Talk:Near letter-quality printing

Requested move 14 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVED to Near letter-quality printing (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Near-letter quality → Near letter quality printing – WP:NOUN. The article title needs to be a noun phrase, not an adjective phrase. The move is contested by User:Pi314m. --Srleffler (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support alternate rename - To Near letter-quality printer or Near letter-quality printing per the precedent of Letter-quality printer. Besides that, it makes perfect sense._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Author comment - It is precisely to avoid confusion re "... printing" and "... printer" that I chose to omit either; at this point the article has even more re using SOFTWARE to generate Near-letter quality output. Question: is it possible to name the article "Near-letter quality (printing)" following the Printer (computing) example. Pi314m (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the article title should choose one or the other. Probably "Near letter-quality printer" to go along with "Letter-quality printer", per precedent. I'll leave it up to consensus to decide though. Either way "Near-letter" makes no sense and it should be changed to "letter-quality"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing the use of software to implement near letter-quality printing would fit under the title "near letter-quality printing". Staying at "Near-letter quality" is not an option, because it is an adjective phrase. --Srleffler (talk) 07:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm fine with Near letter-quality printing; it is better hyphenation. --Srleffler (talk) 07:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Isn't Near-letter-quality printing the more proper hyphenation? —BarrelProof (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two contemporaneous sources cited in the page use "near letter-quality" and none of them use "near-letter-quality"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word "quality" is a noun. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Near letter-quality printing. Quality may or may not be intended as a noun in this formulation, but both Near letter-quality printer and Near letter-quality printing are well-attested. "Printing" over "Printer" because the latter implies hardware. bd2412 T 15:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sourcing and notability concerns

I see that @Srleffler: has removed the notability tag I placed on this article. I made this edit to signal editors to try to find strong sourcing for this article which is currently full of unsourced text, cites to the NY Times "Tuesday Science" peripheral consumer advice column, and other weak sourcing. My concern is not that the citations are from 25 years ago, but that they are weak and show no general notability even at that time, any more than a particular kind of hair drier or toaster oven that was briefly marketed and narrowly discussed in consumer and trade literature. Let's go through the article and tighten up the text to eliminate what's poorly sourced or unsourced and see what's left. Naturally, mainstream Reliable Source secondary sources should be sought as well. Otherwise, a merge with the dot-matrix printer article seems like a good alternative. The cited sources do not seem to view high-density dot-matrix printing as a separate kind of printing, as the current title suggests. For example one of the NY Times articles does not even use the term. The other one dismisses it as "a neat little bit of hype." Not indicators of notability. It would help improve the article to restore the tag so that other editors see us calling for help on better sourcing. This is preferable to an immediate AfD in my opinion. SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I wouldn't object to a merge with Dot matrix printer. The topic is notable, though. NLQ printing was a pretty much universal feature on printers of that era.--Srleffler (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. That makes sense to me. I don't know how to do the merge/redirect. If you know how, perhaps you could do it when/if you have time? SPECIFICO talk 13:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Needs illustrations

This article badly needs at least one illustration to show the difference between standard and nlq printer output. 38.49.72.163 (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]