Talk:List of content management systems/Archive 2

---

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Merge with Content Management Systems

I believe this should be merged with the article Content Management Systems which is a stub or vice versa,since that apparently doesn't have enough material to evolve into a full article. EaswarH (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Useful link?

I found this for flat-file CMSs, wouldn't it be useful? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.32.106.118 (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparison info please

It sounds like a lot of effort in going into fighting about which CMS get listed. And meanwhile nothing is being done to make this more of a real comparison and less of a bare-bones list. Those of us trying to choose a CMS need some real guidance to narrow down Too Many Choices. 69.87.199.114 23:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree; it would be nice to have some way of telling which of these systems to use, at least for a given requirement. m.e. 08:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

--202.68.161.58 (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC) The whole page should be deleted due to contention. So many important entries missing - Where is FarCry?

• I visited after a Smashing Magazine article (http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/03/05/10-things-to-consider-when-choosing-the-perfect-cms/), expecting Wikipedia would have a comparison chart. Instead, I find yet another petty little Wikipedia turf war. Nice. 207.178.110.185 (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Supported Standards" should really be in the comparison chart, too, because there is JSR-168, JSR-286, WSRP, see http://www.liferay.com/web/guest/products/portal/techspecs for some of the supported Standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijoo110 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not fair

I see some Content Management Systems are there in list and some not, whereas Wiki not allowing us to add new systems. This is not fair really. I understand wiki is not the directory of systems but if Comparison of content management system exist then it should contain ALL CMS systems or at least provide the information why they reject new systems and accept some even if links to them are already expired!!!

IT's like someone at wiki checking systems and making decisions on which to accept based on personal opinion. phpcow.com by PHPCow LLC with more then 3 year and thousands of happy customers trying to be listed in content management system comparison page for example and noone can tell us why wiki rejects. Maybe it's not big enough? well, then write on top of the "Comparison of content management systems" that company must be giant in order to be listed. I see small CMS Systems though in list.

Shame on you wiki Team you're not doing a profesional job!

bye. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Publishing (talk • contribs) 12:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

It’s not big enough. You need to buy CMS Enlargement Pills® and feed them to your CMS, then try again.

CMS Enlargement Pills®: Accept no substitute!

…Seriously, if you had paid attention when editing, you would have noticed the following note right at the top of the article:

<!-- This is a comparison of NOTABLE CMS's, 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. -->

So if your CMS has an article, it can be listed here. If it doesn’t, it can’t.

Hint: the article must comply with the usual rules and must in particular establish notability. If it doesn’t, it’ll get deleted, along with the entry here.

Hint 2: if you can’t establish notability (see link above), please don’t create the article. This sort of thing wastes people’s time. —xyzzy_n 12:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

well, xyzzyn you don't need pills as you're bIg enough already. about the article

Just write the comment on each software then. They they meet notability terms and others not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accrisoft_Freedom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_%28CMS%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDIY_Software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekklesia_360 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ERedakt%C3%B8r http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisk_Content_Management_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_Sapiens

Also, I'm not talking about adding external links but to create wiki definition article pages for Systems like listed above.

Every single System that can provide required documents can be listed on CMS comparison page. That would be fair then but you don't list the requirements, nor mention what is required but just refer on notability page and I do not see any single reason why PHPCow software can NOT have an article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHPCow but others may have. There is NO reason. we have followed all of your rules past 3 month but you're still not supporting us.

I’m not here to support you. Neither is anybody else. This is an encyclopaedia, not a sales catalogue, and there is no reason for us to assume your product should be included. In the past, you have had several opportunities to create a good article on whatever it is that you are selling and failed. This isn’t an ad agency; please stop trying to use it to get publicity.

You want to have a criterion for when an article on your product might go unopposed. Very well, here is one: when people not associated with your LLC write and maintain it because they think it’s notable. Until then, please have the decency to respect this project’s goal—to write an encyclopaedia, not to run a bazaar. —xyzzy_n 17:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no proof of notability of the systems listed above so then delete them too and don't forget Free systems you have and then you can delete All the rest on comparison page which seems absolutely not-needed after your last post. What is the comparison page for if you do not list systems and if you list some, where is the notability for them? Don't you see that comparison of content management system MUST include ALL cms systems or at least those that meet the criterias? There is no page of listing criterias. Notability page is an overall description of that and almost 90% of the systems listed on that page fail the notability. And you say - no bazaar but forget pages in wiki like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asshole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanker http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Fingers_and_thumb_in_circle_downward_motion.jpg/200px-Fingers_and_thumb_in_circle_downward_motion.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicksucker

Seems wiki content providers like those pages but reject companies to be listed even as alphabetically sorted list under comparison page. You do great job really. Especially by creating pages like that. Congratulations! that's my last post here so don't waste time on replying and let the world read how wonderful wiki is. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Publishing (talk • contribs).

Well, then for reference for others: WP:INN. —xyzzy_n 16:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

And remember what happened when this article got out of control. -- Satori Son 18:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I disagree with the user 'xyzzy_n', having an article can't be a criteria. Metazargo 11:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Creating an article for relatively new products (incl. Open Source) isn't a good thing. It won't harm of course, but I'd say (not ordering) that a product should exist ~10 years in the market place to be listed as a wikipedia article (sounding history). The usage of this list 'Comparison of content management systems' is another, as it says comparison. Notable is also well defined. Now I say that some authors (not to say deletors) of this article don't have the whole overview of the CMS market place (I don't have it), and therfore can't judge what is notable and what not. Metazargo 11:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it’s fairly easy to judge what is notable—the subject matter must have been covered non-trivially by multiple independent reliable published works. We also have a software guideline that gives more detailed criteria. These criteria should in most cases imply that it’s possible to write verifiably and neutrally about the item, so it should be possible to create an article. This, in turn, nicely proves notability and therefore significance for this list. As a counter-example, Bricolage does not have an article. (Bricolage is a disambiguation page that has one line about the CMS, mentioning the name and the URL.) There is absolutely nothing there to back up any kind of statement about it—and we do generally need to back up statements with references. The alternative to creating separate articles for CMSs would be to list the references here, but that would definitely not make the page more readable, usable or maintainable. —xyzzy_n 11:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with xyzzy, who has correctly articulated the inclusion standards specified in WP:VERIFY, WP:WEB, and WP:LIST#References for list Items. However, Metazargo does have a good point: this article is not intended to be a true comparison of all contents management systems, but rather a list of notable ones (with some additional information provided in table form). It may be time to revert the redirect that exists at List of content management systems and move this article there. Enforcing the inclusion standards for this article has been the most problematic of all list articles I monitor, and perhaps the "List" title would help new editors understand that we are not trying to be a buying guide or otherwise provide an evaluation and analysis of all existing such products. I will work on putting together a {{Move}} proposal and !voting section. -- Satori Son 15:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Since Bricolage still doesn’t have an article and nobody has done anything to establish its notability, I’ve removed it again. —xyzzy_n 17:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Socialtext probably doesn't merit an entry here either, given its minimal (two sentence) coverage. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, two and a half, but I agree. —xyzzy_n 23:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Comparison of content management systems → List of content management systems — Titling this article as a "List" more accurately reflects the purpose of the article. -- Satori Son 18:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support as requestor. More accurately naming this article a simple list, albeit with some additional information in tabular form, will eliminate some of the confusion regarding inclusion criteria for entries (please see my full comments and other recent discussions above). There are other articles of this type and layout called lists; see List of social networking websites, List of liberated software, List of MIDI editors and sequencers, List of trademarked open source software, etc. -- Satori Son 18:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support because we neither can’t nor shouldn’t maintain any kind of comparison matrix this big. Let’s make it a list and use the usual standards for inclusion. —xyzzy_n 18:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• Comment: I'm not comprehending why list is better than comparison. Either way, there will be constant pressure to add items indiscriminately unless the criteria for inclusion or exclusion are clear. (I think they are now.) Is there a guideline that says list articles should be contain only existing articles? ✤ JonHarder ^talk 01:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: for what it's worth, the following comparisons and lists have the same problem and use the existence of an article to determine notability:
  • Comparison of FTP clients
  • Comparison of file sharing applications
  • Comparison of instant messaging clients
  • List of mail servers

They don't see quite as many edits and the conflict of interest editors have not been as agressive. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 01:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

OptionEdit

I would like to add my content management system...OptionEdit, available for display @ optionedit.com, and download @ rayvan.net

Please let me know if you guys can help.

68.32.72.51 23:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Ragnarev

Hi, Wikipedia is not an advertising medium, so unless OptionEdit is already notable, it probably shouldnt be included here. Can you demonstrate that your CMS is notable? John Vandenberg 00:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your past activities as Ragnarev (talk · contribs) revolved around promoting various activities you are apparently affiliated with and now as 68.32.72.51 (talk · contribs) you have started adding the same links. Please don't do that or you will be blocked. In this case it is best to sit back and follow the advice of the conflict of interest guideline which says someone else will add an article about your software when it becomes sufficiently notable. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 01:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Bitrix CMS?

Just wondering why The Bitrix CMS wasn't included in your "Commercial Low Cost" section. I've been reading about it and it seems appropriate. Does the section require a certain level of market penetration, is just meant as an overview or are there just too many CMS systems these days to keep up?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.80.75.43 (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

The minimum requirement for listing is existence its own Wikipedia article. Feel free to create an article using the WP:SOFTWARE criteria as a guideline. Since your history of activity involves adding links to aurora-it.us, we can conclude that you have some affiliation with this product, so you will know where to find independent coverage necessary to establish notability. To create the article, you will either need an account or request its creation. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Standards-compliance column in comparison chart?

I think it would be useful to users to include a W3C standards-compliance column in the comparison charts. Do you think that would be useful to a general audience, or should that research be left to the users once they've narrowed the field based on their platform, database, and price criteria? Cherdt 16:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this sort of information would be very hard to maintain and even harder to gather. I think this this page should not attempt to be a useful comparison for buyers who want to compare potential solutions. This should be a list of content management systems that are deemed notable by the authors and nothing more. There are plenty of sites that specialize in feature comparison of cms solutions, cms matrix for example. This sort of comparison has no place in a encyclopedia. --Sindri 19:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sindri. In fact, his/her rationale is the primary reason the article was renamed last month, from "Comparison of..." to "List of...". -- Satori Son 19:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Blockstar

In http://www.blockstar.com/tos.html, we read: "Blockstar grants you a personal, limited, non-transferable and non-exclusive right and license to use the object code of its Software on a single computer; provided that you do not (and do not allow any third party to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, reverse assemble or otherwise attempt to discover any source code, sell, assign, sublicense, grant a security interest in or otherwise transfer any right in the Software. You agree not to modify the Software in any manner or form". This is that you call free software? Audriusa 11:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You’re right, it’s freeware. Should we have a separate table for it or only adjust the current heading? —xyzzy_n 12:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that it could be a separate table for the zero cost proprietary software. Or, it could be listed in commercial/low cost table giving zero in the price column. I was explicitly looking for the free/open source CMS and checked all java - based systems in the table. The programming users want to have the source code and modify it, adapting to they needs. For CMS, this is especially important, as many companies want to have the "original" web site with they own specific design. This means much more attractive conditions for the user, and, naturally, much heavier conditions for the initial developer than just offering the binaries without charge. It seems that currently some companies try to pretend they software is free despite it just does not match the this definition. I think this is because many users tend to download and try the free/open source software first. Audriusa 14:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a clarifying statement in the Free and open source software section. Feel free to modify once a consensus is reached. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 14:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If modifying that way, likely the section header should be changed instead. However I would strongly prefer to have the open source separately. Audriusa 15:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

FlexCMS

From the license:

1. (..) That you are not allowed to combine or distribute the Software with other software that is licensed under terms that seek to require that the Software (or any intellectual property in it) be provided in source code form, licensed to others to allow the creation or distribution of derivative works, or distributed without charge.
2. You may not distribute the Software in source code form, and if you distribute the Software in object form you only do so under a license that complies with this license.

The system, however, can be used commercially without the fee. I move it to the freeware section. Audriusa 16:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Commercial CMS

• Commercial Low Cost (< $5,000)
• Commercial Medium ($5,000 - $15,000)
• Commercial Expensive (> $15,000)

Are all blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. (CSD G11) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drakeja (talk • contribs) 17:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The place to work with that kind of issue is at the article itself. See the deletion policy about how to nominating an article for deletion. More experience would probably help before pursuing the deletion options. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 00:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice Drakeja has also proposed for deletion a number of systems that appear to be competitive with the article he wrote that was deleted. s. I removed the tag from socialtext before I noticed there were a large group of such deletions. i consider them all possible bad faith deletions, but will let you guys manage this.Thy are all in the March 7 Prods. DGG 04:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed this. He added the tag to just about every commercial CMS article on this list regardless of how notable they are. I removed the tag from three notable articles on items I am familiar with - Microsoft SharePoint, Community Server, and Vignette. I am not familiar with the others so I didn't touch them. Kevinharder 17:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Drakeja can and should answer for him or herself, but it appears to be a reactionary response to difficulties with creating an article. Creating a software product article is one of the most difficult and frustrating way to starting editing Wikipedia! With respect to the prodded articles, my inclination is to leave the decision to editors of those articles. Many were created before we tightened up the expectations with respect to software notability. If sources independent of the product itself cannot be found, perhaps it is best to let the prods expire. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I still do not know how one can add an article about a commercial thing without advertising. I added a link to the CMS tool because I work for the company. It was for information only. I made no statements about it other then it was a CMS tool and that got knocked down too. I am looking at Kevinharder comments. So he is familiar with other CMS tools. Wow I am familiar with water! So if I added an article about Evion I am advertising because I drink it? No? because I do not work for the company??? What if I work for a company the delivers water? There needs to be a mechanism in Wikipedia for an SME to add information. Just because some bum off the street knows something about something dose not negate the right for other things to exist. Kevin is familiar with some of the other CMS tools because they have more money to throw around. It is discrimination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drakeja (talk • contribs) 04:47, March 20, 2007 (UTC)

As I stated above, creating an article on software is one of the most difficult ways to start editing Wikipedia. Creating neutral, encyclopedic articles about products of a company one works for is even more difficult, which is why it is so strongly discouraged by the conflict of interest guideline. Everyone tends to end up unhappy: the new editor whose interest is trying to show the product in the best possible light and the more experienced editors who are trying to create a neutral encyclopedia. One thing an insider can contribute is where to find multiple, non-trivial third-party sources that have covered the product or company. These are what is needed to get over the notability barrier and they provide the type of secondary sources we are looking for in order to get neutral coverage of the topic. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 21:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability

It is important that the precision of Wikipedia is protected, but for me, just started to edit or create articles, the whole discussion on notability is a pain. I can't speak for other industries, where companies or products are featured. But for the software space it becomes ridiculous.

On one side it says (it's overruled) that to be in the list of content management systems, the software must have a Wikipedia article. But many articles from companies or SW products are just deleted or marked for deletion because of their ad-style (This article or section is written like an advertisement).

By clicking through the list I see that mostly articles of commercial vendors are marked, and mainly those who do present themselves (are presented) with more than a few words. If something is still alive every mention of it, in which style ever published is a promotion or brings someone into discredit.

I would recommend to remove all entries of operative companies and organizations and their products, and go back to good old specialized pages as:

• CMS Watch
• CMS Matrix

Like this Wikipedia remains an encyclopaedia in the old (printed) sense, not to bad. What do you think? Metazargo 12:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Although your English skills are a bit of a hinderance (perhaps an online translator was used), I think I get the idea of what you are saying. One of the advantages of requiring the existence of an article before placing it here, is that the notability discussion can take place at the article level, or at related guidelines like WP:SOFTWARE and not here for every article. I like that principle, because you only need to deal with the question in one place. You have noticed that many of the articles that link here also have various maintenance tags because they do not meet the criteria listed in the software guideline or have other problems. Hopefully someone will be able correct these problems, or if it is not possible then those articles are problably also headed for deletion. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you in reminding me, that English is not my native language. I'm proud that I can write at least as good as a translation software - hopeful a notable. Your point in saying that the discussion on notability shall take place elsewhere is acceptable - but does not solve the contradiction I pointed out. As you said many pages are tagged being an ad or not notable. So even by reading the instructions on notability I can't see something wrong in many articles on CSM products/vendors tagged

Are people like you a bit impatient? Starting articles takes time, finding contributors, especially for articles on commercial entities, takes more time. The censorship will have passed by before an article starts to life. On top it may be, that hobby ediors/lektors have time to go into discourse on every article, like you do - this is admirable, but I don't think I can cope with that. (stolen my time from working on CMS projects/topic while writing this entry) Metazargo 10:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I was looking for a CMS for my website and I agree with the notability element of items on the list not being red-links. And from the time I've been using/editing wikipedia I've never seen a "List of" that has external links other than in the external links section. Someone comes here (likely linked from an article about a CMS soloution) to see what other options are available. I would have preferred we had a "comparison of" page as well as a list to compare between them - not knowing there were so many - because I believe in adhering to published web standards and some of them don't. List of web browsers is extensive and has some red-links, but those can be easily verified of notability (and there's always the talk page if someone is unsure of one). I'm not that active on WP at the moment, but maybe one of the Wikipedia Projects could look after this page and the related ones? Or if there is a lot of articles in the area creation of a sub-project if there isn't one already? (Lots of articles surely means a lot of editors are interested in one or another - or several - CMS's). Just my personal thoughts, —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 06:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Subdreamer?

I recall that this used to be listed... why has it been removed? Source: http://www.subdreamer.com/

Thatisall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.154.37 (talk • contribs) 19:04, April 23, 2007 (UTC)

The article for Subdreamer has been deleted three times due to a lack of sufficient notability.[1] If at some point this software receives non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources, then the article can be recreated and the list here edited to reflect that. -- Satori Son 14:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all I am really surprised to see a lot of people doing what they want to, just as they do not find something as per their thinking. I really raise my hand to DELETE THIS ENTIRE SECTION as there is a very bad VANDALISM going here since its inception. Some of real topics which should be discussed are not even mentioned here. Can anyone here tell me what kind of comparison is this? It dont have FEATURES LIST which is the main thing any visitor novice or expert will need to evaluate the options available. Lets understand that its a Wikipedia. Our goal should be verifiable, qualitative, complete and current information to our best extent with all aspects related to topic in a non-descriminating and non-influencing manner. Anyone having comment on it please raise it.When I use verifiable it means it must be verified through a credible source.[more information on Verifiability content] 21:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Dkcreatto

I just added a new article for Subdreamer. JamminBen 02:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to update this sooner - the Subdreamer article was removed. Initially I opposed the deletion, but if you search for Subdreamer, there are NO news articles or other notable information about Subdreamer outside the official website, sites that use the product, and sites that provide mods for it. This was rather surprising as I expected Subdreamer to be quite well covered on the net, but the sources just aren't there. Until there are some good sources (which might never happen) the article can't be recreated. JamminBen 12:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The deletion on Subdreamer reflects perfectly the problem on overall SW product placement in a Wiki (at least in the CM space). Check once other industries, and realize that the change history is quite different. On top also products not on sale anymore are featured, but this is another topic ... I vote for Dkcreatto proposal, or a least that Subdreamer belongs into this list. Metazargo (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed Moodle

I removed Moodle from the list. While it is a CMS, it is a Course Management System, not a Content Management System, although one could argue that many Course Management Systems do have aspects and may even include a built-in Content Management system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.154.37 (talk • contribs) 19:44, April 23, 2007 (UTC)

I belive that Moodle can not be separeted from CMS - content management system, as it is a branch of it itself. Though it is a Cource Management System but it serves basic definition of the CMS given in the Wikipedia. So why removing Moodle. Yes we can do a simple thing. Lets just put a note besides it linking to Course Management System article. Dkcreatto 21:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

checking notability

Hello, I was checking the notability of each article and adding prod tags if needed, I got up to OpenCMS, feel free to continue on from there, and review the prod tags I placed on some article pages. Jackaranga 21:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Expanse CMS - remove?

The article states: Expanse is a discontinued content management system written in PHP and backed by a MySQL database. That's it. What's the point of this being here if it's discontinued with so little information available? Can we just remove it? JamminBen 10:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's gone now, so this is redundant. JamminBen 06:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Coranto

Shouuldnt coranto at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coranto be added to the list

That link does not point to a Coranto wikipage. This is the official site of the Coranto CMS: http://www.coranto.org/ NitroX infinity 11:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Added IBM Workplace Web Content Management

Having looked at the inclusion criteria being discussed on this page (ie notable software judged by having a wikipedia entry), I created an entry in the list for IBM Workplace Web Content Management. There was a pre-existing wiki entry for this software. Le strach 08:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Strange enough that the really great content management systems of IBM are not in the list anymore. Of many IBM products I would consider Workplace as the product with the least CM aspects. Metazargo (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Most incomplete, inaccurate List of CM systems I ever saw

Not notable, not helpful ... even subject to ambitious editors ... just a Wiki game. From a Wiki (reliable resources) point of view it should be deleted. Metazargo (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not supposed to be a complete list of every CMS. Most of the time people either add a link to an article that does not exist, or they create an article that is blatant advertising and that gets deleted. Nobody is playing games here. If you genuinely feel that the article should be deleted then you need to read WP:AFD first. If you decide to create a deletion debate then please leave a comment on the Talk page so people can vote. JamminBen (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I just drop over this list every quarter, and I made my point - mainly warn non CMS specialists in depending on this list. After using this Wiki in the area of software I shiver when I hear 'notable' or 'blatant'. Lately I saw SW entries get deleted because the SV's just have a simple portrait on their operations, and do not expand into 10, 20 or even 200 product entries! People doing such deletions don't judge equally to all entries entry.

The only tendency I observe, is that many (not all major ones) open source projects do have an article on only one product. They have a bunch of supporters, let's call them Web 2.0 addicts, which do fight against blatancy and for notable open source software. I recommend, not to delete this list, but rather rename into List_of_open_source_content_management_systems. The meanwhile I create the List_of_coffee_machines, of course only notable ones - at least a subject of interest for a broader user group - I'm sure it wouldn't' end up in a Wiki game, sorry.

A last remark: Every article, descriptive or technical, on something still available, produced by a group of people, open source or not, is commercial. Metazargo (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving to a list of open source systems will not automatically solve the problem, although open source may generate less spam. Whether commercial or not, an open source CMS is not automatically "notable" just because it's open source. If any article is not notable, it needs to be updated so it is notable. A site like the CMS Matrix will always be more comprehensive. The Wikipedia list is really just a list of systems that are on Wikipedia... which makes me wonder if it would be better as just a category page. JamminBen (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Very good point just a category page! But I wanted to express also that if you separate open source from commercial you will have less vandalism - an in a wiki context I consider vandalism as a much greater SPAM then blatant advertising. Metazargo (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested in your opinion if commercial vendors should expand their articles into all their products similar to the car industries, where every good car has an article. I would say no. As a car, even in sold a tiny number of pieces, has been sold more 50'000 times, where software products are not so popular - or would you count by user? Metazargo (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the definition of "good". Here, the problem is drawing the line between notable and non-notable. Some articles are obviously spam, but some are not so easy to call. It's something that has to be done on a case-by-case basis.

Perhaps we could learn something from the List of social networking websites. It's similar to what we have here, but it consolidates the tables into one. That would get the list in alphabetical order instead of each table being its own A-Z, which just doesn't make the sorting very useful. JamminBen (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would actually like to see a list of open source CMS systems possibly categorised by programming language or the databases supported by the system. Open source CMSs that I have found to be of great use are CMS Made Simple http://www.cmsmadesimple.org/ and Drake CMS http://drakecms.sourceforge.net/. Drake is of particular note as it uses the built in database system Gladius DB and therefore can be used in a hosted environment when a database is not provided. Kievia (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Drake CMS has been rebranded in Lanius CMS project (mostly due to the official domains holder), no track of both in this list. I have found it in the German version although. --Legolas558 (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

bitweaver

Lsces (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC) While there have been problems with the page for bitweaver, I HOPE that can be resolved, currently bitweaver gives a greater number of hits than tikiwiki from which it evolved. Someone keeps killing the entry on here and I'd like to know why ???

read the rules. --143.239.215.33 (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no difference between bitweaver and tikiwiki apart from the fact that tikiwiki gets listed !!! Lsces (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC) bitweaver article DOES exist ... Lsces (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I replied to your comment on Talk:Bitweaver. JamminBen (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

AccuCMS

There is no justifiable reason for the AccuCMS page to have been deleted, when it clearly meets the test for notability, including references to the material contained in the Wikipedia article in NY Times and Wall Street Journal. It is completely arbitrary that that article is being declared as "Spam", while it actually covers a notable topic, and at the same time a SLEW of other articles in the content management system list that are ... recitations of product specifications or the like ... are secure. Explain how the AccuCMS article is not notable, and how one of the other entries in the content management system list that has less information, no references, etc.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.106.153 (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Any page can be nominated for deletion regardless of whether other pages break the same rules. Each page is considered individually - so if a page is deleted for reading like an advertisement and other pages break this rule too, those pages are not automatically deleted. They would need to be raised at Articles for Deletion. JamminBen (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the starting point for discussion on THIS page should be the expansion of the explanation of 'list of notable' with a large warning message to the effect that this page should not be used as a guide to available CMS systems as many such systems are simply not allowed to be in wikipedia? Referring readers to one of the more complete independent CMS cross-references would be of more use than the currently restricted sub-set of products. However even the cross-references quoted elsewhere on this page are have restrictions on their content, such as must support so and so OS or database, bias which I thought wikipedia endeavoured to avoid Lsces (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

But the intro doesn't say this article is a "guide of available" CMS systems. It clearly states it is a "list of notable" systems. No further disclaimer is necessary. — Satori Son 17:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

New CMS System: Skeletonz

Skeletonz is a new content management system (CMS) based on Python. It differs from others by being simple, but yet very powerful and extensible. If you need a simple system that you and your users are going love then Skeletonz might be the solution you are looking for! The system is open source and released under GNU GPL. more at http://orangoo.com/skeletonz/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.156.138 (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Section names

The Commercial sections with price ranges have recently changed into one "Proprietary" section. I agree with merging the sections, but the name is not consistent with the other sections.

I propose the following changes:

• Change "Free and open source software" to "Open source".
• Move Ariadne from "Undisclosed licensing conditions" to "Proprietary", and delete the undisclosed section. Regardless of how Ariadne is licensed, it clearly isn't open source, so proprietary might be the best description for it.
• Move CivicSpace from "Freeware" to "Proprietary" and indicate that it is free.

Any thoughts? JamminBen (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't. Just because it is free, doesn't mean its open source. - Drwatz0n (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Valid HTML Should be a Criterion

The list of CMSes that generate standard-conforming HTML is quite short. (Drupal, MODx, Textpattern, CMS Made Simple, Plone -- I think that might be it.) Most of the rest create tag soup.

As web standards gain importance in an increasingly diverse world, descriptions of software should always mention how well a product behaves in this respect.

The "Latest stable release" column in the Article currently provides little or no value. Revision numbers are helpful only to those already using a specific CMS, and they will usually go to the home page for the software to get this information.

It would be far more useful if the "Latest stable release" were replaced by a "HTML Standard" column, which listed either the HTML or XHTML level to which essentially all pages (and their DOCTYPEs) generated by a CMS conform, or a dash to indicate "none".

Rahul (talk) 07:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. The validity should take into account the core software only, of course, since all CMS have addons and allow user customization which can break validity. --- Arancaytar - avá artanhé (reply) 09:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed the Free Software Portal Logo

There is nothing on this page that gets even close to deserving the use of this logo. This entire page is one big SPAM page. I see wikipedia admins (16 years old kids) deleting popular, open source, gnu-gpl Perl scripts while allowing CMS ....price lists and ONLY PHP CMS scripts. What has wikipedia turned into? A commercial primary school? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.206.220 (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

When attempting to add your CMS to the page, perhaps you missed the big html comment at the start of each table on the article page? It says:

This is a list of NOTABLE CMSs, as judged by the existence of articles on Wikipedia. Please don’t add external links or wikilinks to nonexistent articles—instead, write an article to demonstrate notability. CMS without articles, redlinks, external links, and links to articles that aren’t about the CMS in question will be pruned periodically. Fill in the background info too, please, to make this article useful. Thanks.

--Versageek 04:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Socialtext proprietary?

From what I can tell from perusing the the Socialtext website, the wiki software itself is open source, but they offer additional services or products which may be proprietary. B7T (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

MindTech Coalesce

MindTech Coalesce has just been added to the commercial list by an IP user.

I was going to place it into alphabetical order within the list, but I haven't been able to find any other reference to it on the web. Now I'm wondering if it should be removed as non-notable.

Anyone else come across it? --Geoff Riley (talk) 23:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have commented out this entry since there is no associated main entry. --Geoff Riley (talk) 11:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Lanius CMS

should this be added? http://www.laniuscms.org/ --87.10.161.242 (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Java CMS categorization

I categorize Java CMS into the following Simple ---> Complex. Or a better way to put it is low level to high level, then notability, follow by alphabetical order.

HSQL is place first, because it is the only software that support Hyperthreading and by definition hyperthreading is a low level processor mechanism (therefore considered as "simple). MySQL, Oracle, DB2 are most commonly used therefore it follows and the rest are self-explanatory (alphabetical of course). --70.79.65.227 (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

New CMS System: Snelsite

It's in norwegian, maybe someone can translate it:

http://www.cms.nl/

it's used on kurafire.net. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Family Guy Guy (talk • contribs) 18:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

That's not Norwegian! That's Dutch! NitroX infinity 14:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, can you translate it? JamminBen 23:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

---

The above discussions are preserved as an archive. Please do not modify them. Further comments or new discussion should be started on the current talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.