Talk:Gmail/Archive 17

message: Information about the Lavabit email service, supposedly created as a privacy sensitive service "in response to Gmail", has been added to and removed from the article. I note there was no description or discussion about it before either addition or removal. I have just removed an anon-inserted "See also" link to the Lavabit article (as AGF), and would like to get opinions on whether or not the service is related. Personally, I had never heard of it until the paragraph was put in the article, and then forgot about the service after the information's removal until tonight, when the link was inserted. It seems to me that the see also section should be limited to Google-related things, or at least very notable subjects. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 05:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lavabit: Related or not? 

message: Does anyone mind if I set up an archive bot for this page? It seems to be growing out of controle. To start conservatively, archive threads older than 14 days since it has been last posted on? Martijn Hoekstra 16:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Per this template:
I believe most of the criticism in the section should be integrated in the relevant parts of the article. All (sourced) interface criticism should be moved to the interface section, integrated in the text, and all service criticism should go to whatever section is most relevant for it. The privacy criticism should in my oppion remain, as a base level section Privacy. As this kind of moves tend to be controversial, I'd like some oppinions here first. Martijn Hoekstra 13:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: Gmail does not yet have 3.5 GB storage. Take a breath (or cite your sources). My log in page says about 3502 MB which translates to 3.42 GB. Please cite your sources if you are making controversial edits. 
--Kushalt 22:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless Gigabyte#Gigabytes_vs_gigabits is wrong, 3.5 gigabytes (3.5GB) is 3500 megabytes (3500MB). It would appear that the legacy usage was for 1GB == 1024MB. However, this is now only true for computer memory. In terms of storage, it is 1GB == 1000MB. I should point out that I am just as confused (and I come from a computer-related background - might be worth looking at Gigabyte#Consumer_confusion too!) ~~ [Jam][talk] 23:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's rather irrelevant, I think. Updates of 1 GB should be sufficient. That's 1 GB == 1,024 MB. Given the article's statement of storage in whole-number gigabytes, using fractional gigs doesn't make much sense to me. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 02:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I like his ideaLink287 06:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL I was being sarcastic. (unless you were being the same ;-) )--Kushalt 21:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes i was kinda lol Link287 04:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's already started all right. Did you notice the edits from that IP (79.72.61.16) claiming a "God-given" right and "mental illness"? (S)He then degraded to inserting profanity. Sheesh! People have also tried to change 4.5 to 4.9, and "over four" has been changed to "almost five". We should ask Google to stop the counter just to reduce our workload here. :P Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 19:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'll ask for semi-protection (so that only registered users can edit) in the span 4.9 (now) - 5 GiB. Any objections? Martijn Hoekstra 20:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not a bad idea. ~~ [Jam][talk] 20:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Blowing off some steam, I'm not going to revert it, because it's not very important anyway, but an edit summary "In a couple of hours it reaches 5120MB and then it doesn't matter anymore if a GB is 1024 or 1000 MB, after that it should only receive updates when it has gone up by 0.5GB". If it reaches 5 GB in acouple of hours, why not update it in a couple of hours instead of now. So afraid someone else will get the precious edit? (hear me rawr). If you read this, Garo, don't take offence, I was just venting. Done now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have reverted Garo's edit, citing that the use of MB is always unambiguous because that is the capacity measurement used by Gmail. I have also referred them to this discussion and asked them to contribute to it. ~~ [Jam][talk] 23:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Always having MB has some ambiguity aswell though. 'over 5000 MB' could be taken as 'between 5000 and 5001 MB', in other words, it might convey a false sense of precission in the amount. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is less ambiguous to refer to it as "over 5000 MB" than it is to refer to it as "5 GB". Personally, I think that the vast majority of people will consider "over 5000 MB" to mean anything over 5000 MBs. ~~ [Jam][talk] 23:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Just pointing at the other side. I'm not quite sure if you meant that you also support 'over 5000 MB' when it's over 5 GiB, could you elaborate on that one?Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as Gmail reports that it is over 5000 MB (as it is presently), I agree with saying that it is "over 5000 MB", even if it goes above 5 GiB (5120 MiB). I don't think it would then need updating until after it hits 5500 MB. ~~ [Jam][talk] 00:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not yet! 

message: I moved this to it's own section, because it doesn't really fit in "not yet!", which was getting overly long anyway (it starts around the problems with 3.5GB).Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I weakly prefer using GB's, for the following reasons. To me, GB is more tangible. 5GB tells me more than 5000MB. Less decimals doesn't imply exactness. in case of i.e. 5352MB, I find "over 5GB" more correct than "over 5000 MB". And "over 5000 MB" may be more inviting to change to an exact amount by new editors (which has happened a lot in the past), which we can't keep up updating with. In the meanwhile, I do see the disadvantage of having to switch to MB during GB/GiB confusion, and very weakly the fact that Gmail uses MB on the site.Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think that if we can't decide exactly what GB is representing (1000 vs 1024) then leaving it as MBs is the best course of action. We've got more of a leg to stand on when it is MB, and should (hopefully!) lead to less arguments about the exact size and when to change it on the page. This is only my opinion on the situation though :). ~~ [Jam][talk] 11:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify my position, I believe we should use MB in the region x*10^3MB to x GiB. (ie, between 5000 MB and 5 GiB), and use GB otherwise. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Using GB sounds bigger, as it should, and should indeed be less inviting to those amount-update wars we've had so many of. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 15:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, we had our top3 editors give their comment on this one. If we don't get much more input, how do you feel about an WP:RFC? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It might be useful to get some outside input. An RFC sounds good to me. ~~ [Jam][talk] 16:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storage format 

message: dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu What ways can be devised for forwarding a week of received messages from the gmail inbox to yahoo email all at once?...
*Does Yahoo Mail still support checking POP mail from outside providers? I haven't used them in years, but they used to have a Bold textCheck other mail function and I presume they still would. If so, configure Gmail to allow POP access, then have Yahoo Mail download your mail through Gmail's POP server.
:Dated for archiving: Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to forward a batch of messages from gmail to yahoo email 

message: This Gmail article listed several sites in an "External sites" section that linked to "Tips" sites that provided tips and additional information about the Gmail. These sites were included for well over a year, and now have been summarily removed. Reasons given include:
:"Wikipedia isn't here to provide tips to Gmail users"
and
:"Wikipedia is not a list of links. External resource should have and *encyclopedic* value. Links to help page, hints are usually considered not relevant enough."
While I do understand the intent of the removal, I fail to see how listing these sites goes against the guidelines specified in the External links Help page. The links point to Web sites that provide more in-depth information that is not appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, but expands extensively upon the Wikipedia content. 
In fact, the inclusion of Tips sites and similar sites is completely consistent with the content of other "validated" Wikipedia articles, notably Featured Articles that have gone through extensive and rigorous Wikipedia validation. For example:
*In the Featured article about the Canon T90 camera, there is an external link to a Yahoo Group that is listed as "a useful source of T90 and other FD information"
*In the Featured article about OpenBSD there is an external link to "OpenBSD 101", an overview and information site.
*In the Featured article on Windows XP, the first External link listed is for a "Windows XP Tips and Tricks" site.
So what makes the Gmail article so different from other "featured articles" that include similar links, and can these linkes be reverted back in?
Further, as a point of consistency, if some Tips sites are removed, then in fairness, all other Tip site links must be removed. I tend to lean toward the side of "inclusion" instead of "exclusion" where appropriate, so I would encourage that legitimate Tips sites to be listed.
:Dated for archiving: Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are "Tips" sites valid External Links on some articles and not others? 

message: hi
:dated for archiving: Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  y6 

message: I have extra capacity in Gmail, 9030MB (8.8GB) Anyone else getting this? As well as more storage space for all the other Google features. I know other people have here:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewys (talk • contribs) 22:46, August 9, 2007
:Dated for archiving Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  9030MB of Space and other new features 

message: See also the above discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps Google's MB actually means 10^6 B instead of 2^20 B. IMO, one can't state anything other than MB (as given on the site), because to do so would be to imply that we have more knowledge about the number than we actually do. Also, if we were to use something other than MB, such as GB, we would have to give the conversion factor (10^-3 or 2^-10) from MB to GB and state that the original was in the ambiguous "MB". If Google would actually use an unambiguous unit, such as MiB, then we could discuss formatting it however we like, but it isn't our place to say we know more than what is (ambiguously) said on the site. ChrisChiasson (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google gives my storage space as both 5289 MB and 5.17 GB .  This would suggest they're using binary. Although I guess they could be using their own made up units; they don't define them anywhere.  Someguy1221 (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storage format RFC