Talk:Email
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Email article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives (index): 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 | The Email system article was blanked and that title now redirects to Email. The contents of the former article are available in the redirect's history; for the discussion at that location, see the redirect's talk page. |
Unfinished merge of Email system
From a search through Email's revision history, it seems the merge of Email system was never completed. It is worth attempting, as email systems are a robust topic of study. Tule-hog (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Merge proposal
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- To not merge; unsuitable target; there is some sense that topic related to apnea might be a better target. Klbrain (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
@JJelax: I propose merging Email apnea into Email#Issues due to the lack of notability, small size, and overlap. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 02:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. I disagree with merging. The email article is about the technology while email apnea is about something comparable to sleep apnea. Email apnea is really about apnea while working or using a screen; the use of the word "email" in the name of the concept is an instance of synecdoche. We wouldn't merge butt dialing into buttocks. Quarl (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just to clarify that Email apnea is a Phenomenon not a validated health condition like sleep apnea. The same argument could be made that “Email bankruptcy” isn’t related to email because it’s a type of fatigue. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 21:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- No opinion on the merger, but this should be listed at WP:UA lol. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 08:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Just add it yourself! :) I can do stuff! (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Email Apnea is just the name for the effect that happens as a result of Email or computer use as a whole. I really don't see how email apnea can be merged into email. I can do stuff! (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Text/Plain Format=Flowed?
Should the article discuss the RFC 3676[1] media type Text/Plain parameter Format=Flowed? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
References
- ^ R. Gellens (February 2004). The Text/Plain Format and DelSp Parameters. IETF. doi:10.17487/RFC3767. RFC 3767. Retrieved April 14, 2025.
Energy use vs snail mail
I often hear people claiming that the energy use of email are higher than post mail. A fact based conclusion here would be good! Nallebrean (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- There's no mechanism for making a firm factual answer. A google search reveals lots of speculative articles and claims, some saying email uses more, some saying it uses less. It seems 'obvious' to me email uses less, considering the energy involved in manufacture of paper, ink, the fuel used by trucks to drive letters to and from source and destination. But we don't add speculative claims where there isn't a strong consensus among the sources. If you want a riposte for what other people claim, perhaps direct them to this article - [1], taking strong note of the title - "thought experiment", not verifiable fact. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 16:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.