The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:29, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been tagged as "unsourced" for almost 9 years, and been a stub for 13 years. Time for it to go away, unless somebody can find a source. Good luck with that: the article originated as a redirect to dot matrix printer; then somebody else decided this was a "fallacious" synonym and wrote their own definition. Neither definition has any real world usage that I can find. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that nobody cares about this article to argue for or against. Another reason to delete it. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon: Interesting. It appears I was wrong about the term never being used. But in this case, it appears to mean the same thing as "dot matrix printer". Which is an argument for reverting the article to its original redirect role instead of deleting. Thoughts? Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't an article about a category of printers. It's a dictionary definition of a term. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Maproom (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to dot matrix printer. I was unable to find sources in my search, and kudos to Guy Macon for tracking one down. The topic still seems far below WP:GNG notability thresholds, but with this now a verifiable historical term, I can support restoration to a redirect as a synonym for dot matrix printer. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:GNG, It seems nobody cares about it Alex-h (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though the technology is distinct from the dot-matrix printer, I think this difference is highlighted well-enough on the Printer page by classifying it under "Typewriter derived printers". So even if this page is deleted, I don't think the idea that it captures will be lost. I don't think it will matter whether a well-sourced reference for the term is found or not. A separate article is overkill. A really paranoid android (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With a dot-matrix printer, there is a generic (single) printing mechanism for any and all characters the printer can print; the printer head can form all possible characters that the printer's firmware supports. With type-writer derived printers, the individual characters are pre-defined mechanically (there will, for example, be distinct striking mechanisms / wheel positions for 'a' and 'A'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvin The Paranoid (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Based on the information that Guy Macon provided, below, I suspect that the definition that I had assumed the article meant may not correspond to the actual term / title used by the article. i.e. Character Matrix printing may not mean what the article claims it is, even though the classification of printing technologies that the article describes is a real thing, and is distinct from dot-matrix printing technology. Doesn't change my vote, and I don't think it is changing the consensus that is building here, to delete the article. A really paranoid android (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only reference that I could find (see above) contains no evidence that a character matrix printer is in any way different from a dot matrix printer. Further research led me to the following on our Variable-message sign page:
"Dot-matrix variable message signs are divided into three subgroups: character matrix, row matrix, and full matrix. In a character matrix VMS, each character is given its own matrix with equal horizontal spacing between them, typically with two or three rows of characters. In a full matrix VMS, the entire sign is a single large dot matrix display, allowing the display of different fonts and graphics. A row matrix VMS is a hybrid of the two types, divided into two or three rows like a character matrix display, except each row is a single long dot matrix display instead of being split per character horizontally."
Here is a picture of a character matrix road sign:
I have seen the same thing on watch displays. Some of them have a large array of pixels and can display different size fonts, graphics, etc. Others have a matrix of pixels for the character, but no pixels between the characters. Here is an example:
The "SUN" on the display is an array of pixels. Depending on the mode, it displays UTC, ALM STW TMR, SUN/MON/... (7 days of the week) SYD/TYO/ROM/LAX/... (dozens of city codes) but it never turns on a pixel between the characters -- because it has no pixels there.
So my conclusion as an engineer who regularly designs this sort of thing is that a "character matrix display" is a real thing, but a "character matrix printer" is most likely not a thing that ever existed except as a marketing department's fancy way of saying "dot matrix printer". Unlike the examples above where having blank space between characters saves money, there is no advantage to having parts of the paper where the print head cannot print. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think an interesting article could be written on the subject of things which generate text by assembling a sequence of pre-existing and finite character shapes, as opposed to forming arbitrary shapes by a dot matrix of some sort. In addition to the examples given in this article, I would include old-fashioned label makers, steel character stamps, linotype machines, and early phototypesetters. But, this isn't that article, and there's no indication that the term "Character matrix printer" is a real term. -- RoySmith(talk) 01:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
