Talk:Raspberry Pi/Archive 5: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:25, 1 April 2016

Revision as of 04:14, 2 April 2016

Line 322:

Raspberry Pi 3 is out and the width of the table is getting two big.

Either split it off into separate tables (for example Model A, Model B and compute node into separate tables) or flip the table and have the versions be the rows and the characteristics the columns (probably worth having more than one tables here too). <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Alexandrujuncu|Alexandrujuncu]] ([[User talk:Alexandrujuncu|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alexandrujuncu|contribs]]) 07:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Lead section - specs of all three units or condense ==

[[WP:LEAD]] says "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article."

Given the number of times there have been updates to the Pi, I'd argue that details of the specifications of the A, B, A+ and B+ are less interesting than a longer term comparison of the latest (Pi 3) to the first (eg "10 times more powerful" is something non-technical readers understand on first read).

-- [[User:Callinus|Callinus]] ([[User talk:Callinus|talk]]) 08:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

:Agree, it has become overly technical. Most of the specification is better handled elsewhere. I'd be inclined to go further to "avoid difficult-to-understand terminology and symbols." and not mention the specifics on which chips are used simply saying there is three are generations and they uses a SoC. The lead should be simple enough that someone who knows nothing has an idea of what a Pi is. --[[User:Salix alba|Salix alba]] ([[User talk:Salix alba|talk]]): 09:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

:: Agree - I made reference to this in the edit comment on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raspberry_Pi&diff=prev&oldid=692896095 this revision] but never got round to following it up. I think really at this point most mentions of specific technologies could be removed from the lead, as most are not common between different versions and listing different technologies is certainly excessive detail. [[User:TSP|TSP]] ([[User talk:TSP|talk]]) 11:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

:: I've just taken a look over at the [[ZX81]] article for comparison, and I think that (although rather lacking in sources) gives a good idea of the sort of thing we should be aiming for - far more about background, design principles and social impact; far less about specific chip names and versions. (Perhaps with a 'dead' technology it's easier to achieve perspective on what's important.) [[User:TSP|TSP]] ([[User talk:TSP|talk]]) 11:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

::Eben Upton said in [http://makezine.com/2016/02/28/eben-upton-talks-about-the-new-raspberry-pi-3/ Makezine] "This 50–60% has moved us over some sort of line, where it becomes a much more credible PC replacement." The audience for this article may be becoming more general. -- [[User:Callinus|Callinus]] ([[User talk:Callinus|talk]]) 12:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)