# Talk:Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine

Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 30, 2009.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 18, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
March 24, 2009 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

M. Williams, in the reference, gives the information about first running first a simple division program, then the relatively prime program, and then the factor of an integer program. Every other source I've seen (including the website in the external link, computer 50) just mentions the third one, calling it the first stored program to run. It seems logical to me that they would first test just the division routine, wo Williams' description seems reasonable. If that is true, then you could argue that the division routine was actually first. If that is considered too trivial, an arguement could be made that the relatively prime program was about as sophisticated as the largest factor program.

Also, Williams says that the relatively prime program used the division routine. Given the instruction set (mainly a subtraction operation, data moves, branch, and stop), it might make more sense to use the original verison of Euclid's algorithm, which uses subtraction only (instead of division). I wonder if that was done.

Can anyone comment on this? --Bubba73 15:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the division routine ran first, then the division routine was the first program. You can't exclude it on grounds of triviality - if it's a sequence of instructions, it's a program, and if those instructions were executed, then the program ran. You might argue that the coprimeness or factoring programs were the first applications to run, but that's a whole other kettle of fish!

As for the implementation of the coprimality test: a subtraction-based Euclid's algorithm would be simpler to write from scratch, but since they'd written the division routine by that point, i suppose it wasn't that much harder to write a division-based one, and a division-based one will run much faster. That makes the second program another landmark - the first reuse of a software component!

-- Tom Anderson (not a user) 2006-02-05

## External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set `|needhelp=<your help request>` on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot 17:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  18:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

## External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set `|needhelp=<your help request>` on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot 04:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  18:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

## External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set `|needhelp=<your help request>` on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot 04:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  18:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

## External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set `|needhelp=<your help request>` on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot 04:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  18:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

## Undiscussed rename

Yet again, we have wiki-dogma imposed to de-capitalise an article, without any support from sources, or any prior discussion here: page move. This edit is particularly egregious, as it mis-represents linked sources to change their titles to the uncapitalised form. DickLyon, the editor concerned, has no evident prior involvement with this article or topic, but does have a long and acrimonious track record for such dogmatic and damaging changes elsewhere, such as the railway projects.

Thoughts, anyone? Otherwise I'm going to revert this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm in favour of reverting to the original capitalised version, as I don't think I have ever seen DickLyon's form in a source. Such a major change should surely be discussed here first. --TedColes (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Ted, have you looked at the sources I discuss below? Interested in your opinion... Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm in favour of the original capitalised version as well. Eric Corbett 11:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I prefer the original capitalised version.--Racklever (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Rack, any particular reason for your preference? Take a look at the sources discussed below and let me know what you're thinking. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Andy, your reactions seem be more based on your dislike of me than on what I actually did, which was source-based (see below). And if I accidentally changed/misrepresented the title of a reference or external link, please point it out; I don't think I did. Dicklyon (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It seemed an unlikely form for a proper name (with hyphen between capped words), so I went looking at sources. The article was created in 2004, so lots of more recent sources have copied it from here, so I looked earlier. In books, I found a few like this hit with Small Scale Experimental Machine (no Manchester, no hyphen, but capped), and some with lowercase hyphenated like this one. Their 1951 paper was actually titled "UNIVERSAL HIGH-SPEED DIGITAL COMPUTERS: A SMALL-SCALE EXPERIMENTAL MACHINE" in all caps on the paper, but listed in title case at the IEEE; the wording clearly indicates that it is not a name but a description, and that text is not used inside the article at all. Independent sources such as this one treated it as descriptive, and added the hyphen. See more hits. If we want to cap it, where is the argument to do so, relative to guidelines like WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS? A snippet from a 1998 article comments on what it's called: "… - one reason why the name 'Baby' has pre-dominated in the fiftieth anniversary literature over 'Mark I' or 'Small-Scale Experimental Machine'". Another says, "The 'Baby' (more formally called the small-scale experimental machine, SSEM) ...". Another says, "The University of Manchester's Small-Scale Experimental Machine (SSEM), known as the Baby" (where the caps are for defining the acronym, not used as a name). So why aren't we just calling it the Manchester Baby? The 1948 Nature letter did not give it a name, and the replica in the museum (pictured) says "It was nicknamed 'Baby' because is was a small-scale experimental prototype." Dicklyon (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Original capitalised version. For this topic I'd consider the Science Museum Group canonical, given that they quite literally write the history when it comes to the story of computing in Britain (and that their displays, publications and website will almost certainly be the main drivers of traffic to this article), and they unequivocally call it "The Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine". ‑ Iridescent 09:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for chipping in. I love visiting the Museum of Science and Industry, although I haven't been for a while and I've never seen the Baby actually running. Eric Corbett 09:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
It's less impressive than it used to be; the Ordsall Chord has severed their railway line, so they can no longer run their trains more than a couple of hundred yards out of the shed. I find the big blue shed full of vintage cars across the road more interesting than the main museum, and an order of magnitude less full of screaming schoolchildren. ‑ Iridescent 09:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever seen their collection of vintage cars. Might have to go and check that out. Eric Corbett 11:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
The car collection is confusingly signposted as "Aerospace" on their signs, and is in an outbuilding across the road rather than the main site, so is very easy to miss. This is the relevant part of the catalogue if you want to know whether it's worth making the trip. ‑ Iridescent 12:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
The museum site you linked uses the term "Small-Scale Experimental Machine" only once, and Baby many times. The plaque by the replica machine says "It was nicknamed 'Baby' because is was a small-scale experimental prototype." Nowhere does anyone claim that somebody ever named it "Small-Scale Experimental Machine", unless I've missed that. Dicklyon (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
And the digital60 site calls it Baby, and not any variation of SSEM that I can find. Dicklyon (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
When you're in a hole stop digging. Lavington (2011) uses the name "Small-Scale Experimental Machine", as do Rojas & Hashagen (2002), Tatnall, ‎Blyth, ‎& Johnson (2013), Joubert, ‎Leather, ‎& Parsons (2016) ... Eric Corbett 19:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, all but one of those are long after Wikipedia promulgated that name. The 2002 book uses "a Small Scale Experimental Machine" in the text; not clear why the caps; elsewhere they use "the"; no hyphen sometimes, with hyphen other times, indicating not much thought went into this. And the index for this says "see Manchester Baby". Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Looks like the computer50.org page got rehosted here. This 1998 or 1999 page is the earliest I can find referring to "the Small Scale Experimental Machine", as opposed to a small-scale experimental machine. Did they thereby establish its "official name" by commemorating it? Seems odd, esp. since digital60.org has it with and without the hyphen (as well as "the small scale SSEM"), indicating little attention to detail. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Searching more, I find zero evidence of the Small Scale Experimental Machine before the 50th anniversary reconstruction of 1998, except for citations to the title with a. In adopting the name proposed by its reconstructors as if it's the machine's official proper name, we misrepresent reality, in my opinion. At the least, we should attribute the name to those reconstructors who made it up. Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Before 1998, everyone called it the Manchester "Baby" or something like that. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
In the 1953 write-up of the conference "Bowden, B.V., ed. (1953), Faster Than Thought, London: Pitman, ISBN 0 273 41330 9" the machine was called "A Prototype Machine" (p118) and the second 1949 machine "A Large-scale Machine" (p123). So it seems that these early machines did not have names as such because they were intermediate steps in a continuous development towards what was then named M.A.D.A.M. (Manchester Automatic Digital Machine), but later the Manchester Mark 1. It is therefore incorrect to say that everyone called it "Baby", a nickname but not a formal name. I guess the formal name arose when the historical significance of this test bed for the Williams–Kilburn tube as the world's first stored-program computer was realised. --TedColes (talk) 08:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
OK, so not "everybody"; only those who felt it needed to be referred to by a name. So what do you mean by "the formal name arose". Arose where? Proposed by whom? Dicklyon (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
If you're suggesting that people such as Lavington copied the name from Wikipedia then I'm afraid that there's nothing more that can be said to you, other than that you're living in some kind of fantasy world. Eric Corbett 07:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that, and I don't see why you want to make this about me. Let's focus on the evidence. Lavington 2011, in fact, usually uses lowercase, not caps. And take a look at Steve Furber's 60th anniversary talk/paper for instance. He says "The ‘Baby’ (more formally called the small-scale experimental machine, SSEM)..." So maybe that's what it's called formally, but still not a proper name, according to this particular expert, by 2008, even though wikipedia had that capped for 4 years by then. Dicklyon (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Joubert, ‎Leather, ‎& Parsons (2016) use the name Small Scale Experimental Machine (without the hyphen) just once, and Baby 8 times. Maybe you can tell us what some of those other sources do. Dicklyon (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
The Bowden book says "A Prototype Machine -- The next development was to build a small prototype machine ... this prototype machine ... the prototype machine ...", so yes, no name there, and caps only in heading. Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
In this 1953 article, its creators called it "The Miniature Machine" (in a heading) and "the miniature machine" (in a sentence); no Baby or SSEM except in the reference to the earlier paper with subtitle "A Small Scale Experimental Machine". Dicklyon (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
In 1978, this article on the 40 year celebration calls it simply "the prototype". No name. Dicklyon (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
And Lavington's 1978 paper on the Atlas refers to "the prototypes" and uses "a small-scale experimental machine", only in the references, in a context where only proper names are being capped (as in "An attempt to simplify coding for the Manchester electronic computer"). Dicklyon (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
The initial letter in Nature calls it "a small electronic digital computing machine" and "the present machine" and "the machine". No name. Dicklyon (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
This 1998 Shelburne & Burton paper on the original programs only uses Small Scale Experimental Machine when defining the acronym SSEM; it is common to cap non-proper names when introducing their acronyms, so this can't really be taken as evidence of treatment as a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
This 1951 article by Williams and Kilburn calls it "a small prototype machine"; no name. Dicklyon (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Agar 1998 talks about names: "a rebuilt computer marked Manchester as 'home to the second industrial revolution', but also crucially signified a future, even a 'rebirth' - one reason why the name 'Baby' has pre-dominated in the fiftieth anniversary literature over 'Mark I' or 'Small-Scale Experimental Machine'" (that's all I can see in the search snippet; anyone have it?). Dicklyon (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
This Lavington 1980 paper (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. Dicklyon (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
And there are more in the #Papers section above that call it Baby. And more in the IEEE Annals. Dicklyon (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Your point is becoming even more obscure than it was, so perhaps you need to clarify what exactly it is. If it's that the SSEM wasn't known as such during its development, as it appears to be from what I can understand, then perhaps you can explain why it is that you have not similarly insisted on renaming the Wikipedia article on World War I to something else as well, as it was certainly not known as such at the time. Eric Corbett 18:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Now you're just being silly. My point is that small-scale experimental machine is not a proper name; it is not consistently capitalized in sources, so per MOS:CAPS we should not capitalize it. Baby, on the other hand, seems to be consistently capped, and was the name more commonly used, so if you want a proper name, that's a possible choice. As for whether it was known as the small-scale experimental machine during its development, yes, it was, as Tootill says in his oral history and as the subtitle of his MS thesis calls it; but they never treated that as a name. Dicklyon (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm being silly? Don't make me laugh. Eric Corbett 19:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm trying to discuss the most appropriate name for an article on this small-scale experimental machine called Baby, and you're talking about renaming World War I. Neither is likely to make anyone laugh, I expect, but thanks for playing. Dicklyon (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea what it is that you're trying to do, unless it's to demonstrate how single-mindedly blind you can be when in the fevered grip of some misguided crusade or other. But perhaps we can leave the last word to Williams, Kilburn and Tootill? I assume you know who they are? The title of their 1951 paper published in the Proceedings of the I.E.E., published in 1951, is "Universal High-Speed Digital Computers: A Small-Scale Experimental Machine". The nickname of Baby does not appear anywhere in that article, which must surely be considered canonical. I shall not be further wasting my time in replying to anything else you have to say on this subject, and I dare say that you must have better and more productive ways to spend your time as well. Eric Corbett 01:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
But "a small-scale experimental machine", even if capped in a title (theirs was printed as all-caps by the way) doesn't suggest that "Small-Scale Experimental Machine" is a name, much less a proper name (and it's often lowercase in citations to that paper). So that's not a last word, just a word that led a few others years later to maybe treat that as a name; most did not. Dicklyon (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
So, the name has evolved over time. I don't see why you argue that "Small-Scale Experimental Machine" is not name or a a proper name. How do you classify "National Aeronautics and Space Administration"?--TedColes (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I believe that one is consistently capped in sources, and always has been. Why do you ask? Dicklyon (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I've compiled a list of sources, and what they call it, at User:Dicklyon/Baby. Please review and let me know if there are any remaining objections to moving to Manchester Baby, or whether the non-capped version of the present title would be preferred. And let me know if I missed any relevant source items. Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dicklyon on your list of sources. It seems to me that we have a number of different problems about the name of the article.
1. Should it be the descriptive name or the nickname?
2. If the descriptive name, which words to be in capitals?
3. If the descriptive name, should it include the hyphen?
4. If the nickname, Baby or 'Baby'?
I think that the list of of sources gives considerable support for continuing with the descriptive name. As capitals for all words seems to be the most common use, I favour that. As regards hypenation, I go along with the Oxford University Press who say that "If you take hyphens seriously, you will surely go mad”. So, in short, I do not think that there is sufficient evidence or consensus for a change. --TedColes (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The evidence seems very clear that the present title is not a proper name, and is seldom treated as such in sources; there is no point in the chronology when reliable sources switched to treated it as such (that is, it hasn't "evolved" into a proper name, as the evidence shows). If we go with the descriptive name it would be Manchester small-scale experimental machine per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS; that is, we don't cap words in descriptive titles except when they are proper nouns. The "common name", some variant of which is used my almost all sources, seems to be Manchester Baby or Manchester Baby machine; there's really no reason to put the quote marks into it. Dicklyon (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
So the evidence for a change seems clear. We can judge consensus in an RM discussion if we need to. If you're saying you object to a move, then I guess we need to. Dicklyon (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Surely the very clear consensus is that nobody agrees with you? Eric Corbett 22:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
What is it that you disagree with, exactly? The evidence? Or me? Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I really do not think there is anywhere near a good reason to change the title of this article. WP:TITLECHANGES says "Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title." --TedColes (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, there is a very good reason to change it: it's pretending to be a proper name when it's not; see WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. When I first boldly moved it, I had no reason to suspect a controversy might arise. I got reverted. Now we're discussing. I'm still a bit surprised at the extend to which some of you are willing to ignore consensus guidelines and evidence, so we'll need to keep discussing. I'll open a formal RM at some point, which will advertise the question to the larger community. Dicklyon (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
One more observation; see User:Dicklyon/Baby#Conclusion: Perusing the refs, one can see that the introduction of the capped/hyphenated name was in 1998 by C. P. Burton, the "Project Manager of the Small-Scale Experimental Machine Rebuild Project", and that most other occurrences in the literature are in fact by the same C. P. Burton. Very few other authors have picked it up. Furber did use "Small Scale Experimental Machine" once in 2016, without the hyphen, which at least has the right form for a proper name, but is pretty rare; he also used "small-scale experimental machine" in 2008, treating it as descriptive as the original authors did. It seems wrong to anoint this as a proper name based on just one author who had an obvious affinity for it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

## Requested move 18 March 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. See much opposition to this page rename. This is no place to badger the badgering; in the future please take it to user talk pages and leave RMs to the subject of renaming pages only. Thank You, Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  18:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Manchester Small-Scale Experimental MachineManchester small-scale experimental machine – The current name is roughly unique to one author, C. P. Burton, who was himself titled "Project Manager of the Small-Scale Experimental Machine Rebuild Project". Almost all authors refer to the small prototype machine as "Baby" or "the Manchester Baby" or "the Manchester Baby machine" if they call it anything, or describe it as "a small-scale experimental machine" as its creators did. Since there it no evidence that it's a proper name, per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, we need to either change to the descriptive lowercase version of the present name, or change to Manchester Baby (which already redirects there). See recent discussion in the section above, and collected sources and analysis at User:Dicklyon/Baby. Dicklyon (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Obvious consensus is obvious. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
You're not even going to look at the new evidence or address the questions I raised before? Dicklyon (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose A consensus has already been established against this proposed move, above. Eric Corbett 21:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Your objections have been noted, but in the discussion above you never addressed the evidence or guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support as nom since the evidence at User:Dicklyon/Baby makes it clear to anyone who will look that this is not a proper name. The current title is the idiosyncratic name used by C. P. Burton, who led the rebuild project. I have no objection to him capping it, but in Wikipedia we have our own style, that relies on evidence in sources, per MOS:CAPS; we reserve caps for proper names. The editors who objected to the move previously (before the evidence was collected) have not even responded to questions or addressed the evidence. Dicklyon (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but please stop badgering those who disagree with you. Eric Corbett 22:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Is there some edit of mine that came across as badgering? Sorry if so. Dicklyon (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Given your long history of such undiscussed and heavily badgered renames, are you still seriously asking this? Have you not yet noticed how much you have irritated and annoyed other editors? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Like I requested in the discussion above, why not discuss the question rather than discuss me? I do understand you don't like me, but that's not a reason for me to stop trying to improve the Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: Quite simply people disagree that you are improving the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons I have previously given above. --TedColes (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Having reviewed the discussion above, and the sources presented therein, it seems that the capitalised form is correct. Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although the title for the original machine may have been descriptive, a half-century later it appears that the name has become capitalised–most certainly so for the replica. Useddenim (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• Move to Baby (computer), per WP:COMMONNAME. If the present title is kept in some form, lower-case it per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS since it's not a proper name.
• I agree the sourcing indicates the long phrase is a made-up description created by a particular writer.
• WP choosing to use it is just us picking a WP:NTITLE / WP:DESCRIPTDIS descriptive article title (and it may actually fail NTITLE if it's not the name usually preferred by other writers on the topic, which seems to actually be true). Us using it as the article title doesn't magically transmogrify it into a proper-noun phrase (WP uses sentence case for article titles, remember).
• That some people have taken to capitalizing it is irrelevant. Some people have taken to capitalizing almost anything you can think of (hell, we even had a debate a few years ago here about capitalizing things like "mountain lion" and "bottlenosed dolphin" because some people, including some academics, like to capitalize vernacular names of species).
• What museums put on placards and in brochures is also irrelevant; they do that with everything they put on display as a matter of house style. We do not follow their house style nor they ours.
• "Small-Scale Experimental Machine" does not consistently appear in this capitalized form in reliable sources, as Dicklyon has clearly shown in his sourcing. That's what matters here.
• The opposition above is pure WP:ILIKEIT that's directly defying both the sourcing and our guidelines.
The entire problem here is that people are mistaking a description for a proper name. Clear analogy: If you attend an institution called the McCandlish Academy of Basketweaving [Baby], and you descriptively refer to it as the basketweaving college [small-scale experimental machine], this is not to be overcapitalized as "the Basketweaving College" [Small-Scale Experimental Machine].
PS: Even if a capitalized form were kept, it would be "Small-scale Experimental Machine" (don't capitalize after a hyphen except when what follows the hyphen is a stand-alone proper name, as in "post-Soviet").
20:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this is probably the best way to avoid the whole "I like caps" problem. I had proposed maybe Manchester Baby, which already redirects here, is a more natural disambiguation, is used exactly so in some sources, and fits the scheme of other Manchester computers better; almost all sources use capped "Baby", in various contexts. We haven't had much response on that idea; might need another RM to elicit actual responses, since this one didn't get any useful responses. As Agar 1998 says "rebuilt computer ... crucially signified a future, even a 'rebirth' - one reason why the name 'Baby' has predominated in the fiftieth anniversary literature over 'Mark I' or 'Small-Scale Experimental Machine'." (even though that same fiftieth anniversary literature is where "Small-Scale Experimental Machine" was turned into a name by Burton). Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
• Move to Baby (computer). Seems like the most common name. feminist (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - The University of Manchester has this The Manchester Small Scale Experimental Machine -- "The Baby" (http://curation.cs.manchester.ac.uk/computer50/www.computer50.org/mark1/new.baby.html) and MOSI has this The Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine, nicknamed ‘Baby’, was the first computer to store and run a program. https://www.msimanchester.org.uk/whats-on/meet-baby. Current title seems well sourced and more useful than Baby (computer) which seems just a nickname. (Msrasnw (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC))
But the sources that I surveyed make it clear that essentially all sources the use the "nickname" Baby, while the current name was made up by the 50th anniversary rebuild project and used only by them until after Wikipedia adopted it. So your "well sourced" comment sounds like you haven't reviewed the evidence presented. Dicklyon (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, if pointing out that arguments are vacuous is badgering, then more of it is needed.

An argument to keep the present title needs to be of one of two forms:

1. Ignore WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS and keep the title capitalized even though it's not a proper name; or
2. It's a proper name, and the reason I think so, based on sources, is ...

But in the opposing arguments above, and in the previous discussion, it's hard to discern anything of that form. Let's look:

1. Andy Dingley: "Obvious consensus is obvious." and previously "we have wiki-dogma imposed to de-capitalise an article, without any support from sources" and other false and ad-hominem statements that can reviewed in the previous section. Yes, it was undiscussed at the time, but he has refused to engage in discussion based on sources.
2. Eric Corbett: "A consensus has already been established against this proposed move, above." Yet nobody had commented after I presented the source analysis; what kind of discussion/consensus can that be?
3. TedColes: "for the reasons I have previously given above" which must be referring to these gems:
• "I don't think I have ever seen DickLyon's form in a source" which I refuted and he didn't acknowledge
• "I guess the formal name arose when the historical significance of this test bed for the Williams–Kilburn tube as the world's first stored-program computer was realised." Not bad for a guess, but he would not engage when I queried where by whom the name arose; I did the research and showed it arose in the works of only one author.
• "the name has evolved over time" which I analyzed in sources and showed that this "evolution" only involved one author, C. P. Burton, who likes to cap his own project and job titles.
• "the list of of sources gives considerable support for continuing with the descriptive name. As capitals for all words seems to be the most common use, I favour that." Does he not see that descriptive means not proper, and that it is false that capitals is most common? And why not acknowledge that the name "Baby" is actually the one most common in sources?
• "I really do not think there is anywhere near a good reason to change the title of this article." ignores policy and guidelines that provide the reason. No response when I pointed out WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS.
4. Thryduulf: "Having reviewed the discussion above, and the sources presented therein, it seems that the capitalised form is correct." content-free opposition; there is nothing in the discussion above, and nothing in the sources, that would support this view; if he thinks there is, why can't he point to it? Then he throws in a gratuituous ad hominem assumption of bad faith "Quite simply people disagree that you are improving the encyclopaedia."
5. Useddenim: "Although the title for the original machine may have been descriptive, a half-century later it appears that the name has become capitalised–most certainly so for the replica." OK, yes, C. P. Burton caps it for his replica. But nobody else does, so what is this "it appears" referring to? I analyzed the sources; why not question my analysis a little more explicitly? And the article is not about his replica.

If vacuous comments are ignored, the current proposal seems to be unopposed. Dicklyon (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• If you ignore all the opposition, then obviously the proposal is unopposed, but fortunately we do not work that way on Wikipedia. It appears that you are genuinely unable to see that people who disagree with you might have valid reasons for doing so. I strongly suggest you review WP:ARBATC, particularly those sections relevant to user:Born2cycle whose behaviour you are increasingly emulating, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive227#Born2cycle and the ANI threads linked there. If you do not stop badgering this and other discussions (and this very section is a perfect example of you doing just that) then I will be proposing you be topic banned from RM discussions, either completely or with something like that offered to B2c. Thryduulf (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• I'm happy to admit that people who disagree with me might have valid reasons. I'm just pointing out that if they do, they are declining to state them. Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

## Sources and naming

With more work, I've listed 74 sources now at User:Dicklyon/Baby, and tabulated what they call this computer. I can see that my downcasing suggestion was probably a bad idea, compared to Manchester Baby. Maybe we'll need to take that up at some point. If you see anything I missed or got wrong, please point it out, or go ahead and make the addition or correction. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I added 4 more books, including a few that use exactly the Wikipedia title "Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine" and do not mention "Baby" at all. This could be taken either as diluting my point a bit, or as an indication that some authors just take the title from Wikipedia for their brief point, and ignore the fact that Baby is what it's called. Dicklyon (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)