Talk:Content management system

message: I'd like to request permission to add my link which for some reason has been removed numberous times from the external links. Of all the links you have listed here, mine is the most relevant and helpful as I have a) a massive list of cms listings found here: http://cmscritic.com/the-big-cms-list/  as well as reviews and article and interviews...
My link WAS on for quite some time until removed. I changed my domain from cmstester.net to this new one and now I'm told I cannot haev my link here, which I  have had for over 6 months now.
Please provide permission to add.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmscritic (talk • contribs) 18:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CMS Listings and Reviews 

message: "Where wikis replace older CMS or knowledge management tools, semantic wikis try to serve similar functions" (from Semantic_wiki). Have section on competing/similar technologies?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.85.249 (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CMS alternatives 

message: I came to this page 
looking for and not finding the motivation for using a content management system. What are they good for? What are they bad for? What sorts of people would want to use them? What might I use instead if a CMS is over the top? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.133.63  (talk • contribs) 
: There isn't a black-and-white answer. From personal experience, I'd say you'd need a content management system of you are publishing information that (1) changes periodically, but where older revisions should be stored and tracked, and or (2) the information is published in different formats (e.g., plain text emails, HTML newsletters, PDFs, etc.). That's an extremely high-level take on it from a non-specialist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pages, Modules, Roles, Users; that's how I start explaining CMS... Gifford Watkins (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivation? 

message: Ofcourse, the links in this article are an excellent way for CMS vendors to further their own cause *ahem*. That means regular cleaning of those links is neccessary.
Apart from that, I think it'd be useful to add in some links to professional organisations (AIIM, CMPros) and some general overview sites and/or blogs? I'll look some up and add them in, feel free to elaborate on them.
But please... no specific systems, on last count there were over 1800 worldwide and there's no room for all of those here ;)
I checked CMPros on June 5 2006 and got a blank page.
I do not understand why my link to http://pantzer.freehostia.com is constantly deleted. This is a non-commercial site with review of open source CMS. It is mostly concentrated on CMS that do not require the database like MySQL. If you would try to find in the internet any site that lists text-files-database driven CMS you would hardly to find the one. People who could be interested in this article on Wiki are unexperienced or future web-site owners. The information about text-files-database driven CMS is very useful for them, because if one wants free CMS he/she probably wants free hosting and many free hosters do not provide MySQL support.
Why my link is deleted but the link to http://www.contentmanagement365.com left in the external links section. If you would visit that site you would find that there is 5(!) signs "Register Now" on the main page and no useful information visible for non-registered users.
Then under the Title "Directories of available systems" is such a monter as http://www.cmswatch.com/ that is mostly profit oriented site.
So, why MY link should be deleted? My link was placed at the external links section for a period of approximately one day. And I had 28 visitors followed this link. That means that the infromation about CMS that do not use MySQL is needed for people who read this article on Wiki.
--217.157.158.36 13:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links? 

message: I'm removing the "Popular Open Source Content Management Systems" section from this article, since it both calls for edit wars and is quite unverifiable what systems should be there or not.  Note that wikipedia provides a list of CMS systems that does not make unverifiable assumptions about popularity. --Sindri 17:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Open Source Content Management Systems - removed 

message: The history section just got blanked (with the rest of the article) and replaced by a generic description. I reverted, but in the process I noted that the history section is pretty weak. It starts with Vignette (appropriate, I think), then talks about Pencom, which I don't think of as such a significant system--I might be wrong about that, seems a little spammy though. But surely there's more to the history of CMS's than that? I am no expert, but I'm hoping someone who is might pitch in on this. How about ArsDigita Community System? Slash? The advent of small, PHP-based open source systems like Drupal, Plone or Nucleus? Etc., etc. · rodii · 13:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The history section 

message: I've just had a suggested link to a list of pre-approved UK CRM Experts and Vendors deleted from the external list:  http://www.approvedindex.co.uk/indexes/ApprovedCMS/free-quote.aspx. I'm puzzled how other sites doing exactly the same e.g. Content Management 365, CMS-Zone etc all seem to be allowed to link to their sites?? Could somebody point out the difference please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.253.104.160 (talk • contribs) .
:You added a link, I removed it. I haven't checked the existing links. If you think other links are business spam too, feel free to remove them. Femto 12:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to add Blue Dasher from my company Tynken Interactive to the list of content management solutions on this forum. How do I post the link or is it even allowed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.51.228 (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest policy at WP:COI to see why this is inappropriate for you to do this. Perhaps some other editor may consider it. Perhaps not.  --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link Suggestion 

message: The first sentence of the article defines the term using all three words found in the term. Is it possible to define the term without repeating ourselves? Mattbrundage 04:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. How about something in plain English such as "A Content Management System is one of many means by which web sites can be created and edited." - ? John259 07:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A Content Management System is one of many means by which web sites can be created and edited. - no, in this case it's only a WCM Web Content Management System! There is a lot of other content around, that's too narrow ... Kff 17:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The current definition is definitely too narrow. It currently says "procedures to manage workflow in a collaborative environment" yet that is certainly not anything that DNN provides without additional modules. DNN certainly does not manage workflows without additional modules. Sam Tomato (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition (first sentence) 

message: Are document management and workflow in the scope of content management systems - what is the difference than between content management and document management for example?! Enterprise content management is not mentioned at all - is an ECMS a special CMS?! What about the relation to content syndication, portals, content integration - are these only similar systems or are these special content management systems?! What about standards for CMS - interoperability is a strong issue today?! In regard to ECM at least there is a new publication with definitions: ECM Enterprise Content Management, Ulrich Kampffmeyer. Hamburg 2006,  (English, French, German), PDF. 80.171.132.88 13:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ODMA is outdated and was focussed on document management systems. Kff 17:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of focus? 

message: I was running my random Lupin spellchecker and totally didn't realize that this was a vandalized page. Please accept my appology. I will spellcheck a little slower next time. Regards. Wiki Raja 06:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appology for mistake 

message: Is it me or is this page getting hit with far more vandalism than other articles? The rate at which this page gets blanked, replaced with nonsense or abused as a sandbox is unbelievable. Maybe it should be temporarily protected? --- Arancaytar - avá artanhé (reply) 00:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem all that bad to me. Try adding to your watchlist some of the one-word articles on topics with which any school child is familiar like cat, dog, lion or tiger. Those basic articles are relentlessly assaulted by unhelpful edits. ✤ JonHarder talk 01:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I've added an external link to cmsdownload.com because i saw there were no direct links to pages where people can actually have a bunch of content management systems categorized and available for download.
1st I wanted to add Sourceforge as a link but they are just too wide spread and people looking for a cms might get lost there. Then i found that place and felt it was more apropriate for the article.
Also i'd preffer to see only free cms links as they are the mostly used and might not create the feeling that the links are just ads for some companies to make an extra buck.
:Have you noticed that everyone seems to have a "useful" link? And links seem to be the only "useful" thing they have to offer Wikipedia? Wikipedia rarely benefits from another external link. I have removed it. You failed to mention that both your IP and the website you added both are associated with Romania. Pure coincidence? Care to explain? I propose that we remove all the external links from this article except for the DMOZ entry. All of the conflict of interest editors can add their links there. ✤ JonHarder talk 01:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To the person who would 'prefer' to see only free cms links - that sounds incredibly biased to me. I agree that we don't want this page clogged up with links to commercial CMS products - it shouldn't become a shopping cart - but to penalize companies who aren't open source seems incredibly biased to me. Either disallow links to specific products or allow them if they're notable, but your personal affinity towards free cms' should not be the standard for inclusion or exclusion. This is meant to be a resource for people, both free and commercial products are relevant.--Makingstrange (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added an usefull external link 

message: As a reader, trying to find information about whether CMS would benefit my writing projects, I read one section of definitions that seems to have two meanings for "module". I quote:
* Module - A content module is a section of the web site, for example a collection of news articles, an FAQ section, etc. Some content management systems may also have other special types of modules, for example administration and system modules.
...
* Module-based CMS - Most tasks in a document's life-cycle are served by CMS modules. Common modules are document creation/editing, transforming and publishing.
Should the first entry include two definitions, the second being "A CMS module is a step in the process of creating a topic or document."? Or is a better term available for "module" in the use of "module-based CMS"?
Tgkohn 17:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion of two meanings for "module"? 

message: I'm kind of a Wikipedia newbie so I hate to criticize, but I found this page disappointing. 
"A Content Management System (CMS) is a software system used for content management. This includes computer files, image media, audio files, electronic documents and web content. The idea behind a CMS is to make these files available inter-office, as well as over the web. A Content Management System would most often be used as archival as well. Many companies use a CMS to store files in a non-proprietary form. Companies use a CMS file share with ease, as most systems use server based software, even further broadening file availabilityTypes of Content Management Systems:
There are literally thousands of content management systems available on the internet. Each one caters to different users offering a variety of features which are consistent across all sites.
There are four main types of content management systems that each of the thousands fall under. The systems include:
1) Homegrown: 
Homegrown content management systems are software created by a single development company for their own use of their own products
2) Commercial:
This is the most widespread offering many different pricing options, plans and features. Unlike homegrown systems, these are rarely customizable. 
3) High-end:
Out of the thousands of content systems available only a select few fall in to this category. One nice feature is their reliability as high-end content management systems deliver robust solutions. Unfortunately the consumer is going to pay a pretty penny for these services as they tend to be rather expensive.
4) Open Source:
This essentially means that the software is available to anyone for free. The primary advantages are the price (free!) and that these systems are fully customizable since its open source code.
."
The first sentence is essentially circular. The second sentence uses "this" without a clear antecedent. The third sentence is informal. The fourth sentence is not quite literate and is unsubstantiated. And so forth.
I'm not a CMS expert, so I'm reluctant to actually edit it, but I wonder if someone more knowledgeable than I might not clean up this first paragraph. (I have no idea whether the remainder of the article is valid or not.) I came here looking for an overview of CMS that I could paste into a note to a client -- and this first paragraph falls way short of the mark.
I see that someone else above also objected to the first sentence. I'm no CMS expert, but I can write a decent English sentence. Does anyone like "A Content Management System (CMS) is a software system for managing the display and maintenance of content such as word processing documents, multimedia files, and Web pages"?
Charlesm20 18:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This content does not seem very rigorous. 

message: Hello, I am offering this as a suggestion NOT an assertion.
What I have in mind is a graphic representation of the relations between the different types of content management systems.  There is quite a bit of overlap when it comes to what ECM, DCM and WCM systems can do: granular permissions, versioning and other core functionality.  However, when we get out to the edges of what organizations are doing with their content management systems, there are different functions such as "in-context" editing for the WCMS.
My idea is that a graphic such as a Venn diagram be used so that the core functions and use-specific functions can be differentiated quickly and accurately.
All thoughts on this are welcome!
--Redlandish 19:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An idea to clarify the different systems. 

message: Greetings, wikipedians.  I humbly submit that an external link to a series of advice- and instructional-oriented articles is not vandalism.  The page in question is this [Feature Articles About Web Content Management].  Yes, we are commercial site.  The page in reference, however, is fundamentally a media resource with a quite a bit of meaty and useful analysis.  
I would be happy to synthesize and share all this information on this wikipedia page, but would not want to do all that work and see it disappear overnight.  This page does indeed need a lot of work (distinguish WCM from ECM, then define the two, provide examples, etc. etc.), but we would need a framework first.  Welcome your comments.
=== Take with Grain of Salt Anything Presented on Wikipedia Concerning CMS's ===
If you are a casual browser looking for information on content management systems, perhaps a comparison or listing of commercial or open-source CMS's, beware that there are impartial "editors" trolling in the CMS waters who delete both software articles and CMS-list entries based on their personal biases. You will not find a complete list of even notable content management systems here in Wikipedia because of the prejudiced, arbitrary actions of many of the editors.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.246.87 (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding an external link 

message: If you are a casual browser looking for information on content management systems, perhaps a comparison or listing of commercial or open-source CMS's, beware that there are impartial "editors" trolling in the CMS waters who delete both software articles and CMS-list entries based on their personal biases. You will not find a complete list of even notable content management systems here in Wikipedia because of the prejudiced, arbitrary actions of many of the editors.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.246.87 (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take with Grain of Salt Anything Presented on Wikipedia Concerning CMS's 

message: I have removed a link to this URL: http://www.digitalfunction.com/public/pag163.aspx . I argue that this page is not an article in that it provides no information or research at all. It is at most a blog post or marketing pitch, and an extremely brief one at that. To paraphrase the text:
:This article will explain how I see CMS and SEO. I disagree with the SEO companies who claim that good SEO requires moving to a new CMS.
:SEO cannot be performed by software, as software is incapable of SEO. While basic SEO can be automatized, you cannot trust the quality because it is not checked by humans.
:So you should use a CMS that allows you to optimize manually. Optimization involves structuring your HTML code correctly and writing keyword-rich text. This must be done by humans.
:Check these two links (Yahoo and Google).
:In summary, don't trust CMS vendors that tell you to buy a new CMS for better optimization just so they can sell their CMS to you.
Was that the whole article? This wouldn't be admissible content if it were on a blog, and it certainly isn't admissible when it is marketing material.
--- Arancaytar - avá artanhé (reply) 14:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough! Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link removed 

message: I have marked the article for rewriting, due to the reasons outlined by multiple people above. Basically, the article makes a lot of vague statements wrapped in verbose sentences, it loses focus of its subject, it contradicts its structure by first confessing that it uses "CMS" to mean "Web CMS", then adding a section about Web CMS, then a link to another article about Web CMS.
The summary is unstructured and too long compared to the rest of the article, which provides little more information than a dictionary definition. This is not the fault of any editor; rather, the problem seems to be a patchwork of improvements that stop short of the rigorous overhaul that would be necessary. The subject is unfortunately difficult to define in solid terms, possibly because of marketing buzzword usage... 
--- Arancaytar - avá artanhé (reply) 12:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the list format; I think it is the future of Wiki.  --John Bessa (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever. The opening sentence is still really confusing to a newcomer. It has phrases like "abstract away," which I don't think I've seen written in English ever before. I marked it. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motion for rewrite 

message: I have removed the link to CMS Ratings. This is a misnomer. The site does not actually link to cms rating but a bunch of outdated demos that are laden with advertisements. Wikipedia is not a links page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.75.219.240 (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Removed 

message: Itb seems to me that the section on Component Content Management describes what I have found to be basic functionality in most ECMs and WCMSs I have worked with over the last years and should describe an aspect of content management rather than a category in its own right. 
Vendors of module-based Enterprise Content Management systems tend to contain this kind of functionality within their main content management component. Modern Web Content Management Systems also tend to use the same concept.
Most facilitate structuring of unstructured content by setting Document Type Definitions or likewise when content is entered/fetched and thereby store/generate xml in "components" (weird term, but ok...) so they can be used in various constellations and contexts. 
So is it ok to get rid of the Component Content Management category and add something about the concept of aiming for granularity and structure instead?  
77.40.165.3 (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Component Content Management System?  

message: I am doing a class project on content management systems (CMS) and noticed that there is no page for mobile CMS.  I have already done some research for this topic.  Is it possible for a page to be created for this topic so that I can write an article?  Thanks. Red440 (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out WP:DRAW to have a discussion on this idea for a new article. Perhaps you might consider a section on this article on mobile CMS and the differences from full browser CMS. Be sure to have appropriate third party references for whatever you write. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add page for mobile content management system 

message: It is stated that OSS systems such as Joomla, Drupal and Wordpress have achieved dominance over commercial systems. Whoever wrote this is entitled to their opinion, but there are many people who would disagree. "OSS is better than commercial" is a long-standing holy war, so before blindly accepting this statement, perhaps the author is able to provide some facts to help us to come up with a less controversial text.
Dominic Cronin (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like you both are suggesting there may be a hidden agenda behind the phrasing of the statement in question. If the purpose of that editor had been to promote OSS though, suggesting that this is one of very few categories where it is superior wouldn't make their point very well, so it makes more sense that this was not their intention. Therefore, based on the context of it, "dominance" almost certainly refers to market share (a statistic), not product quality (an opinion). Simply changing "dominance" to "market share dominance" will clarify this for those who question the context. In accordance with Wikipedia policy though, this kind of statement should have a supporting reference. Also, I feel that a neutrality dispute was an overreaction in this instance, so I vote to remove it and make the appropriate change to the statement in question. Caben42 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I removed the disputed statement. It was unsupported, and it contributed little value to the article. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of section on Web Content Management systems 

message: I would disagree that IE is the most popular browser. 
All the statistics pages (Google and several others) show consistently that Firefox is actually the higher ranked with an average of 42-47 percent user base.
The assertion that IE holds the top position is pure personal belief and not a statement of fact.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.105.27 (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: At current, the general consensus of browser tracking services is that Internet Explorer still has a market share of roughly 48-66%, and Firefox has roughly 20-33%. (See Usage share of web browsers) The source that claimed Firefox has a "42-47 percent user base" was probably doing some statistical cherry-picking from tech-related sites, which tend to have a significantly higher percentage of hits from non-IE browsers. Caben42 (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: May not even be anything as overt as cherry-picking. Especially in the case of the Google stats, there's a strong selection bias there since Firefox has had its default start page include a Google search for some time now. Geminidomino (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Browsers 

message: It would be more appropriate specific domains of use, because that's what it is. It's not a systematization (as the terms category and type suggest), just a simple enumeration of domains of use.
The list is most likely incomplete, and currently has seven rows, not six.
86.127.64.6 (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformulate section "Types of CMS" 

message: there seems to be some repetitive info on your page  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.162.155 (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduce repetitive duplicate input  

message: Content management system could be merged with Content Management, as they are both discussing the methods of CMS. This page could become a section within the existing page. Topic is up for discussion. 
--OJB2010(OBR) (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, adding merge tags. -- Beland (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Agree merge This might be a chance to resolve some of quality issues. --Aeroid (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Page Merge? 

message: As far as I can tell, this section is about something that doesn't exist, at least under this name (as one might suspect, given that it links to nowhere). On googling it, the only relevant hit that comes up is this section itself (unfortunately for me--I'm looking unsuccessfully for what this section purports to be about). So I would suggest either finding supporting material under a more appropriate name, or merging it back into the main article. · rodii · 16:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One further investigation, this whole section is the author's only edit ever. It has no refs, and has never gotten any followup, so I'm deleting it. · rodii · 16:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Also removed it from the Template:Content management systems --Aeroid (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group content management systems 

message: I have not looked closely at the grammar, but I see "CMS's" that should be "CMSs" (without an apostrophe). I wish that people that contribute to Wikipedia learn the basics of English but since that is not always the case, someone need to clean up the mistakes. Sam Tomato (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: This article describes CMSs as if the word content refers to documents. I know that the DNN interface manages modules and skins, not documents. Some of the DNN Modules do manage documents and provide collaboration but the DNN software itself does not do that. It would really help to state that a CMS manages modules, where in this context the word module is general and could be a different word depending on the CMS and such. If there are CMSs that do manage documents directly then that should be stated explicitly as a difference among CMSs. I am not familiar with SharePoint but I am familiar with IBM PROFS. IBM PROFS existed before the internet became used widely but it is sometimes described as a CMS. I know it managed documents, not modules or the equivalent of modules. Therefore there is a need for a distinction. Sam Tomato (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is content modules or documents? 

message: I flagged it as needing a better source, as a 25% usage is reasonable, but the source itself is questionable - for example it claims that Wikia runs on WordPress, which I cannot find any source for. Also claims that Adcash uses WordPress, but once again, I cannot find a source for that.
ChlorideCull (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  WordPress popularity claim 

message: Wikipedia should aim to be more than a dictionary. 85.73.195.88 (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reads like a dictionary 

message: There are no CMSs that are not implemented on the web .. unless someone can point me to any that i missed?
so lets remove the Web CMS page and rewrite this one. This proposal is part of my just started effort to sort out the problems of pages refering to various frameworks .. WIP in my sandbox. — vulcan_ (talk · contribs) 05:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge this page with [[Web content management system]] 

message: I do use Wikipedia a lot, therefore the following stood out to me.
Please visit the log changes for this page and lookup edit entry: 20:20, 14 June 2018‎ 207.35.136.146 (talk)‎ . . (5,039 bytes) (+14)‎
I know WordPress, Joomla, Drupal.. even TYPO3, Magento, PrestaShop, and so on, so forth. The problem I have with this, is that any one title is more likely to be in the sentence of "other popular CMS like Joomla and Drupal", then currently written.
Please review? Or what should I do? 
91.105.18.29 (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnoticed edit - statistical mismatch of mentioned CMS title