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:

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.

Request edit on 18 October 2021

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at D. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

What I think should be changed: Why you "Undid revision 1048664325"? The previous link is for NOOBS (old unsupported), and berryboot (one predefined kernel for every new root image). Only pinn has boot+root copy for every os.
Why it should be changed: You are misleading new users.
References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Same as the link in my revision.

Costin.b.1 (talk) 11:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hi, I'm going through the current edit request backlog, and dont have the technical knowledge with respect to Raspberry Pi. The given reason for the edit reversion is "Duplicates the statement made in the previous sentence". I will tag @Millstream3 who interacted with your edit to see what they have to say about the reasons you have listed, as an addition to your original edit. Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there are several ways to dual/multiple boot a Raspberry Pi, and the article need only make this clear. Going into detail about one method or another is unnecessary and too much detail for the article. There's no need to mention berryboot. The best reference to cite would be an up-to-date reference that explains the various methods, including berryboot. Millstream3 (talk) 09:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Request moot per Millstream3. Quetstar (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article points to NOOBS for the first method. Then you go to raspberry to find that it is not supported anymore then to github where it has some old code. Then it is important to find PINN that is a fork of NOOBS. At github it is observed that PINN has an active community and following that I installed two oses. Going back at the article, skipping berrybot and "Network Boot Multiple Raspberry Pi Operating Systems With PiServer", I don't think that is better. Costin.b.1 9 dec 2021 — Preceding undated comment added 13:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]