the one proposed by Good and at Manchester the now-familiar name Baby was not associated with the June 1948 computer until many years later. When the June 1948 design was formally described in print it was called the Small-scale Experimental Machine, abbreviated as SSEM.” (Lavington, 2019, p. 284). Lavington, S. (2019). Early Computing in Britain. History of Computing, Ferranti Ltd. and Government Funding, 1948–1958. Springer,

    Yet no source calling it the SSEM or Small-Scale Experimental Machine before Burton has ever been pointed out. Burton himself admitting choosing to the name in the rebuild project, but he did so in a private email to me, not in an RS. Lavington himself didn't use the name until after the rebuild. Here are some bits from his early writings:

• 1975. A history of Manchester computers by Simon Hugh Lavington has the paper subtitle in the refs, sentence case. And on p. 7 "The prototype machine", and "a prototype machine", and "The 'baby machine,' as it was called". And on p. 8 "The machine", "the prototype", and "the world's first stored-program computer". No name but "baby".
• 1978. Lavington's paper "The Manchester Mark I and Atlas: A Historical Perspective" refers to "the prototypes" and uses "A small-scale experimental machine", only in reference to the 1951 paper subtitle, in a sentence-case context where only proper names are being capped (as in "An attempt to simplify coding for the Manchester electronic computer").
• 1980. History of Computing in the Twentieth Century edited by Nicholas Negraponte, article "Computer Development at Manchester University" by S. H. Lavington (reprinted in 2014 book) calls it, "the 'baby MARK I'". There's no "small scale" or "experimental machine" or SSEM or anything like that present.
• 1980. This other Lavington 1980, the book Early British Computers, calls it only "a very small prototype computer".
• 2011. Lavington, Simon. Moving Targets: Elliott-Automation and the Dawn of the Computer Age in Britain, 1947–67 – uses lowercase, e.g. "The small-scale experimental machine (SSEM), also called the Baby", except caps in the index entries.

  So I think the implication that it was known as the SSEM is much more sketchy that a statement that is was known as that after the rebuild project, Lavington's revisionist history notwithstanding. Dicklyon (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Also, Lavington's 2019 statement about the name is pretty clearly influenced by the 2018 email conversation with me and him and Burton. He didn't use or suggest the capped version at all, in discussions of what he and others had used before, until after Burton said he strongly preferred it. Dicklyon (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  And his statement "When the June 1948 design was formally described in print it was called the Small-scale Experimental Machine" is flat-out wrong. The subtitle was "A SMALL-SCALE EXPERIMENTAL MACHINE", and the phrase did not appear in the text otherwise, capped or not, and never with "the". Dicklyon (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Reply/repeat on my view of reliable sources for SSEM as a name for this computer: -

• Lavington - in printed reliable sources (You say this is wrong - and he was influenced to make the error by your private email to him)
• Burton - in printed reliable sources (You say is wrong - but has privately admitted to being wrong in print to you in a private email to you )
• Tootill (one of the machines builders) actually saying "The baby computer which the journalists have called it. the small scale experimental machine we called it." (You say is wrong - deliberately to conspire with Burton)

But this is going round in circles... as things stand The Manchester Baby, also called the Small-Scale Experimental Machine (SSEM) seems to me fine as a lead. I got connected to this through having read our article on the SSEM and started the little page on Tootill. (Msrasnw (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC))

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)

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))

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)