Talk:Gmail/Vote

message: *<BIG>Please read Wikipedia:Voting is evil before "voting".</BIG> Thanks. Stevage 14:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

message: I'm sorry if I'm being way off-topic here, as I haven't read every opinion...
But I think both #Option Abridgement and #Option No Abridgement 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#Encyclopedia.
--Cawas 19:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: wikipedia

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Garbage collection (computer science)|garbage collection]] 

message: 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.
#Krueschan 15:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Option Abridgement

message: 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:
*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)
thread_title: Option No Abridgement