Talk:Micro Bit

Merged info

The merge was not helpful.--ℕ ℱ 22:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

There is some useful material in the old revision. I think we should try to extract from it, whilst cleaning it up to meet WP:NPOV. --RaviC (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I disagree. It was basically an unsourced marketing info page. Which is what it was. Much better to build up an article by summarizing independent reliable sources. --ℕ ℱ 22:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Page name

The BBC itself calls this the BBC Micro Bit ([1]). I therefore propose that the page is moved accordingly. RichardOSmith (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I did consider this, but the thing is that both forms of the name are prominently used. There is even a decent argument for BBC Micro Bit, or even BBC micro:bit to reflect that it is an evolution of the BBC Micro. Bit too early to be sure which branding will stick, I'd say wait and see is the best option.--ℕ ℱ 10:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

There are certainly uses of "micro:bit" on various sites that were talking about its forthcoming release, but there none on the BBC's own site and that is surely the benchmark? Perhaps "micro:bit" was an early working title? "BBC Micro Bit" is the name I propose here because the BBC is calling it that (along with "Micro Bit"). RichardOSmith (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

check out this bbc coverage from yesterday and it isn't clear cut at all - introducing BBC micro:bit --ℕ ℱ 10:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking at more of the coverage, I reckon "BBC micro:bit" is probably most likely - this is the branding on the product itself.--ℕ ℱ 11:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The Apple iPhone 6 article is named "iPhone 6" not "Apple iPhone 6". The new PCB in recent photos has "micro:bit" in silkscreen, not "Micro Bit". "micro:bit" article name is fine. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I concur. Let's leave it as it is. RichardOSmith (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Obvious counter-example: BBC Micro --ℕ ℱ 14:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Since there are numerous conflicts with using the one word "Micro", the "BBC" word is important to make the article name unique, where as with "micro:bit" there aren't any naming conflicts. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Per MOS:TM, it has to be Micro Bit. We cannot use a stylized trademark. Micro Bit is concise enough, and redirects can be used for alternate stylizations. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I would argue that micro:bit is the commonly used name. Both microbit.co.uk and microbit.org use this. Comparing to the iPad article on wikipedia, where the stylized name is the only one used, I think the same should be done on this page: use "micro:bit" or "BBC micro:bit". 213.113.138.247 (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I concur with the above, most 3rd party uses I've seen has been micro:bit and beyond the exclusive use of this on official sites, the "Correct brand names" section of the community page says it explicitly: "The device is called the BBC micro:bit" and "The golden rules are: don’t forget the colon in the name, and keep an eye on capitalisation!". Clearly the article should not use a space in its name and M should be lower case but I'm inclined to agree with the MOS:TM argument to not use the colon styling. My guess is they decided to transition from "Micro Bit" when the trademark was granted on 2017-01-03 (edit 2017-07-29: change of term seems to have happened in spring 2015; in media from 2015-03-12 "Micro Bit" is exclusively used which in 2015-07-06 announcement was exchanged with "micro:bit"). Kirkgaard (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

hi 108.88.63.99 (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

"Every Year 7 primary" ??

quotation: " give away the computer free to every primary year 7 (11- and 12-year old) child in Britain".

Year 7 is not in the UK primary age range - it is the first year (generally) of secondary education. Would someone who knows more about this project please change this if I am right.

Also - Can anyone help? The expression "every school child" is frequently used, in many different UK education contexts, to mean 'every state school child' (ie 93% of the UK school population). I have not seen it clarified anywhere whether the micro:bit will be given to the 7% of 11-12 year-olds who are in independent education. Does anyone know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.230.219 (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Re year 7 - it seems this is a regional difference - I'll remove references to primary. The independent schools question is an unknown. --ℕ ℱ 19:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It's *every* year 7 age child (ie 1st year of secondary/age 11 as of 1st September 2015) - State School, Private/Independent School, Home Schooled etc. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/interviews/interview/1001357/ is explicit on this point. ie *every* is used to mean *every*. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.88.101 (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

memory specs is 256/32 KB

article says it has 16KB RAM according to photo here http://thenextweb.com/gadgets/2015/07/07/bit-by-micro-bit/ the chip has QFAC code which according to product specification pdf here https://www.nordicsemi.com/eng/Products/Bluetooth-Smart-Bluetooth-low-energy/nRF51822 has 32KB RAM (chapter 10.6 Code ranges and values, page 73) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.175.38.42 (talk) 07:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

the chip is available as 128KB or 256KB flash with either 16KB or 32KB of RAM. the photo doesn't mean the board will ship with that exact flavor of microcontroller. I'll change it to 32KB for now until we can prove otherwise. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

thing is, if no reliable source tells us then we should not include these details. Having a guess based on our own original research is a step too far. Other sites will rely on the info we provide and just add to the confusion that already exists. --ℕ ℱ 10:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Which article states the flash and/or ram size? I removed the size from the article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

If any one change find a JULY 2015 article with the FLASH MEMORY size and/or RAM MEMORY size, then please add the size and a reference. Thanks. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Device is definitely 16K RAM, 256K Flash -- https://developer.mbed.org/platforms/Microbit/ (The confusion might arise because some development versions used slightly different chips, as people have seen from photos) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.88.101 (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Tense

The lede is a mixture of tenses ("is", "will have" "can"), and reads badly. I'd fix it, but I'm not sure which is correct. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. It exists now, but hasn't been given out in schools yet. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

LED display

The phrase "5x5 LED display" is not clear. 25 pixels? 25 characters? Something else? 50.184.101.91 (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Literally 25 LEDs. --ℕ ℱ 00:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

CodeBug

It looks like there is some relationship between BBC Micro:Bit and CodeBug. See the following links. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2015/10/features/bbc-microbit-inside-story
• https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/922345933/codebug/description
• http://www.codebug.org.uk/
• http://codebugforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=33

On the 28th August 2015 CodeBug was listed as a spin off as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Micro_Bit&oldid=678298304

The change on 29th Feb 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Micro_Bit&oldid=707580353 updated to change codebug from being listed as spin off to (original inspiration for micro:bit ) following an article in CustomPC magazine issue 150 pg 98. Given the length of time since the kickstarter the change can hardly be described as advertising a kickstarter campaign. 86.7.106.71 (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Posting wiki history isn't proof of the relationship. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

True, but the reference to history was to question why all reference to CodeBug had been removed claiming it was to advertise a kickstarter. Evidence that a link exists had clearly been established, in the wired article already referenced and subsequently in various print publications. Given there's a relationship, then why completely remove a reference rather than edit the description of the relationship? 86.7.106.71 (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Given the significance, should info on codebug go in the development section, rather than just in the links? 92.40.248.251 (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the external links section, because its NOT a Micro:Bits link. If we can find some good references and a reasonable story to tie them together, then I feel it should be added as pre-history. Don't add CodeBug without reasonable references, otherwise someone may remove it because lack of proof. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Some people hash out drafts and ideas in the Talk section before adding the text, so if anyone unsure then put it in the talk section and ask for feedback. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Another article that states the link that Micro:bit was inspired by CodeBug http://www.alphr.com/pcs/1002895/bbc-microbit-review-the-free-raspberry-pi-rival-every-kid-will-love 86.7.106.71 (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Who HiFive Inventor coding kit

As I understand, the "Doctor Who HiFive Inventor coding kit" is a continuation of the "BBC micro:bit", but based on RISC-V CPU. I found it is only mentioned in Tynker article. Alexey Vazhnov (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)