This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
Assuming we (I?) do something about this one soonish, we should first address a few questions.
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)
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)
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)
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:
END QUOTE
Anyone care to take a shot at rewriting it to Wikipedia standards? Guy Macon ( talk) 16:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
This recent edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
"(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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
What about an Arduino Robot? It's available in Maker Shed online. -- 93.154.131.43 ( talk) 15:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
Does the official team have an opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanwolf ( talk • contribs) 19:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [1]
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)
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)
Here’s a good source: The Making of Arduino - IEEE Spectrum Cup o’ Java ( talk • edits) 01:29, 13 April 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)
Please upload a nice looking photo of the Arduino Zero to Wikimedia Commons. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
#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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
When did those students create that first $50 version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabd sound ( talk • contribs) 10:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
Assuming we (I?) do something about this one soonish, we should first address a few questions.
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)
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)
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)
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:
END QUOTE
Anyone care to take a shot at rewriting it to Wikipedia standards? Guy Macon ( talk) 16:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
This recent edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
"(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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
What about an Arduino Robot? It's available in Maker Shed online. -- 93.154.131.43 ( talk) 15:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
Does the official team have an opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanwolf ( talk • contribs) 19:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [1]
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)
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)
Here’s a good source: The Making of Arduino - IEEE Spectrum Cup o’ Java ( talk • edits) 01:29, 13 April 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)
Please upload a nice looking photo of the Arduino Zero to Wikimedia Commons. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
#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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
When did those students create that first $50 version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabd sound ( talk • contribs) 10:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)