Talk:Comparison of webmail providers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Signatures
Maybe a mention or category in the table about which providers include a signature advertising the service at the bottom of the email (a la Hotmail and Yahoo) vs those who don't (gmail, aol maybe?)?
[edit] Prod Discussion
As is my understanding from Wikipedia:Proposed deletion: If anyone removes Template:Prod from an article for whatever reason, don't place it back. If the template was removed and replaced, the article will not be deleted. If you still believe the article needs to be deleted, list it on AfD. --Cumbiagermen 20:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup
Now then, what is the community's concerns with this article's messiness? Personally, I think it's well-divided into sections, i.e. there are not too many columns, everything is color-coded, links are relevant and placed in appropriate places.
Secondly, why would it be incomplete? From what I can see, and especially with the good edits done this morning by kind editors, almost all of the columns are accounted for. Is this an issue about not having enough providers compared? Please, throw me with your acumen. --Cumbiagermen 20:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Importance
Given that a majority of Internet users have a webmail account and that these services play a large role in the Internet on a worldwide basis, why would a comparison of the major webmail services not be of importance? --Cumbiagermen 20:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. I'm removing the tags until someone provdes an explanation for why they were placed on the article. -- JJay 20:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you serious? I don't know about AIM, but Hotmail, Yahoo and Gmail are obviously the big three. There is no reason to list every webmail provider, however if there are some you want to add then go ahead. -- JJay 21:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am serious. If we don't care about other providers, how can we even pretend to be NPOV? This article basically amounts to free advertising for the services that don't need it. (I'm a GMail user, but I still don't see the point of a four-service comparison except in a product view, which Wikipedia is not.) —donhalcon╤ 21:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- You may claim to be serious, it looks to me like you are just trying to raise problems where there are none. You provided the link to webmail, I suggest you read the article, particularly the section about market share. Notice exactly which companies are named. Then compare to the list. If you still find POV issues start by working them out on the webmail page. We are also not "advertising" anything. We are comparing the leading services.-- JJay 22:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- No, really. I am totally serious. I did read the article. If Google has only a 4% share, why is it listed? If that statistic is accurate, it seems likely that there are more people who use webmail via Comcast, Verizon, and other large ISPs than GMail. So why aren't they listed here, too? There are more than four webmail providers listed in the webmail article, even, and I'm not going to claim that that article doesn't also need work. I don't think this list can ever achieve a neutral point of view, at least not without a much more specific title. —donhalcon╤ 22:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The point is to compare the leading providers. Not every provider. The name could be changed to reflect that. While your questions are good, the answers require more research. That is a time consuming process. But I don't see anyone trying to delete the webmail article becaue it mentions Gmail or Hotmail and not every other provider. Whatever Gmail's current share, it should be there because it's owned by Google. And because this is wikipedia, anyone can add other services or at least make a case for them here. You are not convincing me with the POV argument though. If you were right, logically, we would have to have articles on every player in a given industry. For example, we have Hotmail and Gmail and Yahoo! Mail. We don't have articles on every other player. I for one would like to see articles on every webmail service. Considering that you spent most of the day nominating articles for deletion, I tend to doubt you would agree. -- JJay 23:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- I second that. I think it would be wise and informative to have either a "Market Share" or "Number of users worldwide" column in the General section. I'll put the column up right now and we can start filling it in...--Cumbiagermen 06:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think that this article should not compare only the leading webmail providers - Gmail, AIM Mail, Yahoo! Mail and Hotmail. It should also count the major webmail providers outside the Big Four. I was the user who added the list of less notable webmail providers to the webmail article, and I think they should be listed here. The Comparison of web browsers article, for example, does not cover just IE, Netscape, Mozilla, Firefox, Opera and Safari. Adding information about market share or number of users is a good idea. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed! I support. --Domthedude001 22:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Inclusion criteria
Right now this list only includes the mail services offered by AOL, Microsoft, Yahoo!, and Google. Attempts to add other services have been reverted. I understand the desire not to include every non-notable webmail provider, but in my view it's a violation of neutrality to arbitrarily exclude all but the most famous ones.
By way of comparison, Comparison of web browsers and Comparison of instant messaging protocols don't exclude less well known entries.
I think the other providers noteworthy enough to have Wikipedia articles should be included here: for example, FastMail, mail.com, and Hushmail. Wmahan. 16:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Since no one has objected after a month, I have restored the links. If anyone knows of other providers with Wikipedia articles, I think it would be a good idea to add those too. Wmahan. 16:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Agreed, go for it! It should be open to almost anything besides really unknown ones. The ones you mentioned are okay. 70.111.224.252 15:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
posted by JCDenton: Why not add example E-Mail? Example: Yahoo: name@yahoo.com , name@yahoo.de , ...
Would be very nice
[edit] Yahoo Mail Beta
The yahoo mail beta information should be added to the comparison. It is easily attainable now. 70.111.224.252 15:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Security Issues
Things like secure sign-on or ability to send secure e-mails should be included as comparison criteria. --MatthewKarlsen
- I think so, too. Have you noticed, that Hotmail's SSL certificate isn't valid and also outdated? -- mms 12:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "forwarding"
in the bottom table, one of the categories is "forwarding". does this mean the ability to forward a message to another address? yahoo mail beta is indicated as needing a plus account, but I forwarded a message with a free account. --Philo 22:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
How?
[edit] http://thinkpost.net/
http://thinkpost.net/ isnt offering free email anymore. (it says clearly on the front page of their site if you just visit it). anyone want to update the chart?
--Hno3 02:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] nerim.fr and free.fr
Webmail of nerim.fr and free.fr does not appear in the list! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.41.137.29 (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] + UTF-8
This page does not explain which webmail is UTF8 compatible, and which is not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.41.137.29 (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
- Gmail, Live Mail, and Yahoo! Mail (Beta) support Unicode. A-giau 17:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Yahoo! Mail access Mistake
There is a mistake for Yahoo! Mail; free members can check their e-mail with other clients. Yahoo! users can see this by going to Settings > POP Access and Forwarding > Web & POP Access. Can anyone change the square to green?Digitalapocalypse 16:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Wait, I'm confused - [1] source says that POP In for Yahoo! Mail is free, but POP Out is for Plus users. Can anyone clear all this up?