From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Gmail was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Google (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Gmail:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Cleanup: Product integration: The data right now is a mix of old and new information, since videocall arrived.
  • Expand: Longer lead is a must for an article over 30kb. Three good length paragraphs would be suitable.
Priority 1 (top) does not seem to be up anymore[edit]

I looked at this morning, hoping to see what is described in the section on Poland, but I found just a notice that the domain is registered. I think the article should be updated to reflect this. (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Archive from sent mail[edit]

Earlier edit "Gmail does not allow users to archive from Sent Mail as can be done with the Inbox. Many users would like the option of a removable sent label which would allow them to clear and store sent messages as they can with received mail. This would allow users to choose a conversation in Sent Mail and remove that view without affecting the conversation in the Inbox. The only way to clear Sent Mail and not delete an entire conversation currently is to delete sent messages individually. An archivable Sent Mail would mean you would truely 'never have to delete another message'." was reverted as it's a blog-like unreferenced entry. Had to be reverted twice, so starting a discussion regarding it here, to avoid edit-war. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Has been reverted 3 times now. Warning placed on user's talk page. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

On behalf of[edit]

This section needs revising. It implies that Google implemented RFC2822 incorrectly, which isn't the case. It implies that Google changed this implementation in July; it didn't, it added a separate mechanism which works differently. Emails sent via gmail's servers will still display the same way in Outlook. It implies that Google adds "on behalf of" to email messages, when this is Outlook's presentation of the information provided. See revision 307525508 for an attempt to correct this; improvements welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user, there was a problem, and it has now been fixed. There are no longer comments on the message boards, and I can send emails from my own account without "on behalf of" being displayed. Get over the technicalities; the problem that users noticed can now be avoided with the new option gmail offers. This should be good enough. Timneu22 (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Technical Issues - Sep 1, 2009 outage[edit]

Prior to today, the Technical Issues section contained information about the February 2009 outage. Today a similar outage, perhaps more serious, is affecting users, and this information has been added as well. The information was then removed with the cryptic explanation of a reference to WP:NOT. I have restored the info about the September 1, 2009 outage. Anyone who thinks it needs to be removed should explain why here. For example, what specific section of WP:NOT do you think applies here? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have modified the page to indicate Gmail's demise. Wonder what all those masses will do for email now? Pay for it? Ha! Fat chance! (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there any reason to believe this is anything close to a permanent outage? I'm frustrated myself, but in the absense of such evidence, I've reverted. -- (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
As usual, we require verifiability for article content, so can't include analysis or prognostication that is not explicitly supported by reliable sources. DMacks (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, it's back up now. So it must not be permanent after all. Thank god! I was beginning to think that those Socialists in the White House were taking our Googles away from us, or something. (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC) as Spam[edit]

Do we have any information on the fact that some ISPs are refusing mail from Gmail's IP ( on the basis that it is a spam generator? Some of my single messages to individuals have been bounced and there are questions on the Gmail Help forum, but nothing official I can find. Bielle (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight[edit]

The 'Gmail Interface' section is barely 5 lines long, while the criticism section runs for serveral hundred lines. Shouldn't the summary of the interface section be given more coverage than the criticism section? EngineerFromVega (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Due to the huge length of the interface section in this article it was split into a new article Gmail interface. It would make no sense to then reintroduce this text back into this article, however if you think the criticism section is getting long and is dominating this article, it may be time to propose splitting it into Criticism of Gmail (which currently just redirects back to this article). - Ahunt (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm also thinking along the same lines. Even if we have a separate article for Gmail interface, we should include a bit more content in this article, at least 10-12 lines. A satellite article should be properly summarized in the main article, giving readers a good idea about the interface even if they decide not to read the main entry. Let's expand the interface section and reduce the criticism part. I'm against making a Criticism of Gmail article as we don't have an analogous Praise of Gmail article. EngineerFromVega (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
To add more to my above post, we should also expand History of Gmail section, as it poorly summarized in the current article. EngineerFromVega (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Well Wikipedia has a large number of articles like Criticism of Windows and Criticism of Linux, but doesn't have "praise" articles. Those are usually contained in the "reception" sections of the parent article from which the "Criticism of..." article was split, which is why I suggested it. I don't think expanding the "Interface" section by a few lines would be a problem - it is just a matter of not getting carried away and duplicating what is in the Gmail interface article to any great degree. - Ahunt (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Alright. Let's expand the Gmail interface and History of Gmail sections with proper summaries of the main articles. Also, let's propose a separate article for Criticism of Gmail with a 1-2 paragraph summary in this main article. As this article currently stands, there is more content about Gmail hoax and criticism than history, interface and features. EngineerFromVega (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
That all sounds good to me, but you may want to give it a few days here to see if there are any objections from other editors. - Ahunt (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. 1-2 day wait sounds good to me. EngineerFromVega (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?[edit]

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed I've changed the archiving to numbered archives and renumbered all archives.--Oneiros (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

redirect from googlemail???[edit]

Why does googlemail redirect to gmail? googlemail is different from gmail - I know, because I get email sent to my name at googlemail all the time, and it's intended for another person with the same name. Wikipedia is really dropping the ball on this one! Thomas144 (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is really dropping the ball on this one!" There is no such person as "Wikipedia". Wikipedia is every editor working on this article, including you. If something in the article is incorrect then you can change it provided you can cite a reliable reference to back it up. Opinions and original research don't cut it. - Ahunt (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Erm... well... you're wrong. I know because you get e-mail sent to your name at googlemail, which, if you have a Gmail account, would only work if the two were the same service. The e-mails intended for another person are most likely typos. --Zarel (talkc) 14:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
...and that is why we don't include WP:OR! - Ahunt (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia is not an individual person; I was referring the collective community. I think I understand what is going on - someone with my name in Germany had a googlemail account and was probably forced to choose a new, distinct name, but they forget to change the the "reply to" address in some email program. I actually figured this out from reading the wikipedia article, although the current writing is a little confusing, I think... Thomas144 (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Gmail interface[edit]

Since User: tagged the Gmail interface article for merger with this one, but didn't start the discussion, so I thought I would start the discussion for him/her.

  • Oppose - Gmail interface was split from this article because this article was too long to begin with. Merging content back would just make it longer yet, when it is apparent that both articles will continue to grow over time. If Gmail interface needs improving then improve it, merging will not accomplish that. - Ahunt (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • support yes, the current gmail interface article has more stuff than could be comfortably merged into this article. however if you look at the actual content, most of it is not appropriate for any encyclopedia article on Wikipedia, being thinly disguised "how to" and promotional advertisement claims sourced to google itself. The actual usable, encyclopedic and third party sourced material about the interface could easily, and may already be, incorporated int the parent article. (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
    • It's definitely not a how-to. One could argue it's WP:UNDUE though. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Are you serious? check the "organization" and "addresses" sections for example - the sources are all google "how to" documentation. (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
        • There may be Google help pages used as refs, but the article itself does not give instruction on how to do things in violation of WP:NOTMANUAL. There is no problem using Google as a ref on its own products, which is how these are being used. The article also has 13 non-Google refs cited at the present time. - Ahunt (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay this merger proposal has now run for a week and there is clearly no consensus to merge, so I will remove the tags. - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC) is available in Germany[edit] is no longer unavailable in Germany, although new mail addresses are still -- (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

We can add this if you can supply a reference. - Ahunt (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Added Gmail Labs List In Table: Needs Modification[edit]

I have added he list of current Gmail Labs. This was a heavy work. Help to modify this section. Thanks --Tito Dutta (Talk) 08:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed it, it was totally unsourced and thus failed to meet Wikipedia policy requirements and is essentially trivia and non-encyclopedic information, even if refs could be found for each entry. These are also experimental features and are added and removed regularly, they are not part of Gmail's core service. This list would require updating weekly to indicate which ones are still active, new ones added, etc and that is if refs were cited. It would quickly be very out of date. - Ahunt (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
1) I am not sure of it. I am a Gmail Help Top Contributor. Of course editor's personal experience does not matter in Wikipedia, but,Gmail does not make changes in Labs so frequently that the section will be needed to update every week. The last change in Labs was done on 31st May. So, this section needs to be updated every week does not seem to be a strong point. 2)And about reference, this can be added as a verification.

Currently I am not making any change in the article. Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 11:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Referenced or not I contend it is still WP:TRIVIA and thus non-encyclopedic content. You have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a technical manual that must include every minute detail on every subject. Big lists of available features like this are outside the scope of a general encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
If it is a trivia, then according to- Wikipedia Trivia Guidance "Trivia sections should not simply be removed from articles in all cases. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections, while others may warrant a new section." So, I suggest integration, and if that is not possible then I am suggesting to create another article on Gmail Labs. Without Gmail Labs Gmail (both article and webmail) is not only incomplete, it is meaningless. Currently the Gmail Labs section is below standard and does not contain sufficient information. I added "2 Labs Graduate..." few days ago in that section, but, that does not make any big change. So, you can say, the topic drifts here- about the standard of Gmail Labs section... By the way... 2-3 days ago, you wrote "Welcome message" in my talk page. Thanks for that! :) --Tito Dutta (Talk) 13:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I do agree that the existing section on Gmail Labs could be expanded and improved, but I do not think that adding a table or list of all of them available is what is needed. For instance we have an article on the Cessna 172, but don't include a list of all the different types of fasteners used to assemble one, because it would be trivia. You could start a new article on Gmail Labs, but without independent third party refs to show notability I don't think it would last long. One of the key principles is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are lots of editors watching this article (706 of them to be precise), so let's gather some more opinions as to whether this should be included or not and gain a consensus either way. - Ahunt (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Added Background Send In Labs Section[edit]

In the article I have included Background Send in Labs section. Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 06:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The .03 USD reactivation[edit]

An IP editor keeps adding this section to the article. I have removed it, but he or she reinstated it along with a bunch of external links that didn't support the text claims made. The text is at best a WP:SYNTHESIS and the section title is clearly WP:POV. Overall this seems to be an issue for the Google account article and not specifically the Gmail article as it deals with Google account administration and this doesn't belong here even if it were properly referenced. There seems to be an WP:AXE issue here as well. I propose the section be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm who add this section. Here my opinion:

1) The best reference for a gmail account is the gmail help page.

2) .30USD reactivation is an issue about both gmail and google accounts, indeed informations can be found in both gmail help and google account help pages.

3) The most important thing is that the references used are official google pages supporting the text. In particular, google explicitly claims that reactivation of a gmail account is in between few minutes if made via credid card, and can take days or a couple of weeks using other methods. This can be checked just by reading the linked references. (I cut and pasted the text from google pages!)

It is an important criticism as everybody can see surfing blogs. Blogs are not suitable references for that because they are not stable, for that reason I referred only to official google pages.

I propose section to stay here with the links to google official help pages. The information provided is correct, neutral and referenced.

The above critics of Ahunt are clearly made without even reading the references. It is not a WP:POV a text which is cut and pasted from an official gmail page. The WP:AXE here is claiming that references does not support the text or that it is not an issue of gmail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I have carefully read the external links you keep posting. The external links you keep adding (against guidelines, by the way, which says "they should not normally be used in the body of an article.") do not in any way show that this has actually happened to anyone or that it has been an issue for anyone or that it is in anyway notable to this article. There is no such thing as a "Gmail account", only a "Google account". I still contend that if you have reliable third party refs that show that this is an issue then it should go in the Google account article as it is no more a Gmail issue than it is a Blogger issue or Picasa issue. Right now you have not provided any reliable third party sources to show that this is notable and therefore worth mentioning. The axe reference is that this looks like a Google account problem that one person has had and upon discovering that Wikipedia doesn't mention it thinks that it must be included. - Ahunt (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but are other third part fonts necessary when google pages report that that problem occurred to many people? Here just a couple of random google forum pages with posts of person whose account was blocked: "page1".  "page2".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Those are forum posts and are specifically not acceptable as references under WP:SPS. In reading the forum posts though, it is clear that the issue is not one of Gmail, but of Google accounts in relation to Google+. This is the wrong article to put this in, but even then third party refs, like a published review or similar are required to show that this is a notable issue. We don't report every little complaint that anyone has about subjects from forums in Wikipedia, because it isn't notable. - Ahunt (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I see this section has now been moved to Google account, where it belongs, if it belongs anywhere, and can therefore be removed from this article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised by the ostination of Ahunt. I really don't understand the reason he continues to remove this section from the article. He continues claiming that this is not an issue about gmail, while the references used come from gmail help pages, he continues claiming that there are no references while full-references are added.

If some other people is watching this discussion please post your opinion. I believe in democracy of wikipedia and I think Ahunt is seriously damaging it with its perseverance in canceling what I post. In my opinion now other people should come into this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA. Comment on the issues not on people. - Ahunt (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
We don't normally duplicate text in different articles. I suggested this was a Google account issue, you moved it to Google account, so it doesn't need to be duplicated here. Another editor just reverted your addition of the issue back into this article. so we now have a consensus to leave it in Google account. This page is being watched by 716 editors and if anyone supported keeping this item here they would have spoken up by now. I proposed that it be removed and as per WP:SILENCE we have a consensus to do so. - Ahunt (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not WP:SILENCE is just ostination: one user add a section another remove it, no consensus in that. If ona user gives up and stop to trying to contribute to this wiki page because the other is more perseverant, this is not consesus. There is no consenus in a matter which involves only two users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It is pretty straightforward - two editors removed it, no one came forward to support you in re-inserting it. You have no consensus to include this. Time to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. - Ahunt (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

ha ha ha, that's ridiculous. keep your page as you want I don't care... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


No surprise a Google page is locked. There needs to be a way to make corrections. The first paragraphs makes the claim that Hotmail offered 2 MB of storage when Gmail came out, and simply sites the Hotmail Wikipedia article to "prove" this bizzare statement. Hotmail offered 2 MB in 1996 before Gmail had ever stolen the idea from the large companies that had bought theirs from little companies. There are several more problems with this article regarding pro-Google stances, but locked web pages are usually locked by the companies themselves, i.e. Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 2. People hated the Microsoft monopoly but every idiot on the Earth is loving Google at the moment. In any case fix your mistakes, you fools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Pages are "semi-protected" to prevent IP address editing only due to excessive vandalism. Companies described in articles do not control Wikipedia pages. If you want to edit then open a Wikipedia account. It is that simple. - Ahunt (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Gmail: one account, all the world to choose from. Unknown (talk) 13.23, 24 Dec 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Update Gmail screenshot to new 2011 version of Gmail[edit]

Google has updated Gmail's look on November 1 2011. A new screenshot is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

gmail storage upgrades[edit]

Is the comment in section 1.1 regarding google storage upgrades still valid? The purchase storage upgrade page linked clearly states "Additional storage will not apply to Gmail." (zzyss (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC))

File:Gmailmobileviewgoogle.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:Gmailmobileviewgoogle.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Gmail Mobile View.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:Gmail Mobile View.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding competitors[edit]

I've added in this edition a reference to a video by Microsoft where Google is criticized for privacy issues in Gmail. Yet, that edit was eliminated from the article by User:Ahunt in this edition which had the follwoing description: "Competitor's videos don't belong here, removed". Is this right? -- Mecanismo | Talk 16:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If this video had been covered and discussed in a neutral third party reference then the issue might be notable, but the fact that a competitor criticizes a product is not notable by itself. - Ahunt (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • So, the only gripe you have with the reference is that it was posted by a competitor? That isn't a valid reason. -- Mecanismo | Talk 18:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Gmail Feature: 2 Step Verification![edit]

I suggest to add 2 Step Verification as Gmail's feature! --Tito Dutta Message Contribution Email 07:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Added here. LittleBen (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


I really question the value of having a list (now a table) of Gmail service outages in this encyclopedia article. All cloud-based services are going to have periods when they are unavailable. It is analogous to adding a list of flat tires users have experienced to the Ford Mustang article. I think this is really a case of WP:NOTNEWS and I propose that it should be removed from the article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Your question is definitely a good one. See this version of the article. Date>>Outage, Date>>Outage, Date>>Outage... But what was actual problem, nothing is mentioned, what happened in these days?. How many accounts were affected? Nothing is mentioned! And I have started adding furter citation in the section, you/we can remove the table and rewrite like:
MM/DD/YYYY: On this day Gmail users after signing in found their Gmail inbox, contact empty. 1.5 million accounts were affected!
But only "Gmail outage" does not make any sense! --Tito Dutta Message 12:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Well adding more details and formatting is one solution. Spinning it off to a separate article such as List of Gmail outages could be another solution. What I am proposing here is just deleting it as "non-notable", but I am more than willing to look at other solutions. - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
In addition to what you have said, yes, only "Gmail outage" and "no details" does not make sense I think! Also, I am not sure what we/you have tried to do in outage section, the section is actually "PCWorld's list of Gmail's key outage. In Gmail, you'll find Gmail outage in every week
2012 April 17 April 5 April 4 April 3 March 7..
So, I feel we should add only key outages with details of the outage, how many people affected since there are multiple Gmail outages every month,--Tito Dutta Message 13:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Since the outages are relatively common on Gmail, as they are with all web-based services, I think that makes this nothing more than WP:TRIVIA and that none of it should be included. It would be like including every small accident that a model of car has. It is expected and individual incidents are not really notable. Let's see what other editors have to say and see if we can come up with a consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Only most critical outages are (should be) included, anyway, I do not have any opinion on if we should create a list of outages, but, if we make a list, I feel, we need at least some details about those outages! --Tito Dutta Message 14:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well it has been a week with no other inputs. There doesn't seem to be a consensus to remove the outages, but I think we have a consensus to clean it up and only report the ones that are notable and reported in third party sources. - Ahunt (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

10 GB of space[edit]

Looks like Google has increased the storage space to 10GB: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The article has been updated. - Ahunt (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
And the second part needed to be updated too. An editor has made the change. He has heard some other things like when someone will buy 25GB, Gmail storage will be also increased to 25 GB. But, he is not sure of it, so has not mentioned anything about it.--Tito Dutta Message 17:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
OK. - Ahunt (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Added back "Security warnings" section[edit]

While this section has very little content, I don't think it should be removed without good reason.

This feature is notable enough to have been mentioned by multiple prominent international news organizations, e.g.:

The political ramifications of such a feature are interesting by themselves, even if the feature is less interesting. The governments of China, Syria, Iran, and others who like to censor the internet probably aren't too happy about its introduction. Google's clashes with China and fallout from things like Buzz in regard to dissidents in such countries have been in the news on multiple occasions, and are well documented on Wikipedia (see Google China, for example).

--Fritzophrenic (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

bbc ref can be added and more details. one line line subsection is looking weird. every new feature of gmail is discussed in some web articles, but wikipedia is not a directory! --Tito Dutta 20:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
hi, i have not undone it. but some clarification needed there! -Tito Dutta 20:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Renewed Official Help Center and Official Product Support Forums[edit]

Google has renewed its product help center (FAQ) and product support forums.

There are always users who say, "I've deleted my account and lost all my mail and contacts, can I get it all back?", or "I've forgotten my password / My account has been hacked, what can I do?"

Up until now it seems that the attitude of all webmail providers was, "This is a free service; it's not our responsibility to protect idiot users from themselves".

This new official forum support from Google to help users recover their accounts seems to me to be unique and notable — but has anybody heard of other major free webmail services like Yahoo! and Hotmail planning to do the same in future, or offering such a service now?

I propose to add a section on Support like:

Google offers a free Gmail Help Center FAQ, and a Google Groups Official Gmail product forum for official Gmail product support. Google will help recover your account if it is accidentally deleted.

LittleBen (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up here. I removed it because I didn't think it was all that notable. We don't include every small detail about a product in an encyclopedia article, just the main points. That said I am keen to hear what other editors have to say. - Ahunt (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Check it here: Google Help Forums! --Tito Dutta 12:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I changed the "ref" tags above to links to make it more clear what I propose to add. It seems that one has to be a member to find out what recovery options Microsoft offers, but Yahoo! does not seem to offer such account recovery options according to this article. LittleBen (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Gmail Help Forum is not an individual forum, over all it is Google Help Forum! Almost every product has a help forum, I don't think it should be added, it is already mentioned in the article Google Help Forums. --Tito Dutta 17:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't recall using the term "individual product forum"—maybe it is used in the Google Help Forums (plural) article—but most English native speakers would understand that to mean that "each product has its own individual forum" (within the Google Help Forums), which is what you seem to be saying.
If you look at the Gmail forum, it seems that the "renewed" Gmail support extends even to Google undeleting accounts that users have deleted, not just helping users recover accounts that have been hacked (or whose password has been forgotten). It seems that competing services don't offer support that extends even to undeleting accounts, making it unique and notable. LittleBen (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I am highly confused here. I leave it to Ahunt. Let me clear my points before that: the help section you are talking about, I am a Top Contributor (it means– highest level volunteer) of that help section since January 2011 (please read my/our interview in official Gmail Blog name: Tito Dutta), and the account recovery procedure you are talking about– I specially work/participate in that section, I know every step of it.
Anyway, 1) you begin recovery procedure from (Note the URL, it is which is related to and the URL is NOT, that means you try to recover the Google account from Google Help section, and not particularly Gmail account from Gmail Help. 2) Do you have Paid Google Apps account or Adwords account? If you have, you can expect a better support for similar trouble 3) This account recovery procedure is not new too, I used the same procedure to recover my own account in 2009 and have been suggesting the same thing in forums for last 3 years,
Over to Ahunt, who is much more gmail-Intelligent than me! --Tito Dutta 05:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I was pointing out that Gmail now seems to have quite solid account recovery even if an an account is deleted (I think I read somewhere that they keep accounts at least for one month), but Hotmail and Yahoo! Mail don't seem to offer this, so this feature is surely notable.
One suggestion that you might pass on to Google is that they provide a notice at the top of the forum suggesting that people with problems first check out the Help Center. There doesn't seem to be any link to the Help Center, so people (in the forum) are asking questions that are already answered in the Help Center. LittleBen (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So far it looks like we have one person in favour of including this as notable and two who think it isn't notable enough to include. What we need here is more input from other editors to come to a consensus. Normally we let these sorts of discussions run for seven days to give everyone interested a chance to look the issue over and add a comment to get to a consensus, so I suggest we do that here as well and let this run until 28 July. - Ahunt (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you read my post above? Hm? Okay, again, it is a part of your Google account recovery (longer explanation above), so, if you really want to add these information add in Google or Google account article.
One month– wrong, they don't mention any time, they say "recently deleted" (but it is surely much more than one month)
Have you checked Facebook account recovery system? it is much easier. so do you suggest it add similar section in FB article too?
What made you think Yahoo does not have good back up or recovery system, their recent 450,000 password hijacking? Please see Yahoo's recovery procedure (though I have not tried it personally)! --Tito Dutta 10:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Google search to include Gmail search as a trial[edit]

In August 2012 Google announced that a trial had been started allowing Gmail to be included in Google search results. Because this is just a trial I don't see any reason to include it in the article at this point in time. If it becomes a permanent feature than it can be mentioned. - Ahunt (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Important feature! We can mention that trial! I hate this feature and will prefer turning it off in my account! --Tito Dutta 13:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The problem I have in adding it, even with a reliable ref like the one above, is that Google trials lots of things and then doesn't incorporate them. It pushes the boundaries of trivia to mention these. The only reason I even brought this up is that another editor kept trying to add some spam link on the subject all over the place. The Guardian link is a much more reliable ref, but I am still not convinced the topic is notable, at least yet. - Ahunt (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Ya, I also tried to revert those. But, you were quicker..:) This sub section Gmail#Gmail_Search can be changed into a new section with Gmail search and Google search etc. But, I'll suggest not to add this right now. For example, recently Gmail has added a new feature– you can add unlimited number of back up phone numbers in your 2 Step verification setting. We have not mentioned it too. We should wait for some time, I think! --Tito Dutta 14:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Unique phone number issue[edit]

This requirement to associate a unique recovery email and/or phone number with an account makes it difficult for would-be spammers to set up multiple accounts. – How does it make it difficult to set up multiple accounts? And what is "unique phone number". I am using my (one) phone number with 4 accounts! --Tito Dutta 16:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


Um.... why is this? Have we just won the game? (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The article's history shows it is semi-protected because of persistent spamming of external links. This means that only established editors editors can edit the article. If you like you can open an account or, alternatively, you can make note here on the talk page of changes you would like to see and one of the existing editors will evaluate your proposed changes for incorporation into the article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


I think it is commercial, not non-commercial like the article stated, if you prove me wrong, I'll leave it as it is, if I'm right, I'll change it. --TheChampionMan1234 07:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it is pretty obvious that Gmail is a commercial product, based on advertising revenue. I have changed it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Gmail is like Google Search——you don't have to pay to use either of them, however advertisements are displayed. Advertisement-free versions (like Google Search for company web sites) can be purchased on a subscription basis. Isn't the term for this something like "a dual-model" rather than (100%) "commercial"? (I'm thinking of some open-source software that is available in a free community version as well as in an enhanced and company-supported commercial version).
  • Just looked at the article, and like the "free, advertising-supported" in the lede. It is surely possible to leave "Commercial?" in the template blank, and perhaps add info. about the commercial version that is part of [ Google Apps for Business] in the article body, if the article doesn't already mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleBenW (talkcontribs)

Terminating accounts[edit]

I think this article should include a section about how Google in many cases, without warning and user consent, terminate Gmail accounts. For instance if Google "suspects" that the user of an account, EVEN when the account belongs to a company, is under 13 they lock the account and demand money or a copy of national ID from the user in order to unlock it. To withhold or confiscate mail in that manner is illegal in many countries and a measure no other e-mail provider would ever take. It is quite extraordinary that a company like Google does this and I consider it the most severe set backs of the Gmail service. ( (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC))

If you can cite a reference from a reliable source then this can be added. - Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I can't. Apart from numerous Google support-threads, blog posts etc, that probably can't be considered reliable enough, there are no newspaper articles about it (as far as I can see). This blog post describes a part of the problem;
In this case the victim was an "underaged" boy whose Gmail account Google simply erased without giving him a chance to make any back up. Many people would probably consider that being a less severe issue.
But the problem is more grave since Google applies the same rule to business accounts, accounts that doesn't have a physical owner. If you can't "prove" that your company is above 13 years of age (who the F*CK can do that?) Google may simply erase all your Google accounts, Gmail, Youtube etc, which makes Google a very dangerous solution for companies. Unless all employees using the accounts at all times are willing to give up personal information about themselves (such as credit card no or a copy of their passport) to prove they are above 13, which a lot of employees won't do.
I think it should be put on a "to do"-list however for the Wikipedia Gmail-article and as soon there are reliable sources that one can link to it should be included since it is such a dangerous set back of the entire Gmail service. ( (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC))
Well it is noted here, all we need is find refs. - Ahunt (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Tagged as outdated[edit]

The article was just tagged as outdated. What needs updating? - Ahunt (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay lacking any answer to the question in more than three weeks I'll remove the banner. - Ahunt (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Garfield Email[edit]

There's been a "fact" floating around that gmail was originally a domain for as part of their free email service.

Sources for this point back to this wiki page under "Domain Name History". Was there an explicit reference to Garfield here that was removed? UpgradeTech (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes it was here at one time, but was removed as not properly sourced. It seems to be more of a myth than fact and many other websites carrying this story got it from here, which shows the dangers of leaving unreferenced text in articles! The biggest danger is that it gets reported elsewhere., like that article you noted, based on this Wikipedia article and then that gets used as a reference here, completing the circle of misinformation. - Ahunt (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Security section[edit]

The content from sub-sections Extra security features and Security warnings should be moved into a new section called Security. (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

April Fools' jokes[edit]

Every April 1st Google does some prank and we dutifully add it to this article. This section is getting too long and well into WP:UNDUE. I also think this is WP:TRIVIA, basically off-topic, non-encyclopedic and should be removed. Objections? - Ahunt (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless any of the jokes got out of hand and attracted significant press coverage, List of Google hoaxes and easter eggs is the place for a dutiful list of this stuff. --McGeddon (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Someone just added the joke for 2010, making this even bigger. - Ahunt (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay with no objections we have consensus to remove the section now, which I will do. - Ahunt (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Trademark disputes[edit]

Given the growing length of this article, surely it wouldn't be a bad idea to move 'Trademark disputes' section to History of Gmail. Objections? (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it would be better off there! - Ahunt (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Done. - (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Gmail interface[edit]

Gmail interface should be merged with Gmail since it does contain useful information that needs to be kept but should probably be moved into 'technical' or 'UX' sections of Gmail because this article would not be seen easily or come across with its current title. -24Talk 17:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It was originally split from Gmail because the Gmail article was too long. Both have got much longer since then. - Ahunt (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Resolved Ah, I'll just add some links then. Thanks, -24Talk 13:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good! - Ahunt (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Moving sections from Gmail interface[edit]

The article Gmail interface includes sections like Browser support, Language support, Applications and Google Apps provider branding, topics which have little or nothing to do with Gmail's interface. So I propose moving these four sections to the main article. -SD0001 (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - SD0001 (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Account termination[edit]

I do not understand why this is a 'criticism'. Google may terminate a Gmail account after nine months of inactivity.[120] Other webmail services have different, often shorter, times for marking an account as inactive. Yahoo! Mail deactivates dormant accounts after four months.[121][122] This should be removed, or added to another section. Right? -SD0001 (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this should be in another section, it isn't a criticism, more like a feature. - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
YesYOkay, I have moved it to the Security section. - SD0001 (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Twenty-four hour lockdowns[edit]

The entire sub-section is based upon a single, primary source – the Gmail help page. The listed reasons for lockdowns are copy-pasted from the source. The language used indicates this more like a feature and the primary source, of course, doesn't call this a criticism either. Unless we are able to find a third-party source criticising it, this cannot be placed in the Criticisms section. I propose moving this into the Security section. - SD0001 (talk) 04:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@SD0001: Seems that would make sense since it is a security features and has nothing to do with criticism. I agree. By the way, nice work on the article so far! -24Talk 11:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I have done a lot more work on the article than what you see! All those edits by IPs beginning 59. &120. that you'll see in the edit history are by me. - SD0001 (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Moved - SD0001 (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)