Talk:Raspberry Pi

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Raspberry Pi article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Raspberry Pi. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Raspberry Pi at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:Vital article

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Computing B‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Introductions (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Introductions, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.IntroductionsWikipedia:WikiProject IntroductionsTemplate:WikiProject IntroductionsIntroductions articles

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Trevj (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

GFLOPs in Simplified Model B Changelog

What is the source of the GFLOP values in the Simplified Model B Changelog table? I would suggest that this should be cited.

Article reads like an advertisment

Reading the opening section of this article I feel parts reads like an advertisement. Buzzwords like "best-selling" and "more popular than anticipated, selling outside its target market" does not feel like they belong in Wikipedia. I am writing here looking to establish a consensus regarding the issue. Does anyone oppose removing or rewriting the advertorial writing?

// VFD Very Fantastic Dude (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All those claims are backed up by citation from third-parties, so I think we should keep them. Fangfufu (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that it reads like an advertisement. If it said "best single-board computer", that would be unacceptable advertisement; but it doesn't, it says "best-selling single-board British computer" which is objectively verifiable. Similarly its original target market is objectively verifiable and the fact that it sells outside that market is objectively verifiable. The "article reads like an advertisement" tag should be removed. Insulation2 (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't agree. Nothing in the article is unverifiable; all noted superlatives are backed up with sources. As there has been no person agreeing with this notice and not a single edit made towards it in four months, can we have it removed? Gflare (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with reads like an advertisement — notice should be removed. --Zac67 (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Version Chart

The chart of different versions of Raspberry Pis is kind of ridiculous, and goes way off the page. Is it possible that we should split it into the different types of Raspberry Pis? Stevenruidigao (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is not just the version chart. I think there are too many technical details that are better suited for Raspberry Pi specific websites. The whole page looks cluttered. Fangfufu (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block diagram - "which"

@A Shortfall Of Gravitas: In March 2021 you added a "which" comment to the "Hardware" section regarding the block diagram, noting an issue with where the diagram appears on 4k diaplays. (Old revision of Raspberry Pi) I've recently attempted to resolve that, but I don't have a 4k display to check if my solution works. Does the edit I've made work for you? – Scyrme (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raspberry Pi Pico in the Comparison Chart

Should the Raspberry Pi Pico really be compared with the other Raspberry Pis?

The Raspberry Pi Pico is really different from the rest of the Raspberry Pis, and is much more like a microcontroller than the others. I'm not sure if comparing them in the same chart makes sense (and I believe that chart is already too long). Stevenruidigao (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]