Talk:Arduino/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

List Of Arduino-compatible Boards and Shields

I believe that we have arrived at a consensus that a new page called "List Of Arduino-compatible Boards and Shields" should be created and the long lists of Arduino-compatible hardware listed in the Arduino article should be moved there. If nobody else is willing to step up to the plate and create the page, I will give it a shot, but I would prefer that someone more familiar with the various formatting issues create at least the basic framework for the new page.

Please note that the usual "Wikipedia is not a list of links" rule specifically does not apply to such "List of..." articles and that the notability requirement for items on such lists is considerably relaxed compared to other types of articles. The list itself has to be notable, of course, but once that has been established completeness has a higher priority than notability. See "...Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria..." in WP:STANDALONE for more on notability requirements for items on lists.

It has been suggested that the list should be categorized as follows:

"Shield compatible" (fits on a standard Arduino)

"Mega shield compatible"

"Arduino IDE compatible"

"Aduino form factor compatible" (same mounting holes as an Arduino, size identical to or smaller than Arduino)

Please discuss possible improvements upon the above scheme. For example. "Arduino IDE compatible" sounds like pretty much any Arduino-compatible board, but I think the meaning should be those boards that can be programmed using the (possibly modified) Arduino software development environment but are otherwise not compatible at all. The Illuminato X Machina at http://www.liquidware.com/shop/show/IXM/Illuminato+X+Machina is one good example of this. What classification wording best reflects this?

We also need some way to classify boards that which don't use the Arduino software development environment but have shield-compatible pinouts (something like the Leaflabs Maple at http://leaflabs.com/devices/maple/ but without the Maples' effort to use an Arduino-like software development environment.)

It would be a good thing to iron out how we want to classify things before anyone starts writing the new page. Guy Macon 12:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It has been a month since the last comment. Does anyone still have an interest in working together to get this done? Guy Macon 18:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just started the split, over at List of Arduino compatibles.

Naturally of course, someone has already slated it for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

...which has a snowball's chance of actually happening. Probably best to get the deletion proposal out of the way right up front so we can refer future deletionists to it. I use this list a lot. If I am doing a one-off test setup it helps me to find a shield, and if I need multiple copies it helps me find open source schematics and code, saving me work compared to doing a design from scratch. Good job on the split, Andy. You get an attaboy for that (usual restrictions apply).

(Wow! Wikipedia has no article on Attaboy!! How will The People know that one Oh Crap! erases any number of Attaboys?) Guy Macon (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Arduino Shields

Assuming we (I?) do something about this one soonish, we should first address a few questions.

• What is a Shield?
• What is a note-worthy Shield? (i.e. what goes in the list)

A Shield is, IMHO, an add-on hardware board that plugs into some portion of the Arduino's headers sockets, either standard layout or Mega. This would include those that only use some of the header sockets (usually stripboard Shields using the 3/4 headers that fit the 0.1" spacing). However it would exclude those that merely plug a cable connector header into the sockets. It would also exclude any that only use the ICSP header.

A note-worthy (NB not "WP:Notable") Shield needs to have a line drawn somewhere. I would suggest depending on the commercial or non-commercial distribution of either Shields, kits, components or commercial sale of plans. This would include pretty much anything that "exists", but it would exclude hand-scratched notes for virtual designs, unless these (which I think is a well-defined, but empty set) were sufficiently important that people would pay money for the design alone. We should certainly include non-commercial production and re-distribution of Shields, as there are some educational and hands-on projects that have distributed free (bare-)boards and the like. Is this level sufficient to include all the interesting Shields? I don't want to omit an important one, just because it's offered free as a circuit-only design. What about my own stripboard layout DMX controller design? Trivial, but still useful in its application scope and interesting as an example that you can do valuable Shield work on stripboard (only needs one digital pin).

Complexity should not be an issue for inclusion. We should include the bare-board Proto-shield for certain. Anything more than this is thus included too.

Sketch or library need or provision should not be criteria either. It's the hardware that's at issue here, not the software.

Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we include http://ryanjmclaughlin.com/wiki/Arduino_Thermocouple_Shield but exclude http://ryanjmclaughlin.com/wiki/Single_Thermocouple_Interface ? Perhaps software (in this case https://github.com/ryanjmclaughlin/MAX6675-Library ) does make a difference? Guy Macon (talk) 09:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say first, but not second. Not because of the software, but because it's a Shield. The second, and its software, might fit into an article on Arduino sensor interfacing, but this is about Shields specifically. Those second boards are headers, they'll fit any controller board, not just an Arduino. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Arduino The Documentary

Just to share this video on Vimeo entitled: Arduino The Documentary (2010) English HD http://vimeo.com/channels/hd#18539129 --Ecureuil espagnol (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Duemilanove: ATmega168 or ATmega328?

A recent edit changed the processor listed for the Arduino Duemilanove from ATmega328 to ATmega168 with the comment "Duemilanove uses the ATmega168 not the ATmega 328." That is not correct, but neither is the old version of the page. http://www.arduino.cc/en/Main/ArduinoBoardDuemilanove says "The Arduino Duemilanove ('2009') is a microcontroller board based on the ATmega168 (datasheet) or ATmega328 (datasheet)" and the Arduino software allows you to select "Arduino Diecimila or Duemilanove w/ ATmega168" or "Arduino Duemilanove w/ ATmega328" from the Tools > Board menu. I am changing the entry to read ATmega168/ATmega328. Guy Macon 02:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Design criticism

Recently user 62.24.87.147 added a "Design criticism" section. Alas, I had to revert it because it does not meet Wikipedia's quality standards, but I also think that the basic idea is a good one, that we should have a section on design criticism, and that his good-faith effort is a good starting point. To that end, I have reproduced the part I removed below so we can fix the problems and then re-introduce the material into the article.

Here are some problems with what was posted:

It contains typos ("standartized," "espcialy"). Easy to fix, but they should have been corrected before adding the material to Wikipedia.

Some of the references do not support what the authors asays they do For example, the only citation (hint: read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources...) supporting the claim that a reliable source shows criticizm of non-rectangular shape of the board is a post on a discussion board which simply asks why Arduinos are shaped the way they are. No criticism found.

From there the author writes a personal essay based upon original research (hint: read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Essay#Essays) containing his personal opinion "Arduino looks like designer forgot to add ICSP connector when designing the board" followed by a claim that needs to be established with a citation to a reliable source "acording(SIC) to Arduino this bump is fully intentional." You are not allowed to write "according to Arduino" without a citation proving that someone on the Arduino team actually said such a thing.

Nonetheless, there are legitimate criticisms out there, and if properly written and referenced, a section on the criticisms would add to the article.

Here is the section I removed.

BEGIN QUOTE

Few non-standartized design features can be found on Arduino board, espcialy:

• Non-rectangular shape of board

• • Arduino looks like designer forgot to add [[ICSP]] connector when designing the board, so there is strange "bump" on the right side of Arduino, anyway acording to Arduino this bump is fully intentional and it's added along with blue color to make Arduino easily recognizable from other "green rectangular [[PCB|boards]]", so the shape of Arduino looks that way for [[marketing]] reasons.<ref>{{cite web|title=Arduino Shape|url=http://www.arduino.cc/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1189417296}}</ref>

• Oddly placed pin headers

• • Arduino have headers that are used to connect Arduino with shields or some other hardware, but one of them is misplaced so it does not fit the standartized 2,54mm grid common to most PCBs. It's unsure if it's just design fault which remains unfixed even in latest boards or if it's another marketing trick to prevent users from simply attaching [[perfboard]]s to Arduino and making cheap shields from them.<ref>{{cite web|title=Arduino Shield Design Standards|url=http://www.practicalmaker.com/blog/arduino-shield-design-standards}}</ref> Another opinion claims that strange pin spacing is meant to prevent users from attaching the shield to the Arduino incorrectly, anyway there is no official statement made by Arduino.cc.<ref>{{cite web|title=Arduino – fix your pin spacing!|url=http://mightyohm.com/blog/2008/09/arduino-fix-your-pin-spacing/}}</ref>

• • There are few Arduino clones fixing this issue by adding another row of headers (and even some shields are compatible with this new "header layout"). Another way of fixing this is buying special bended header adaptor which will enable you using Arduino with perfboards.<ref>{{cite web|title=Sparkfun: Arduino Offset Header - 8 Pin|url=http://www.sparkfun.com/products/9374}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|title=Seeeduino Mega|url=http://www.seeedstudio.com/depot/seeeduino-mega-p-717.html}}</ref>

• • Many people are hoping that Arduino will fix this issue by releasing some transitional-board which will have both header layouts on it and removing the misplaced header few releases later, so compatibility will be maintained for some time, after this transitional period it's possible to sell addaptors for using new shields on old Arduinos (Some shields already have both pin rows and it's up to owner where he decides to solder the pins)

• Holes

• • There are few holes that are enabling arduino to be attached to some plastic case, etc... Placement of those holes and their varying sizes are also bit strange and it looks like Arduino wanted to make oportunity for selling some Arduino specific boxes or casings.<ref>{{cite web|title=AdaFruit: Arduino Hole Dimensions Drawing|url=http://www.adafruit.com/blog/2011/02/28/arduino-hole-dimensions-drawing/}}</ref>

END QUOTE

Anyone care to take a shot at rewriting it to Wikipedia standards? Guy Macon (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Arduino compatibles for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Arduino compatibles is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arduino compatibles until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Folks, we need your input on this. If you think it should or should not be deleted, please weigh in. Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was keep. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Should it stay or should it go?

This recent edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arduino&curid=5389424&diff=448093645&oldid=448092108

Removed an external link. I would like opinions as to whether the link belongs or not. Thanks! -Guy Macon (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know really. Most of it looks like it is already covered in the article (even some of the code, which is verging on WP:NOTHOWTO) so I don't really see the point in including it. If there's anything in there that isn't included in the article (I don't know if there is, I only skimmed it) then it should probably be added rather than linked to. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 21:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the same link a few weeks ago. Whatever virtue the content might have (which is debatable), the presentation is unreadable and far too poor to meet WP:EL. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That was my impression as well, but I wanted a second opinion. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There is almost no history in that article, and the javascript-driven viewer sucks. Isn't this information already available in some other way? 98.164.12.249 (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ivrea

We need to figure out what, exactly is in Ivrea. Recent edits have bounced it from being the former home of defunct Olivetti to the current home of non-defunct Olivetti. The Olivetti article says that the Olivetti headquarters is there, but the Ivrea article says that Olivetti closed its operations there. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"We" don't need to figure out anything. There's an objective reality outside the bounds of WP. Copenhagen can go fuck itself. Olivettti was a big operation, and even if it isn't now, Ivrea was always the company town. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that "figure out" means "find out what the objective reality is", right? The Copenhagen interpretation has nothing to do with it. The question is whether this article accurately reflects what is in Ivrea -- whether Olivettti is currently headquartered there or whether Olivettti was formerly headquartered there/ Guy Macon (talk) 06:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Chill, y'all. Sources, sources, sources. Show me reliable independent sources, and I'll be content to quote or paraphrase them, even conflicting ones. That is both our prosaic business and our figurative quest at WP. I agree with Guy - we need reliable independent sources to verify what's the deal with Ivrea, and an end to the slow edit war about it. Andy, if objective reality is as you say it is, then there will be sources to back that up, and we, trust me, will concisely report it. We can even report conflicting sources. But it is always, always about the sources, not the editors. --Lexein (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, Olivetti is certainly "scaled back" in Ivrea from what it was and there's coverage in the UK trade press to back that up. Whether that means large reductions in numbers but still the HQ, or a big empty office building with just two people still working there, or a bulldozed brownfield site, I don't know. Anyone working on the Ivrea or Olivetti articles ought to check that from real sources - there's far too much recursive sourcing going on within WP these days.

For Arduino though, does it matter? We know that there was a large group of engineers working for Olivetti there once, and now at least some large number of them aren't. That's the important aspect: a town where the skills are there, but they're now surplus and free to do things like inventing the Arduino. It doesn't matter whether Olivetti Co. have turned into Apple, HP or even Marconi - we're just not that interested in the business' precise state, merely the resultant oversupply of engineers. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Article becoming a link farm?

The article appears to be turning into a link farm. It was this edit that alerted me to it, but there are plenty of other "hey look at my blog!" type links in there. It seems that, per WP:EL, we shouldn't have a link to a huge list of external websites. For the edit by Shields Arduino (talk · contribs) in particular, I suspect a violation of advertising and conflict of interest. I would like to seriously trim the external links, but would like input from others before doing so. Dead Horsey (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is becoming a link farm and the links should be pruned without mercy. "External links" can be trimmed to the first two items. I don't see anything in "Further reading" that can't be nuked, but I would also be happy with it being a list of actual printed books as long as they are Arduino-specific. "See also" is also getting to be a huge list of pretty much everything under the sun. Do we really need to have these sections be far larger than the same sections in Apple Inc.?

Related question: do you think "Official hardware" and "Arduino board models" should be moved over to List of Arduino compatibles? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Another link went up today. Like the others, it isn't a bad link, but there are so darn many of them that I feel like a Link Farmer watching a healthy crop of Links growing if a field. Shall we do some weeding? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel concerned about how all the detailed product data will be maintained. The article contains a huge table of links to products of mostly two vendors. The wikipedia table seems easier to navigate then the vendor site, and it seems like wikipedia is making up for what the vendors are lacking. Perhaps the detailed product data should be in a separate article. Wikfr (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Production Numbers

I'm wondering if there is any production information for at least some of the principal manufacturers. Of course, there is no way of tracking all of the clones. However, information from the principal manufacturers would be useful for estimating the relative user-base for each models. Has anyone come across this type of information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolfedh (talk • contribs) 21:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Shields and I2C

One thing this page fails to explain is how multiple shields talk to an Arduino at once. I don't have an embedded-electronics background, so when I saw the stack of five shields shown at [1], I was perplexed: there are only so many pins; how could so do these five shields just happen to use different sets of pins? Even if they all did use different pins, you'd run out of pins eventually. I've subsequently gathered that many (most? all?) shields communicate via an I²C bus and that those shields have settable I²C addresses so you can make a huge stack and then the Arduino can send each one a command by addressing the shield by "name" and the others will ignore that command.

Is that correct? Do most shields support I²C? Is it generally an option to talk directly via pins versus via I²C?

This may be obvious to electronics junkies, but it's not obvious to everyone and seems like a pretty basic part of the description of "what is a shield" that I haven't found spelled out here or elsewhere. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Generally shields don't stack. If you want to do this, you first have to assemble a shield so that the shield has sockets on the top too, like an Arduino itself. Easy for home-assembly shields, but it can limit you amongst commercial shields. There are also the issues of mechanical stability (stacked shields can wobble enough to cause connection failure) and also the issue of power supply. Many big stacks are done for multi-LED display outputs and the power demands can overload the bottom board in a tall stack.

Then their connections are simply paralleled. This can be a problem if two shields both use the same pin, hence the ShieldList site's most obvious information being a pin-use diagram. Inherently parallel buses, such as I2C and Dallas one-wire wouldn't care, so long as the device addresses differ.

Another approach is to use sub-shields. This is sometimes done for display devices, such as LED cubes or dot-matrix displays. An Arduino Shield stacks onto the Arduino and offers some "decoder" function. This then has a number of sub-shields stacked onto itself, where each one drives a single output module, such as one tile in a tiled display. This secondary connector is physically different, can be electrically either parallel (with addressing) or daisy-chained, and is designed from the outset to support stacking.

Really though, shield stacking just isn't an issue. The Arduino is primarily a starter device for simple projects. Because it's also open sourced, most people building devices that have complex output or shield requirements instead find themselves making their own *duino clones with the same bootloader, but different board hardware. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I understand that some shields are just directly using the pins, but as a non-EE I assumed that was more or less the only way to do it, so I was perplexed when I saw a stack of shields. In the interest of revealing the obvious to those who don't find it obvious, I'll add mention that some shields use a serial bus to talk, allowing stacking. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Undefined term(s)?

"(When used with traditional microcontroller tools instead of the Arduino IDE, standard AVR ISP programming is used.)"

IDE is not defined or hyperlinked. What is the Arduino "IDE"? 124.148.146.231 (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Integrated Development Environment Andy Dingley (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I just added wikilinks for IDE and ISP (same sentence). Good catch, 124.148.146.231! Finding little errors like undefined acronyms and initialisms is an important part of improving Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Atmel or Arduino?

here's what I'm not clear on, why say the micro is an Arduino, but it's actually an Atmel microcontroller? I can understand the boards being put together by Arduino, but the micro is not, it's Atmel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.101.50 (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Could you quote the part of the page you are talking about? I see "An Arduino board consists of an 8-bit Atmel AVR microcontroller with complementary components..." Perhaps you are confusing microcontroller with single-board microcontroller? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

it's the first sentence "Arduino is a popular open-source single-board microcontroller," — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.101.50 (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Arduino is a Single-Board Microcontroller -- a Microcontroller that is a Printed-circuit Board. The Atmel AVR is a Single-Chip Microcontroller -- a Microcontroller that is an Integrated Circuit. Most current single-board microcontrollers contain upon single-chip microcontrollers, but single-board microcontrollers are much older than single-chip microcontrollers, and were originally built with Microprocessors. When the single-chip microcontroller arrived, it did not make the single-board microcontroller obsolete, because single-chip microcontrollers don't have connectors, voltage regulators, crystals, LEDs etc. The Arduino is one example of that.

You have identified an inconsistency in Wikipedia that should be fixed, but it isn't in the Arduino article. Single-board microcontroller says "A single-board microcontroller is a microcontroller built onto a single printed circuit board" but Microcontroller says "A microcontroller is a small computer on a single integrated circuit." Single-board microcontroller#Single-chip microcontrollers clarifies the relation by saying "Single-chip microcontrollers ... simply the design of a single-board microcontroller." We should update Microcontroller so that it no longer incorrectly implies that all microcontrollers are integrated circuits. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

IMHO a "microcontroller" is normally a chip, one that contains all the components of a complete computer, including timers and peripherals. When googling for "microcontroller definition" you get results like this: [2]. When you put a microcontroller on a board with all the other stuff to make a practical system (crystal, connectors, power supply etc) you get a "microcontroller board". So Microcontroller is exactly right in saying that a microcontroller is a chip, and has a list of microcontrollers listing only chips. The arduino is a microcontroller board, but some (lazy) people started to shorten that to just "microcontroller". And yes, in the past you had small boards containing only the barest necessities to create a working system, for example a 6502 (CPU), a 6522 (Timer/PIO) a 2716 EEPROM, and a static RAM chip, these were generally called "controller boards", or somewhat later Single-board microcontrollers. Mahjongg (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting! Reference 2 at Single-board microcontroller references a "Intel Single Board Computer" from 1975, and of course the terms "minicomputer" and "microcomputer" are older than that. I wonder when the first use of the term "microcontroller" was. If we could document that it might make a nice addition to the encyclopedia.

Related in an odd way: all over the country there are locations named "Telegraph Hill" that were named that well before the invention of the telegraph. That's because everyone shortens Electrical telegraph to "telegraph." those hills were named that because they were the sites of the earlier optical telegraphs. Likewise "computer" used to be a job title - a job that was replaced by electronic computers, which we shortened to "computer". --Guy Macon (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

wow, thanks everyone, very insightful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.101.50 (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Release date of boards

please add the release date for each one of the table: "Arduino board models"

--79.223.127.92 (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Applications

I started a new section on applications Arduino#Applications -- it would be nice of others would add the more mature applications with links to the external webpages - or if particualry mature to the internal pages in wikipedia - thanks Luli17 (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What is it? What can it do?

For someone not familiar with the subject this article barely answers the above questions. There is very little explaining the types of things that can be connected to the Arduino or even how. For example, unless one already knows the full meaning of the term Physical computing or reads that article first, this article tells very little about the basics of what it is. I'd suggest an easing into the subject and adding context to the physical computing term, essentially defining it inline. There's a lot of good info here, but so far it's definitely for people that already know what it is. - Taxman ^Talk 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, its fairly useless article - it reads as a tech manual, not an encyclopedia entry. However given that Google just announced they are going to support this in future versions of Android, this is probably going to be very popular and soon some non nerds are going to explain what its all about ;) --IceHunter (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read This. Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this article is useless. I came here as an IT Engineer to understand what Arduino is all about and found a boring list of terms and data. I can't fix it and should not fix it because this is not my specialty. This must be done by those who compiled all this jungle. Mazarin07 (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

mY COMPUTER IS USELESS. aLL IT TYPES IS CAPITAL LETTERS. i CAN'T FIX IT AND SHOULD NOT FIX IT BECAUSE THIS IS NOT MY SPECIALTY. sEND AN IT Engineer over here to... Oh. Never mind. It just got better.

Just as an IT Engineer would tell the above user "It's not that hard! Just press the fscking Caps Lock Key!!", I am telling you that it really is not that hard. Just do a web search, find out what people are doing with Arduinos, and write up a section that describes it with links to your sources. We even have a nice guide to help you at Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers and another at Wikipedia:The newcomer's manual. You think this article is useless? Fix it! --Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Strange attitude! People come here as users and you expect them to transform into editors when an article is of low quality! Surely users are allowed to express an opinion to inform those who have chosen to edit an article.86.159.252.42 (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Allowed to express an opinion about low article quality? Of course! And those opinions are more than welcome here. The thing is, I am equally allowed to express my opinion, which is that we as unpaid volunteers have no obligation to respond to that complaint and that it really is easy to fix things yourself. As of Saturday, 11 May 2024, the English Wikipedia has 122,835 active editors and 6,822,483 articles. That's a little over 30 articles per editor. We could really use some more help. We could really use your help. Just pick a subject that you are comfortable with, read the article, and make the article better in some small way. We even have a page at Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers to help you. You might be surprised at how easy it is to become a Wikipedia editor! --Guy Macon (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

External links discussion

I'm not sure why everyone is so "delete happy" about the "External Link" section? The "Further Reading" section is more "out of control" than the external link section. Giving a vague "see WP:EL" is not a good enough reason to delete all the links, seriously! WP:EL doesn't list a maximum number of links that can be in this section, yes it says "small number", but it sure the heck doesn't mean the number is ONE either! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't removed any of these links here, but I've come here cleaning up after some (single-purpose) accounts/IPs who repeatedly inserted links to a blog site at www.dilabs.co.in/2013/03/ into lots of electronics articles.

At least the following articles were affected (there may be more): Light-emitting diode, Surface-mount technology, Compile, Voltage regulator, Spectrum analyzer, Serial Peripheral Interface Bus, Headphones, Portable media player, Fog, Seven-segment display, Radio-frequency identification, and Display device.

The following articles still contain links to this external site (list may be incomplete): Arduino, Pulse-width modulation, LM317, 78xx (only one of the links inserted there is of a somewhat better quality).

Accounts seen inserting links to this site recently have been: Satwikmishravit, Buntybhai, Vibhutesh, 115.248.50.22 (and by timing there appears to be some connection with account Mr n Mrs as well).

The external articles were often only tangential to our respective articles' subjects. Most of them contained no new information for readers of the WP articles. In several cases I could identify text and pictures as being copied from other related WP articles (sometimes with minor changes), f.e. article on display types is made up almost completely from WP material, including Seven-segment display, Nine-segment display, Nixie tube, Fourteen-segment display, Vane display, and Sixteen-segment display. Finally, these external articles do not provide references and they carry no publishing and authorship info, and they do not seem to exist for a long time - all in all they are of low quality, and therefore IMO do not qualify to be included as external links as per WP:EL. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. The reason I got ticked off was this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arduino&diff=549480795&oldid=549460834 I could say more, but I think I already blew off enough steam above.

Thanks for taking care of the www.dilabs.co.in/2013/03/ links. Good job. I did see it added to a couple of articles, but I wasn't aware they were spaming a bunch of articles.

I agree that lots of blogs aren't high enough quality for Wikipedia and they should be axed, but also there are some really good ones with incredible technical details and very good writing. Case in point... I don't know the person that has been doing the Arduino pinouts, but I've noticed lots of people raving with positive reviews of "his" drawings. http://www.pighixxx.com/en/ Those pinout drawings are easy to read and very useful, thus is why I think they should stay in the Arduino article.

I feel that Wikipedia technical articles should include very useful links in the external link section. There is extremely useful high-quality information floating around on the internet and if we don't add that information to the articles, then we should be pointing at good sources.

I try to thin out the obvious low-quality external links, but I probably should be cutting more of the borderline ones.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a number of engineering and computer articles on my talk page, and when I see a new external link added to one of them I check the user's contribution history. Most of the time I find that this is a new editor and that his only edits have been to spam that same link to dozens of barely related pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, blindly cutting the whole section is certainly not the way to go. As you said, it should be a case-by-case decision. I have no problems if there are ten or more external links, if they really provide useful and possibly unique information that cannot be found elsewhere and cannot be integrated into the article for some reasons. I even have no problems with links to forums or blogs if they add real value and could establish some reputation over the years. That having said I would also axe these two external links:

http://www.dilabs.co.in/2013/03/arduino-sketchprogram-build-process.html

http://robodino.org/resources/arduino

Greetings --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Section move

The "further reading" section was getting to be quite long, but I didn't want to try to trim it down because it is so useful. I decided to WP:BOLDly move it to List of Arduino boards and compatible systems. Being a fairly long list, that page isn't overwhelmed by a long "further reading" section. Also, anyone who is interested enough to buy books on Arduino will probably also be interested enough to look at our list of Arduino boards. Given the popularity of the Arduino, eventually we may want to create a separate list-of-books page. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Andy Dingley and Guy Macon, for WP:SPLITTING out the "List of Arduino boards and compatible systems" into its own article. I suspect that there may be other aspects of Arduino that are already notable enough to support an entire Wikipedia article on that aspect -- analogous to the way several aspects of the IBM PC are notable enough to support several Wikipedia articles -- IBM PC compatible, Influence of the IBM PC on the personal computer market, IBM PC keyboard, etc. --DavidCary (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

What about Robot?

What about an Arduino Robot? It's available in Maker Shed online. --93.154.131.43 (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Prices

It seems somewhat foolish to quote prices in the lead, as an example I can get Uno R3 clones for $4.20 including postage this week. Greglocock (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

How to pronounce "Arduino"?

Does the official team have an opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanwolf (talk • contribs) 19:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Arduino: The Documentary has many (all?) of the team talking about Arduino. --Imroy (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Can someone who knows International Phonetic Alphabet add an IPA or similar pronunciation to the article? DMacks (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Arduino legal dispute

@Dsimic: — I notice that you reverted an edit by an anonymous IP user, removing reference to the "arduino.org" site in the "External links" section. While I believe that "arguino.cc" is still the official site, be aware that there is currently a legal dispute in Italy and in the United States over user of the Arduino name and which entity is the "official" representative of the project. I stumbled onto a very recent article at Hackaday.com that describes the dispute and includes a link to a PDF notice sent out to Arduino distributors. From the comment left by the IP user, I perceive it may have been someone with limited English skills and he was trying to shoehorn information about the dispute into the article, albeit rather ineptly. It may be useful for readers to be informed of this dispute and the dichotomy between arduino.cc and arduino.org. — Quicksilver^{T @} 14:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! That's a very good point, how about describing that in the article? Seems like a brief description of the dispute might be more usable, if you agree? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Source code or not

Hey, Kbrose! Regarding your edit, why do you find that as not being source code? It is a kind of source code excerpt, representing function names in particular, and it's universally common to format such things in a fixed font. Furthermore, regarding your other edit, have you read http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Whichvs.That.html I've referred to earlier? It clearly says that using "that" is the preferred way. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Olivetti, again

It appears that this rationale is being used to continue to refer to Olivetti in the article. There's no indication that Olivetti has anything to do with Arduino at all. The association here is no more appropriate than "Linus Torvalds was born in Finland, headquarters of Nokia" would be. Unless that's changed, this should be removed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that Torvalds is older than Nokia, but the Arduino is younger than Olivetti, and was influenced by the effect that Olivetti had on the town, giving it an oversupply of engineers and a culture of creating such devices. It's hardly Silicon Valley, but it's similar to Silicon Glen and far more established than Silicon Roundabout. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Nokia's electonics division is two years older than Torvalds. :) As for Olivetti, my concern is that direct sourcing is weak: the best I can find is from Make, but it's no more than a throwaway sentence at the beginning of an article that doesn't elaborate on what "descendants of Olivetti" means. I'd be more comfortable directly referring to said electronics district as in this article rather than just alluding to them as if Arduino is directly descended from Olivetti. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how "In 2005, in Ivrea, Italy (the main site of the computer company Olivetti), a project was initiated..." implies that Arduino is directly descended from Olivetti. If the most notable thing about Finland was Nokia, we might very well say that Linus Torvalds was born in Finland, headquarters of Nokia.

That being said, where is the citation supporting "Here was also developed the Arduino platform by an Olivetti spin-off" in the Ivrea article? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The citation attached to it was added at the same time as the assertion itself, so it appears to be original research. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that you cleaned up Ivrea, so my comment above no longer applies. I have been thinking about "(the main site of the computer company Olivetti)", and while it doesn't imply that Arduino is directly descended from Olivetti, it really doesn't add anything to the article either. On reflection, I say take it out. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just discovered a book by Massimo Banzi called "Getting Started with Arduino" in which he explains the young geeks from Ivrea started by recycling the Olivetti electronical waste in the 80s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.13.129.169 (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Open Source and Open Hardware?

Is the Arduino project still open source and open hardware? There seems to be some question marks on this regarding the latest boards, the Yun and the robot. Mossig (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the Arduino website still says it is open source and open hardware.

The Arduino FAQ ( [3] ) says the Arduino hardware is open-source hardware, and the Arduino software is also open-source.

In particular, the official Arduino Yun page ( [4] ) specifically says the "Arduino Yún is open-source hardware! You can build your own board using the following files" with a link to the schematics.

In particular, the official Arduino Robot page ( [5] ) specifically says "The Arduino Robot ... As always with Arduino, every element of the platform – hardware, software and documentation – is freely available and open-source."

Mossig, are there are any WP: reliable sources that question those statements? --DavidCary (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Question and comment

1. I see both UNO and Uno on the official website. What is the official name?

2. The software section says programs are written in C or C++. The side table and the introduction also add Java. There is some inconsistency.

3. Can the output pins of any of the Arduino boards like the Uno be used to source voltage and current for something like 5V and 10mA? In other words, can I use a board as a power supply for something like driving LEDs? How accurate and stable is the voltage at the outputs?

ICE77 (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

2. Arduino software is developed in the Arduino's C++-like language. The Arduino IDE though was written in Java (it doesn't support more programming in Java).

The limited (and ugly) Arduino language is one of the biggest limitations on the Arduino, compared to platforms like the Raspberry Pi. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

3. Yes you can drive LEDs directly off a UNO's pins. I'd imagine the voltage specs would depend a great deal on what you are using to power the board, and who designed and manufactured it. I haven't noticed any problems with voltage stability, there again mine is hooked up a 320 Ah lead acid. Greglocock (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

3. There is no "defined voltage" at the outputs as such. The output stage is better considered practically as current sources and sinks with a current limit and an impedance. That said, some AVRs can handle up to 40mA, which is several middling-sized red LEDs. Unusually, the sink and source currents are symmetrical.

Read the chip datasheets. The Arduino board doesn't change these output circuits. "Atmel 8-bit AVR Microcontroller with 2/4/8K Bytes In-System Programmable Flash" (PDF). pp. 53, 163.

Andy Dingley (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback on questions 2 and 3. Regarding the last question, today I worked on the Arduino UNO/Uno board and I successfully used it to turn on red and green LEDs with 5V and 3.3V.

ICE77 (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

REMINDER: this isn't a blog or help section for Arduino. See blog on Arduino website or Reddit or some other Arduino blog. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Comparing a Raspberry Pi model B with 17 GPIO pins (and no built-in analog inputs), vs the Arduino Uno with 20 GPIO pins (of which 6 can be used as 10-bit built-in analog inputs), I agree that there are limitations.

1. The book "Arduino Internals" says

Being a proper name, Arduino is always capitalized. The model name Uno is stylized in all capitals only in the logo on the PCB.

-- Dale Wheat

If I understand that correctly, only the first letter in each word of the name Arduino Uno should be capitalized, unless one is drawing an artistic logo.

2. There seems to be some confusion between the Arduino IDE (which is software that runs on a PC) and "Arduino programs" (a variety of software that runs on an Arduino). The Arduino IDE includes, among other things, a text editor (written in Java) and the GNU Compiler Collection cross compiler (written in C++). The Arduino IDE runs on top of some operating system such as OSX or Linux.

People write a variety of Arduino programs in pure C, pure C++, or in C++ plus the Arduino libraries -- also called "the Arduino language". Some people use avr-gcc and their favorite text editor ( [6]; [7]; [8]; [9]; [10]; etc. ), other people use the Arduino IDE, to compile an Arduino program and download it to Arduino hardware. An Arduino program runs "on bare metal" on the 8-bit processor used in most Arduino hardware, without any operating system. My understanding is that there is not yet any Java compiler available that can compile Java programs to run on the 8-bit processors used in most Arduino hardware.

How can we clarify this article to prevent the above confusion between these two kinds of software and the programming language(s) they are written in, the Arduino IDE vs. "Arduino programs" that run on Arduino hardware? --DavidCary (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

2. David Cary, you and Andy Dingley pretty much laid out the difference between the environment language (Java) and the sketches (C++). I think we could simply add a statement that points that out. Thank you for your input.

By the way, since sketches are written in C++ and run on a virtual machine like Java, how can the IDE interpret C++? Is there an interpreter/compliler? I'm not sure if it's in the article. If it's not, it would be nice add. I'm sorry if my programming skills and jargon are not updated.

ICE77 (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

2. Yes, the Arduino IDE includes a compiler: the avr-gcc GNU Compiler Collection cross compiler.

Yes, many people write sketches in C++, and the cross compiler in the Arduino IDE compiles them to raw Atmel AVR machine code, and other parts of the Arduino IDE copy that machine code from the PC over the serial cable to the Arduino hardware -- then the Atmel AVR processor directly executes that machine code. There is no virtual machine in the Arduino hardware.

Neither the Arduino IDE itself nor anything else running on a PC ever runs or interprets the sketches -- in fact, many people are surprised to discover that the sketches they write continue to run on the Arduino hardware long after the Arduino hardware is disconnected from the PC. How can we tweak this article to prevent people from coming away with this common misunderstanding? --DavidCary (talk) 08:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

1. Dale Wheat, thanks for the comment. I just saw your information now for the first time.

2. David Cary, I think it would be nice to have a section that clearly lists in sequence the steps from writing to compiling to execution with information on languages used, where the code is physically stored and so on. Using numbers and notes for each step would really help.

When I first powered up the Arduino UNO/Uno board I noticed that LED 13 was blinking but the board was never used before. I then loaded the sample sketch and I saw that is was just about the same presented in this article. Also, I did not notice any "#define LED_PIN 13" statement but I saw "int led = 13;".

Are you saying that you don't need to write in the Arduino language but that if you type code in C++ the code is still compiled and works anyway?

ICE77 (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Lots of Arduino developers still use the board as a cheap mass-produced AVR board, but they no longer treat them as "Arduino". If you use standard AVR development tools (which may be C / C++, but could be other languages too) and you then program the chip directly through ICSP rather than using the Arduino bootloader, then you can use any dev toolchain you wish, so long as it produces AVR code.

It is sometimes hard to say just what an "Arduino" is. The processor is an AVR. The board circuit is little more than an AVR application note. The Arduino board standard pinout and shape isn't always followed, even by many Arduino. All that's really left is the dev environment (which many replace with another editor), the cross-compiler (which is just Gnu gcc) and then the Arduino bootloader, which is pretty minimal.

Many Arduino I've bought have arrived with the blink example already programmed in. Even, oddly, some Arduino Nano that don't even have the LED for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

History

Here’s a good source: The Making of Arduino - IEEE Spectrum Cup o’ Java (talk • edits) 01:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the chart linked from there showing the history of the Interaction Design Institute Ivrea Prototyping Toolbox is very detailed. --scruss (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I have stared to rewrite the history section with the information that was recently published by Hernando Barragán, the creator of Wiring and of which Arduino is based on. (http://arduinohistory.github.io). Please feel free to add more of this interesting information. --Ihatetoregister (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Arduino Zero

Please upload a nice looking photo of the Arduino Zero to Wikimedia Commons. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Arduino Simulators

• Minibloq, FREE
• UnoArduSim, FREE, Queens University
• Autodesk Circuits, FREE, AutoDesk
• Simulator for Arduino, $17.99, Virtronics
• Virtual Breadboard, $19 or $39

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Reception

Hi Thumperward. You reverted my change to the section title. OK. However, I request that you change the section title to something besides "impact", because, if by "impact" you mean "effect", receiving an award is not an effect.Michael9422 (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The award is an outcome of the impact that the project has had on the engineering community. The section needs to be expanded to contain other instances in which the Arduino has affected areas of engineering such as rapid prototyping, hacker culture, DIY and so on. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that "Impact" is the better section title, and I especially disagree with the argument that the section title should summarize the article content that *will* be added in the future (or might be), rather than what is there *now*. Does the reader care what might be added later?Michael9422 (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Articles should be written in such a way as to encourage organic development along appropriate lines. If you title a section in such a way as to limit its focus to a list of awards, all that will be added to it is a list of rewards. If you title it so as to refer to the general impact that the subject has had on the world, the likelihood of receiving prose to that effect increases. Moreover, as the latter includes awards anyway, it's compatible with the former. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I you want everyone in the world to know how great it is, "Awards" is better. If you want to write an encyclopedia article about it, "Impact" or perhaps "reception" is better. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Good suggestion, Guy. Chris, do you object to it being changed to Reception?Michael9422 (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

"Reception" is fine with me. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Impact is an incredible word ! Fantastic ! You shouldn't target it unless you've got issues innit like. g4oep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.60.31 (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree (or agree, if meant sarcastically). The words "impact" and "incredible" are both hackneyed.Michael9422 (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Criticism

Where's the criticism section? There is so much overwhelming hate for Arduinos out there, I figured I'd come here to see what the crap that's all about. Hell, read the comment section in any one of these articles:

http://hackaday.com/category/arduino-hacks/

68.8.99.245 (talk) 06:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been reading Hack A Day for a year or two now and I know about the 'hate' for Arduino on that site. As near as I can tell, most of the "criticism" of Arduino is simply elitism. Some people aren't happy that other people are using it when, in their opinion, another solution would be better.

For example, I found this comment. He doesn't like Arduino because he thinks it should only be used for prototyping, but sees people leaving the Arduino in the final project. That's not criticising Arduino itself and I think misses the whole point of Arduino - to make it easier for people to control electronics. Not everyone has the time or expertise to design a circuit, layout a board, etch the board, solder the components on, and program any micro-controller that might be used (and then find and fix any problems on the board).

Can you provide an example of actual criticism of Arduino itself? Because what I've seen has been pretty minor. --Imroy (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what a bunch of utter elitist jerks. I don't have a problem with elitism per se, but I want to hear it from people who write DSP code in their heads, not someone who's used a PIC and now thinks they can look down on Arduinos! Although it's seemingly inevitable that such jerks exist, I would question why they have encyclopedia relevance?

Personally, one of the best "Wow!" moments I've had in the last year was watching some arts grad (yes, pure arts) at Bristol Dorkbot tying some clever Processing code into an Arduino-based lump of hardware and achieving something for its sheer decorative merit, not for the geek points of how hard they'd had to work to make the hardware drivers multi-thread properly. I like Arduinos because they're a tool that the people with the interesting ideas can make work, not just the ubergeeken with the patience to wrangle hardware. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some intelligent criticism here: http://hackaday.com/2010/01/06/arduino-io-speed-breakdown/ 68.8.99.245 (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

For legit criticism, look at this - http://www.ruggedcircuits.com/10-ways-to-destroy-an-arduino/ - basically the criticism is that for a educational device, there are a bunch of ways to destroy the circuitry and/or microprocessor, and they all have pretty low cost solutions that could have been designed into the board (note that this is a site that used to sell their "fixed" board, the Ruggeduino, but while it's a company site, the criticisms seem fair. jmaslak (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

So for $40 they'll sell you a device that can still be destroyed electrically, but less easily than a $4 arduino. I think i'll just carry on with the four dollar unit, none of which I have managed to blow up. Greglocock (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

i don't know but reading through that website ruggedciruites it seems odd to me that they go on lengths to criticism arduino then suggest clone of arduino as fix. That would be similar if I went on lengths to criticism NES and then ended up suggesting famiclone rather than suggesting sega or PlayStation as alternative to NES. but the wikipedia article thou lacks criticism section there does seems to be plenty problems with arduino out there that are probably worth mentioning.DoctorHver (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The main criticism I hear about is the strange pin spacing which means it won't easily fit on a breadboard or veroboard. --Dohzer (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Could one of you guys that does this page write about the very real criticism that Arduino seems to be turning into Appleduino? http://smartduino.com/arduinotmtrademark-intimated-us-to-close-the-domain-and-cancel-our-product/ http://arduino.cc/blog/2012/11/26/kickstarter-trademarks-and-lies Anon1491625 (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

To do that we would need to have reliable sources for the criticism, not just blog posts. If you locate any feel free to add them in yourself, or post them here and I can. a13ean (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand how this site works, this is my first time trying to talk. What would be acceptable if the legal threat presented on the first page and the allegations of the Arduino guy on the second page is not acceptable? Anon1491625 (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Anon, yes it's complicated! Thanks for asking first.

WP has a strong policy that emphasises WP:Verifiability along with Truth. Sometimes said to take precedent over it! (which it doesn't, but it's a popular misconception). The difficulty is that on a large site like WP, half of the editors are below average in their abilities. We just can't rely on "editors knowing stuff", because for every editor who is an infallible authority on a topic, there are plenty more who aren't. Worst of all, is when they know something about something close to it - these people are difficult, as they don't know what they don't know.

So as a result, we rely heavily on WP:V and WP:RS. We don't rely on editors saying things, we don't rely on WP:SPS claiming things, we rely on the trustworthiness of the published press and its established reputation for honesty and fact checking. It's not perfect, but it's better than two editors arguing subjectively - that really is chaos.

I'm surprised by this story. AFAIK, "Arduino" has always been strongly protected and "*-duino" was available for other projects and happily accepted by the Arduino team. They also know what a lynch mob they'd face if they were ever thought to have acted against the open source ethos. So this story needs careful checking and sourcing, but if it does stand up, then it's significant and warrants inclusion here.

I can't image that it won't be all over Boing Boing, Make Magazine and even The Register before long though. Then we can use them as sources to support it here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice help Andy (and the cookies :) ), but I don't think I'll be able to learn all that's needed to edit in an acceptable way any time soon since I have pretty severe brain damage due to the brain tumors I've had, which makes it very difficult for me to learn new stuff. :( Would it be possible for you or someone else to look for "reliable sources" and edit the page? Anon1491625 (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've seen no other coverage of this as yet, but would expect to see it appear in the next day or two. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Resolve duplication and merge #Software and #Software development sections

#Software section duplicates the scope of Wiring (development platform)#Software and should be merged into #Software development section. -- Cedar101 (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Pre-assembled ?

What exactly does "pre-assembled" mean? It was assembled BEFORE it was assembled? That makes no sense. The boards come assembled or do-it-yourself, the prefix "pre" on "assembled" is grammatically incorrect. 2.97.186.109 (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It may be done, but it is a false pedanticism. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/preassemble explains the word. Simply saying "assembled" may or may not tell you if it was pre-assembled. You have to add more words, words longer in fact than the prefix pre-, in order to create the same meaning. And English is not a closed language; any valid combination of root words with prefixes and suffixes are real English words. Even if it was the first time pre-assembled had ever been used, it would be a correct word, not a grammatical error. But in this case, it is a known word that can be looked up. See also: http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/preassemble http://www.thefreedictionary.com/preassemble 76.105.216.34 (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your erudite opinion. I agree. Unfortunately wiki is a haven for actual (as opposed to false) pedants, who will argue interminably about, well, practically, anything. One has to wonder what universe 2.97 lives in never to have heard or understood the expression. Sadly many wiki editors live in similar universes. Greglocock (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Greglocock so much that I wish I could send him a six-pack or at least a box of candy. Cheers. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Multidisciplinary?

This word sticks out in the first line as being inappropriate as the expected word is "applied" such as in "applied math." In technology, multidisciplinary would refer to applications in the direction of social sciences to link "humanity" to tech. WP is unfortunately weak in this area with its inbred bias against disagreeing POV (which it calls it "trolling") and contiguous exploration (which is thought of as digression and thus invariably dismissed as "off topic," or even "non-authoritative"). "Applied" is the word. --John Bessa (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Some just insists on using word which is hard to understand and largely irrelevant to engineer. If you think your word is better/clear/easier to understand, why not, you can change it. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

"Multidisciplinary" is quite a good word here, and for the Processing programming language too. We do see Arduinos popping up in the humanities, and not just the arts, in a way that has re-united some fields of tech and non-tech that have been very separate for many years. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The term "Multidisciplinary" has no place in an article about the Arduino. That's pretty much common sense and self-explanatory. It's just a misused, 3-dollar word that makes any statement more ambiguous. Just because someone knows a particular word, doesn't mean it should be used. Most of the time, in writing, simpler is better. And I have written many technical documents for NASA and other big DoD firms. Believe me, simpler is better - no matter how complex the topic. At some point a document is either a) Useful, or b) Worthless. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Batteries not included

AFAIK the Uno can run off a 9 V battery (in fact, anything from 7 to 12 V). If so, this should be mentioned in the article as it adds to the versatility of the device. http://www.instructables.com/id/Powering-Arduino-with-a-Battery/ Thanks, Maikel (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This isn't anything special, because technically any board with a DC input is capable of running off batteries, well maybe bigger batteries but technically true. AUX IN range varies from board to board to clone, because different voltage regulators are used. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the 9 vdc addition. Not needed, not unique, adds nothing. I agree with Sbmeirow that this is something virtually any and all processors can do. The operating range of supply voltage is called out in the specs, and it doesn't matter if it's a power supply, car battery or what. It's implied. If you're going to add something to this already confusing article, why not make it something that adds useful information? 98.194.39.86 (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The "useful information" is that this isn't a bare processor (which usually have narrowly defined voltage requirements) but it's a board, intended for easy and varied use, and that board design includes a regulator with an unusually wide range for acceptable inputs. Maybe less so today, as other boards have taken the hint, but the Arduino was one of the first to make the board fit all the likely batteries, rather than expecting it to be the other way round. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Software section and the term "sketch"

I realize that some software people believe that new "widgets" are invented daily (which is not true at all), but this article should not use the term "sketch" in the Software section. The word "sketch" has no meaning in software development. That term should be removed. If any of my students or employees ever came to me and used the term "sketch" with respect to a software project, they would quickly be shown the door and either be fired, or receive an "F" for the semester. "Sketch" is a marketing buzzword. Plenty of good terms out there already exist, like framework or skeleton or ... whatever. There are many to choose from. The last thing we need is another ambiguous term in computer science. We've got more than enough gimmick terms already thanks to the iPhone and Android and 35+ years of Microsoft marketing teams. The lexicon is already bloated ... please people, don't make it worse. It adds nothing except a new term you'll put on your resume, and then remove 3 to 5 years from now. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

This is the term used within the Arduino community, and is supported by adequate RS. You can call them "punchcards" if you insist, but you're at odds with the rest of the world. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The term sketch is defined explicitly in the previous section to Software. If you skim over that, you'll miss it. Therefore I have rewritten the first sentence in the Software section to repeat this definition, for clarity. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arduino/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 00:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

On a quick read, the text of the article looks in pretty good shape. An Earwig check found significant overlaps with https://www.slideshare.net/NamanGautam2/home-automation-system-58772695 (probably an instance of someone else copying us, so not likely to indicate an actual problem) and with https://www.wired.com/2017/04/arduinos-new-ceo-federico-musto-may-fabricated-academic-record/ (we quote from the Wired article and properly mark our text as being a quote, so also not a problem). Otherwise there is no issue with copying.

However, the referencing and reference quality is far from ready for Good Article review. Many references (e.g. all footnotes numbered 33–53) appear to be unreliable (sourced to the Arduino project itself or to blogs) and many sentences and some entire paragraphs have no sources. There is one valid citation-needed tag dating from 2015 that has not been fixed before the nomination, indicating that the editors did not even proofread the article carefully and fix all tagged problems before making this nomination.

So I think this meets the "Immediate failures" criterion of Wikipedia:Good article criteria: "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria" and "It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid". Once all content has been properly sourced to published references, and checked against what those references say, it can be nominated again. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

"Arduino Board Pinout Diagrams" some links are suspect?

Several of the externals links in "Arduino Board Pinout Diagrams" lead to pighixxx.com which seems suspicious to me, demanding that notifcations be enabled and some private browser extension be installed. Looks odd. Rob Burbidge (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed. They were added two years ago by Sbmeirow, so I presume that they were legit at the time but that the domain has since expired and bee squatted. I've removed them – if I missed any, take those out too. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:N now defined by having articles?

Re: "I hate to do this, but these should be notable examples that have wiki articles"

It's long-established that most lists on WP are there to avoid having to demonstrate notability for each entry. Also, WP:N is still (last time I checked) based on external sources, not WP pages.

So, is this list prune a good thing? I would say not. I'm not against pruning the list to make it the best list for this article, i.e. we should have illustrative articles to show what Arduineaux can and are doing, and we need to guard against the usual WP "Let's add my own favourite thing" problem for all lists. But limiting it to WP:N isn't the best approach for that (a dozen identical dull projects don't make a good showcase, even if they're all Notable) and bluelinked article don't demonstrate Notability much more than unlinked or redlinked articles demonstrate non-notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Where do you draw the line of what types of examples to include or not include, where do you draw the line of what types of things to include or not include, where do you draw the line for how many examples? These types of sections get over run by "hey look at what I did" and "I want to promote my favorite project". If these existed in the external links section, many agressive-deleting editors would've deleted all of them. There's likely more precedence of this type of section being deleted, since I have seen them remove in past years, but I can't remember which articles nor can I remember which WP reason they used. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

We're here to describe Arduineaux. So the projects should showcase that. They should be competent, completed and (ideally) open-sourced (we can do this purely from open sourced examples, so why use any that aren't?). They should then include the project domains that do really showcase what an Arduino can do. So I'd like to see a high-altitude camera balloon, something wearable, something involving WS2812 / NeoPixel lighting, something with robotics in manufacturing (3D printer controller?), something with small mobile robots, like autonomous robot sumo. Those are just off the top of my head. There are any number of such projects, we don't need to "use what's available", we can choose the ideal ones first and then go out looking. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

"LilyPad" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect LilyPad. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. fgnievinski (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I've changed the IPA pronunciation guide from /ɑːˈdwiːnoʊ/ to /ɑːrˈdwiːnoʊ/. In non-IPA form, that's from AH-dwee-noh to AR-dwee-noh. There's a comment on this page from 2013 that linked a video, Arduino: The Documentary, that includes several members of the development team pronouncing the word. There are, however, no speakers of British (or Australian or New Zealand) English in the video. I watched a few videos that were in British English, and it was pronounced with the /r/ sound. I considered including the former pronunciation labeled "(UK)", but I don't think it's necessary, as a person who pronounces "argue" without an /r/ sound will know to pronounce "Arduino" the same way. It's the /dwi:/ syllable that readers will want a guide for. Roches (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Inception Date?

When did those students create that first $50 version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabd sound (talk • contribs) 10:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Josephantony1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Arduino IDE

I have blanked and redirected Arduino IDE to Arduino#IDE in accordance with the AfD discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Arduino IDE and the unopposed suggestion at talk:Arduino IDE#Redirect to Arduino. Felix QW (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)