Talk:Gmail/Vote


 * Please read Voting is evil before "voting". Thanks. Stevage 14:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a poll that would decide whether the Gmail article should be shortened (for example in the way that has been suggested in this version) or not.

The argument for the abridgement is that the current version appears (at least in the "Features" section) rather to be a manual than an concise encyclopedia article and that there is some information that is a) mentioned more than once or b) unnecessary. Furthermore, the size of the article goes beyond what's recommended as appropriate article size (important reading), for several reasons. There has also been a discussion on the Gmail Talk page on the issue.

wikipedia
I'm sorry if I'm being way off-topic here, as I haven't read every opinion...

But I think both and  are valid, as a whole.

My point it, the article is too big, and the main article should be shorten up. But no information should be deleted or removed. Instead, we should just re-organize it in more articles. It wouldn't be the first article to be sub-divided, and even if that's not how a Encyclopedia should be, I like to believe everyone agrees it is how our wikipedia should be: never need to lose information, just better organizing.

Please, look the talk at Talk:Gmail.

--Cawas 19:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

garbage collection
Ok, this is what's "new" on technology, although it's as old as Java 1.1 (if I recall corrrectly).

What we need in this article is just to throw the garbage to a stack pile (subarticles) and see what happens from there.

Simple as that. Baby steps.

I can do it, but I have no time in hands right now. I just hope someone else can get it done before I get the time, because I don't know when that will be.

Thanks for your time.

--Cacumer 06:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Option Abridgement
This option would shorten/summarise the article in the sections "Features" and "Development". That could include to move the very detailed information in these two sections to new articles as Gmail Features or Gmail Development and link to those.


 * 1) Krueschan 15:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Scott Bell 16:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC) - As long as the information is kept in seperate articles for people who want in-depth detail on Gmail, I think the article should be abridged. There's way more information in this article than the average reader would be interested in.
 * 3) Ravedave 17:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC) I vote to move info to other pages. Do not delete any info, it's all usefull.
 * 4) Split off the info into the subpages; the stuff is useful and reasonably encyclopedic although detailed and should be kept. The features part clearly should get a subpage; for the development section, it is less clear.  Perhaps the development section should be called a history section. -R. S. Shaw 05:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) I agree with splitting off as described up by R. S. Shaw, keeping a small section for features that will only be a few sentences long, and will link to a Main Article that explains the features in detail. Sinan Taifour 08:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Please shorten it, it is *huge* right now. It's just an e-mail service. I agree that it should be split into sections instead of butchered though (after all, I hate removing information). 66.75.49.213
 * Well. I already did it once: in this version the 'features' section is reduced to a few sentence overview - the extensive description of the features, however, was not moved to a new page. EliasAlucard, however, reverted that edit and suggested to vote first (which is fair enough). I, personally, don't have time to do anything here until early/mid October - so why not use this old version and do the edits yourself? --Krueschan 14:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) As far as I was aware, when articles get large, they are shortened into subarticles. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  02:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I'd like it shortened - when even the menu runs dozens of lines -- which is longer than some (non-stub) articles are! - you know that the article is drifting from an encyclopedic entry to a manual. I feel that this article would do much better to just cite a few key improvements and link out to the gmail site. Janet13 18:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) That's actually a very good point from Janet13. I totally agree. But it doesn't need to lose information to get shortened, specially if so many people like that information in here. So, just re-organizing would be the best solution, I think.--Cacumer 03:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) I also would like it shorter, but spread out accross several articles, just so that anyone who wants detailed information(I did when I got my gmail account) can still have access to it Fshy93 22:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Lots of rewriting is needed, but I oppose subarticles since a good entry here would work with most current info - the leftover info would be stuff I'd argue as obsolete anyway, plus repetition within the page itself. I just suggested some things here.
 * 1) BWF89 We should shorten the main article on GMail and fork some of the sections into seperate articles. The average user isn't going to want to read that much about GMail 12:04, 09 Feburary 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Long articles are harder to read and harder to edit (in a consisitant manner), I say split it up. OoberMick 15:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Option No Abridgement
This option would not shorten the article.


 * I don't think there's a need for abridgement. The 32 kb size for articles is pretty much a general recommended size for articles, or as it says: "preferable". It's not like it's not allowed to have articles longer than 32 kb. There are many articles on Wikipedia that must have more content than that. Examples to look at are:
 * I don't think there's a need for abridgement. The 32 kb size for articles is pretty much a general recommended size for articles, or as it says: "preferable". It's not like it's not allowed to have articles longer than 32 kb. There are many articles on Wikipedia that must have more content than that. Examples to look at are:


 * Jesus
 * Mozilla Firefox (very similar in content to the Gmail article)
 * Cat
 * Cheese


 * And there's a lot more than that. Some articles are rich in content due to the interest of the contributors, and, not to forget, the subject itself, and how much publicity it generates; some articles just don't have enough material to write about, some do.


 * While surely the Gmail article has some redundant information that's quite not worth to preserve in history, I think that most of the stuff in it is quite interesting for those who really want to learn more about Gmail. I've learned a lot about Gmail and other useful stuff from the Gmail article. I wish the same for everyone else, and frankly, a lot of people would miss out on it if they had to go through the trouble to click on yet another wikilink (yes, there are people who happen to be that lazy).


 * Also, something worth mentioning is that this is NOT a normal encyclopedia. In normal encyclopedias, they don't have a virtually limitless amount of contributors, therefore, they can't waste too much time on writing a lot about less important subjects like Gmail. We on the other hand can. We shouldn't squander that ability by conforming too much to real encyclopedias. That's why Wikipedia kicks ass. This is how a perfect encyclopedic article would've been about Gmail:


 * Gmail is a free webmail from Google. It is famous for its huge storage of over 2 GigaByte. It requires invitations to get an account.


 * And that's it. They honestly wouldn't write more than that. They don't have time. EliasAlucard|Talk 13:59, 02 Sept, 2005 (UTC)


 * It's long, wordy and boring But I do not see anything wrong with the length. I personally think some areas can be combined and that some content (especially the section that tells someone in Germany to break their laws) should be removed.  If there is some debate about a particular piece, I would more likely comment on that portion.  Also, the authors may want to create a Wikibook instead of putting all this information here.  Once there it will not need to be there. --Terry 17:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Length is still OK. --User:Sweets (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The important thing is that the term can be understood by reading just the first few sentences. Additional info is almost always good, so long as it adds to the reader's understanding of the term (i.e. is not misleading or confusing).


 * I think that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should try to capture a wider audience by inserting more information instaed of shortening articles. What will then be the difference between reading a cheapie newspaper article and this article at Wikipedia? Although I'm not an expert on gmail, I think that in order to uphold its place as an "encyclopedia", the article should not be shortened. User:Instantnood


 * I think as long as the interest is here (which it clearly is for the page to continue to be as well edited as it is) then we should leave it. If the information was dated and interest in the topic was minimal, I'd want it shortened; but as it is, i think it's fine. Caleb 02:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Article is not that long compared to many others, Gmail has been steadily growing, at exponential rates for a while because of the invite system. I think just removing redundant information ould be more appropriate for this article rather than summarizing sections. However, I would not to note the fact that Gmail will grow and new features are coming out so it may be necessary down the road, but at the moment, it's fine. There are articles in much worse states out there like the whole RuneScape series. SandBoxer 02:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The beauty of Wikipedia is that its content is perfect as a source for research. It is taking bits of information from everyone and putting it together to form an authoritative source on the subject, not a quicky explanation. That is what a dictionary-style one-volume encyclopedia is for. --Borisborf 22:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Too many links
I think a separate page (IE Gmail External Links or something) would make it look way shorter.