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. |
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. |
![]() | Computing B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | Introductions (defunct) | |||
|
![]() | 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. |
![]() | 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. |
|
||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
REQ: punc fix, cap fix
Could an established editor please fix the punctuation and capitalization errors (especially in the introductory section)?
Raspberry Pi Model A+
Tablets: Pipad Service?
I was looking to build a pipad. I developed a grid of price and information. Absolute minimum is $99 based on pi 0 with a 5" screen. The best you can get is like $240-$270 based on pi 3 with wifi and Bluetooth, 32GB storage, and 12 hour battery. If they're this cheap, I mean in comparison to the Ipad or Galaxy Tab, why is there no build service for these things? Is this viable and could all the same hardware be used for the Banana Pi and Arduino?
PR speak - WP:NPOV
Encyclopedic articles should not parrot the company's or organization's talking points and PR slogans. Intentions, motives, and the developers' overall desire to make the world a better place (sorry for the sarcasm) are not encyclopedic facts. Product achievements and successes should not be praised empathically, but described in a neutral and uninvolved tone. Of course editors are excited about such new technologies and developments, but these positive opinions should not be reflected in the article's main text (except from a properly sourced and attributed "Reception" section). I'll try to tone down some of the problematic phrases, but more care should be taken to meet the requirements of WP:NPOV. GermanJoe (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Commercial use
Proogs (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi; I don't edit wikipedia much other than minor edits, so I hope this is right place to ask this.
I added some info about a commercial use for a Pi - the Robe MiniMe - that's been reverted. I'd linked to the product's own webpage as proof of its inclusion in the product but I think you need a more independent source. Would an article in the industry press be sufficient? I've found PLSN's road test of the product - would this be a better reference? PLSN's article It actively talks about the use of the Raspberry Pi as a media server within the unit.
If it's OK, perhaps someone can revert the text back again with this as the reference, please? Thanks.
- The information needs a source to confirm it is notable. An industry source may be suitable, better than first party source. Also, the content shouldn't be seen as advertising a product - something Wikipedians are particularly vigilant about. More information at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Feel free to add content back if you have suitable sources. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Proogs (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks - it's rather difficult to talk about commercial use of something and to name the product without someone taking it as an advert. Is there an accepted way of phrasing something such that it mentions a commercial product without it being misinterpreted? Perhaps I should just be nonspecific when mentioning it - but then it becomes a useless addition to the 'commercial' section!