Talk:List of content management systems/Archive 1

message: Until Joomla is added, this list is not credible.
Shouldn't it be List of content management systems instead of List of Content Management Systems as per the lowercase naming convention for nonproper nouns? --ShaunMacPherson 22:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved. Now fixing links. [ alerante | “” 00:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I just committed a major change here. Most of it has to do with seemingly advertising-related stuff and adding platform information. However, I don't know whether to add links to all, or remove them. On the one hand, external links typically belong on article pages; on the other hand, it provides links for CMSes without articles. What should I do? [ alerante | “” 21:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Proprietary" section is a mess. Wikipedia is not a free Ad platform. But removing all seems not good. Suggestion: something like list of wiki software --minghong 15:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

text: From a user standpoint, of someone that came here to try to see if another CMS would do better than the one I usually use, something like the list of wiki software would be much more helpful in allowing me to select a solution. So not only does it make it a bite more wiki-friendly, but it's also more useful to people that actually do need something. --Nobody 00:18, 17 Aug 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting of CMS entries 

message: I've tidied the proprietary entries up and tried to split them into groups.  A fiscal split seemed as good as any.
With the open source cms products we appear to be listing versions of the same cms product, is this helpful/necessary?
Richard.  11 July 2005
:I didn't notice duplications in the open source cms products.  It looks a lot better imo now with a chart, only thing really missing is the licenses in the open source section. --ShaunMacPherson 04:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidy of proprietary 

message: And it still isn't :-(   There was a feature comparison of CMS products that has dropped off the face of the earth, anyone know what happened to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.127.20 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 21 February 2006 (EDT)
:There was an older article which attempted to do feature comparison, and which was deleted at the end of January following this discussion. After that, the "list of content management systems" article was redirected here. Ubernostrum 11:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was actually moved over the redirect that used to exist here by Karnesky. æle ? 13:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did this become a comparison? 

message: I took this out.  It's an advert, obviously. --172.209.251.220 13:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  consolo advert 

message: I've just gone through and changed all the website links to make the address visible on the page. The default numbers seem to imply a reference.
But this article is in need of a major cleanup. There are huge inconsistencies and many of the "descriptions" sound suspiciously like ads. For example:
"Numotion CMS is a powerful, awarded content management system to develop and manage internet, intranet or extranet websites, organize online information and add value to businesses."
Sean Hayford O'Leary 06:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the Members column in commercial medium for? --Sindri 15:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 2006 Cleanup 

message: Have there been any further thoughts about the tidy?  It may be worth using this page to identify points of comparison for people wishing to find out more about CMS products then push the lists onto seperate pages?
:The page is certainly a mess. One user has already commented in an edit summary that the article could be deleted as a re-creation of a previously deleted article. The number of redlinks is huge and WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. If I don't see any objections from regular contributors here in the next couple of days, I'm going to go through and remove all of the systems that don't have their own articles in an effort to turn this article into something useful. In my opinion, the huge number of redlink entries in the list are nothing but spam. If an expert in the field would link to volunteer to prune the list, leaving the redlinked entries which they consider significant, that would be a better option. If I have to do the cleanup, I'll just kill all of the redlinked entries. --GraemeL (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been meaning to get at that too, but it's daunting, due to the sheer volume of redlinks and inevitable howls of protest that will come next. Let's have at it but be prepared to restore deleted entries as necessary. · rodii · 16:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, done. Everyone is welcome to check the diffs and comment on any important products that were redlinked. --GraemeL (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: See "inevitable howls of protest" above. · rodii · 13:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidy 

message: Was surprised to find what appears to be an outdated or incomplete list. One of the leading ECM providers is OpenText who offers the LiveLink product set. Maybe I missed something, but I did not see any of their offerings. Can anyone provide corrections to the page as well as any other insights? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.106.72 (talk • contribs) 
:Yes, you can. This is the free encyclopedia anyone can edit. · rodii · 21:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PRODUCT & VENDOR OFFERING LIST & COMPARISON

message: Start of Clean-up to allow a proper comparison of the various CMS's. May need to add a column or two. Feed back appreciated.
144.138.184.34 14:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Start of Clean-up 

message: Could someone say what the "last version" column is useful for? It's exactly the type of information that, even with lots of edits by lots of reviewers, is bound to be often out-of-date. If nobody objects I'll probably remove it soon. ClementSeveillac 10:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree! What the last stable version is is only slightly relevant for open source systems, where some end user might be picking a version from a download site (usually such a site will actually point out witch one is the latest). --Sindri 12:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Version numbers?

message: The division of the systems by price isn't that useful - if the CMS is priced by number of users/editors/instances/documents or is available in commercial/non-commercial versions it could end up in all the tables or none. Any ideas on a better layout? Yomangani 14:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: I have added the thirds time the toendaCMS to the list of free content management systems. I dont know why anyone delete it sometimes ...
--84.137.70.53 12:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: I have noticed that the following systems are missing from the list: LifeRay (Java-based), pMachine (PHP), ExpressionEngine (PHP), GoingOn (hosted). I am a user not an editor and I don't feel qualified to edit the list. However, I wonder whether there's a reason to leave those out?
--TS 13:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made wikilinks out of your entries so we could see which ones have articles, and as you can see, pMachine and ExpressionEngine (which are very closely related) do. The pMachine link goes to pMachine the company; pMachine the software has been superseded by ExpressionEngine, which is one of the blog engines listed at Blog. So I guess the question is, is ExpressionEngine enough of a true CMS (above just being used for blogging) to be included here as well? I think it's definitely notable enough. · rodii · 13:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it calls itself a web publishing system, ExpressionEngine is used for running websites and intranets from news sites to music downloads to project managements so I think it qualifies as a CMS seeing how it has been used myself.--Reedmaniac 06:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: LifeRay is probably actually notable dispite not having a wikipedia entry. It' seems it did have a article before, but that was deleted because of NNPOV. --Sindri 16:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions of almost free and hosted CMS

message: I added a CMS product to the comparision a few times and it keeps getting deleted.  I was wondering what criteria was used to judge which CMS solutions make the comparision list?
As a follow up thought, it would be great to publish such criteria so that we can all save time by knowing this before we start the editing/approval process.
:So when you edited the article, did you not notice the note that saysThis is a comparison of NOTABLE CMSs, as judged by the existence of articles on Wikipedia. Please don't add external links or wikilinks to nonexistent articles--write an article instead to demonstrate notability. Redlinks, external links, and links to articles that aren't on the CMS in question will periodically be pruned. Please fill in the background info too, please, to make this article useful. Thanks.? Or read this talk page where this is discussed (see the sections two and three above this one)? · rodii · 22:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for CMS Listings? 

message: I would like to start a real disussion on formalizing the list of CMS vendors.  The current method of editing seems to be to delete all vendors that do not have a Wikipedia listing, under the assumption that having a Wikipedia article makes the vendor 'notable'.  This standard was established by a very small set of authors over a very short period of time, and there appears to be more people that disagree with this practice than agree with it.  One of the current problems is that Wikipedia discourages (ie: deleted) articles that are product listings, and therefore, notable CMS vendors cannot publish an article link and when this page then shows it as a redlink, the authors of this article then delete the notable CMS product from the listing, effectively destroying content and removing the benefit of this content for all readers.  Another thing to consider is that this wikipedia page gets high search results in Google and is serving a large number of readers that are looking for a CMS review, comparison, or even a list of vendors.
It is important that all authors be given the chance to help influence the standards for this page, and that the standards be enforced consistently.
I would like to propose a discussion on attributes of a vendor that make it a 'notable' vendor and a valid listing for this page.  I would propose that a scoring mechanism on the the following attributes be considered:
#  Having a recent product release that uses current technology.
#  Having a membership in a professional CMS association (ie: AIIM)
#  Having a set of features that collectively make the product a 'notable' CMS
#  Obtaining press release attention in CMS news sites (ie: cmswire)
#  Having a website that provides full product and contact information.
#  Being included in other CMS portals (ie: cmsmatrix)
#  If the product is a derivitave of another product, then a sufficient set of extended features that make the product 'notable'
I would like other authors to contribute other criteria that should be used to help assess whether a CMS is notable or not.  I would also like opinions on a scoring mechanism to determine notability or inclusion in this list.  I also would like sufficient opinions from enough authors that can establish a suitable quorum for concensus on this policy.  Please add your comments to this section so that we can determine the general consensus of the community.
An alternate to this approach is that if certain listings are not notable (assumnig for very good reasons), the reasons should be stated, and the community should agree before the listing gets deleted.  Simply deleting a listing because it does not have another Wikipedia article is not benefiting the quality of the article, nor the community of readers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shan_mcarthur@spamcop.net (talk • contribs) 
:First and formeost it needs to be notable enough to have an article, according to the relevant criteria. Not being added by an employee fo the company is also good :-) Just zis Guy you know? 07:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formalizing CMS Criteria 

message: Greets:
I've now removed spam links for maiahost.com twice now.  The name of the article is "Comparison of content management systems", not "Hosters who use CMS systems." Please note that no other hosting provider is listed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmike (talk • contribs)  11:32, 15 September 2006
*Correct, and as such I have removed the new, last section entitled "Hosted CMS". Not only is such a section not the purpose of this article, but it was comprised primarily of spam links for non-notable providers.  --Satori Son 13:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  maiahost.com spam link 

message: I think OpenSourceCMS.com should be added to the list of external links. It's a website devoted to hosting demo versions of dozens of open source content management systems. According to its home page, "The administrator username and password is given for every system and each system is deleted and re-installed every two hours. This allows you to to add and delete content, change the way things look, basically be the admin of any system here without fear of breaking anything."
This is a resource that should be of obvious value to anyone who wants to compare content management systems. Normally I would add a link of this type directly to an article without first posting it for discussion on the talk page, but given the strong demand for prior posting to talk that appears in the article space, I'm placing it here first for comment. Assuming no objection, I'll add it to the article after five days. --01:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, that's fine. For the record, I don't have any relationship with OpenSourceCMS.com other than the fact that a web developer I know recommended it to me a few months ago, and I've found it useful personally. --Sheldon Rampton 19:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks for being understanding.  This article has been kind of high maintenance, but we certainly are not trying to be difficult, and informative, non-spam external links are always appreciated.  Thanks again, Satori Son 20:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OpenSourceCMS.com