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)

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)


With foreign individuals account access being given to the US FBI in secret can we have that added to the security section. I think it is quite appropriate to list the events which affect users security and privacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference? - Ahunt (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding a new feature - making Gmail messages self-destruct[edit]

I think it would be appropriate to list the new Gmail tool that allows users to revoke access to an email. Time Magazine says "users can set a specific time when the message will self-destruct, ranging anywhere from an hour to a week. And even emails without a specific self-destruct timer can still be recalled by the sender at an time, making them unviewable to the recipient." Here are two articles from Time Magazine and Any opinions on the topic? Cheers, Some of everything (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be a third party service, not Gmail. - Ahunt (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
It isn't good form to ask about including text and then put it in anyway before you have had reposnses. I have removed your addition as the ref clearly explains this is not a feature of Gmail but is a third-party browser extension for Chrome. The whole thing is pretty spammy as well. - Ahunt (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gmail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Gmail website listed[edit]

An editor has changed the Gmail website from the actual website of to the redirect of and changed the Alex rank from 89 to 4,928, which pretty must establishes the comparable notability. The editor's edit summary indicates that other articles use the redirect and not the actual URL, but that is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I propose that the article be changed back to indicate the URL as and not a redirect to that URL. - Ahunt (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. I believe this case can be determined simply by the Alexa rank difference. 89 vs almost 5,000 is a significant difference. If should be listed in the infobox at all, it should be clearly marked as redirect link, but I don't know if that template entry exists. LocalNet (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree, but can see merits in at least mentioning in the infobox, as that domain does have pretty clear notability in relation to this service, and is what is used on the user email addresses. So, I've boldly half-reverted it. The canonical domain ( should certainly be listed first. There are other domains which have historical significance, such as (due to a trademark issue in some countries, which was later resolved, if memory serves), but I do not think they should be listed in the infobox as they don't have the same level of notability and Google have been discouraging their continued use (but have no plans to actually deprecate them). Murph9000 (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
As I said, I noticed that all email services redirects to other sites (such as subdomains), but only the Gmail article lists a subdomain as a main domain, so I changed the site (I have no problem listing the two). Alexa ranking to is fake, since Alexa has no data on subdomains. Anyway, you might have seen in the Alexa ranking that Gmail does not occupy the position 89, prior to maintain a false information.Gusthes (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, fair comment, but there had not been previous mention that the Alexa rank was actually fake, and 89 seemed believable for the main Gmail URL. I.e. it was not obviously fake if you are someone who doesn't care much about Alexa ranks. If something does not seem believable, I normally do try to confirm it, but when it looks ok and not particularly contentious, I tend to just assume on good faith that the long standing content is ok when it has not been directly challenged. In some respects, the real Alexa number for is also fake (in terms of not usefully reflecting reality), as many users will not be using it as a web address and it's not something which attracts HTTP links on web pages proportional to its actual popularity. Murph9000 (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Is possible see that official Gmail site is (see the official Gmail pages on Twitter and Facebook for example, all of them they list There is no reference to in any corner of the internet, this is just a herd of subdomain without relevance. It is impossible to say that is somehow a "main domain". Gusthes (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Darn, why do you got to bring logic and proper reasoning into a conversation!? This is the internet, where we make up facts and use personal insults. Just kidding! Your argumentation is great and solid. I didn't even know the 89 number was false. LocalNet (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
In WWW terms, is the canonical domain, as all the other domains for the service are redirected to it. Murph9000 (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Is "" a part of an IP domain or an email domain? The two naming systems are treated separately on DNS servers. E.G. query a DNS about where the message "" gets sent to and it returns the relevant IP address. If do a reverse query on that IP, the DNS server returns FQDN "". Advertizing!! The article is short on a good explanation. Are ads inserted directly inline in the email, or just displayed during webmail access? If I POP download to my local machine do the ads get stripped out? (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)