Talk:List of content management systems/Archive 3

---

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

CompactCMS

{{editsemiprotected}} I'd like to include my open source CMS. It meets all requirements to be listed for as far as I can tell. If not I'd like to hear where to improve.

ArcaCMF PHP MySQL 0.1 GPLv3 18th May 2009

Best regards. potomak (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Cotonti CMS added

Added Cotonti to PHP CMS list. New release as of Feb. 1 2009. http://www.cotonti.com Jslowik (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

CompactCMS

{{editsemiprotected}} I'd like to include my open source CMS. It meets all requirements to be listed for as far as I can tell. If not I'd like to hear where to improve.

CompactCMS PHP MySQL 1.3.1 GPL 9th Feb 2009

Best regards.

It does not look like CompactCMS has a article on wikipedia. It needs to meet the notability requirements for inclusion in wikipedia first and then can be listed here. 16x9 (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Other proprietary CMS suggestion

{{editsemiprotected}}

* Name: jNetPublish
* Platform: J2EE
* Supported databases: mySQL, Oracle, MSSQL, ... (any JDBC)
* Latest stable: 3.4.0
* Url: http://www.etnetera.cz/etn/en/solutions/products/jnp.html

See above. 16x9 (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

ImpressCMS

ImpressCMS has been updated on 2009/3/8. Version 1.1.2 Final available. I can't edit this page and I hope someone can and will :( Source --by alopix (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done - updated 16x9 (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

TYPOlight

{{editsemiprotected}}

* Name: TYPOlight
* Language: PHP
* Supported databases: mySQL
* Latest stable: 2.8.3
* Date: 1 MAY 2010
* License: LGPL
* Url: http://www.typolight.org/index.html

--93.197.157.202 (talk) 11:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Which section should it go in?--Aervanath (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

* 3.3 (Free and Open Source Software -> PHP)

Declined as there is no article, previous article deleted as spam. 16x9 (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Updated version data Computino (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

A Solution to many of these problems

Why don't we simply branch off all of these sections in their own articles? We could have a "Comparison of PHP CMS Software" and a "Comparison of .NET CMS Software". This would allow the inclusion of an increased number of software to be listed, as well as a more detailed analysis of them all. Right now, there are simply too to many items, with too little information to really be of any use to anyone.

Additionally, while weblog software is "CMS" software, it is in a completely different scope than Software like Joomla! or Drupal, and so I propose and "Comparison of Weblog Software" be branched off of this as well since a person looking to start a blog isn't interesting in creating a full website in the scope of Joomla! and vice versa. This would also cut down on the clutter and make comparisons easier. I know this would require a fair amount of work, but removing items to simplify this page is only going to disagreement. Bragr (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Additionally we all ready have a Weblog Software page so those items being listed here are redundant. They should be removed and a comparison done there. I would like to go forward with this, but I would like the concurrence of other members involved in this page. Bragr 17:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to have specific different categories like Weblog and CMS and PHP and .NET CMS but would also like that there is back-links to each other. Then it makes sense as well.Shirishag75 (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a site to list out every cms there is. If you want that go to [CMS Matrix]. This page and all pages are for noteworthy items only and this will never change. So, no I don't agree with your proposition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.43.89 (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• I vote to have the page removed completely. The page is a never ending battle of what is noteworthy and will never end. This page really serves no purpose other than to provide free advertising for companies. Just make the page links off to sites like cmsmatrix and that would end this insanity for good. cmsguy123 —Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

The battle about what's noteworthy doesn't only take place on this page. The criteria for noteworthiness are quite clear, and it doesn't make sense to remove this page because it's a "never-ending battle". Many other valuable pages are also battlegrounds, and this page, as a list of notable CMS', is valuable to readers. Greenman (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• The criteria for noteworthiness is not clear, otherwise we would not have to lock the page to keep people from adding non-noteworthy products every day. I think that if we implement a simply policy it would solve most of the problems.

Wikipedia:Notability clearly lists the criteria for article notability. Once a CMS has its own article, it can appear on this list - WP:WTAF. The page gets locked because people ignore the criteria. The policy is simple and clear. Trying to create separate criteria, as per cmsguy123's comment below, is not simple or clear. Greenman (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"No product can be added to this page unless it has no less than 3 external third party articles written about "the product" (not the company) by other websites/magazines/books/television that are well known, reputable and preferably noteworthy enough to be in wikipedia. Blog articles do not count. Press releases do not count. Product announcements do not count. Company mergers, purchases, and or acquisition announcements do not count." cmsguy123 —Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC).

Protected?

What is it with protecting articles? Do you think after you lift the protection the spammers will stay away, or do you want to make Wikipedia less free?

Anyway, {{editsemiprotected}}Radiant (software) released v0.7.0 on 2009-02-07, I would have quickly updated the article but now I have to abuse the talk page for it.--87.162.41.35 (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

concrete5

I would recommend adding concrete5 to this list, pending its status as a legitimate article on Wikipedia. Waykup (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, if it stays then it should be added here. 16x9 (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Drupal update

Drupal's latest release is 6.12 as of May 13th, 2009. Could you please add me as an editor of this page so I can make future updates? Thanks, Darrell Dduane (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Opencms update

Latest release is 7.5.2 on 20th of Jan 2010.

195.172.218.238 (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Drupal Version and Date update

Drupal is now at 6.12 and dated 5-13-2009 Curretnly shown as 6.10 from february See http://drupal.org for confirmation.

To be able to edit this page, you must be an autoconfirmed user. I will make the change. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 20:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

New CMS in ASP.NET section Civinext Croupware

{{editsemiprotected}}

Not done for now: It needs an article first. 16x9 (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC) ASP.NET

|Civinext Groupware |ASP.NET |SQL Server |2005 | | |-

Wordpress - 2.8

{{editsemiprotected}} Hey, could someone update Wordpress's version # to 2.8 and the date to 2009-06-11. Thank you very much. Linky

Done Celestra (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Sense/Net 6.0

Sense/Net 6.0 is an Open Source ECMS/CMS/WCMS for ASP.NET. I think it should be listed, has some nice features. Still beta, there is a forming community around it. Sense/Net webpage

Also, why there is no .NET and ASP.NET category within the Open Source? There are some nice examples, like Umbraco, DNN is in the Other category..

Graffiti CMS

This is a really great CMS for .NET. They offer a free version and corporate versions. http://graffiticms.com/ Here's some positive reviews on this program: http://phatnews.com/tg/home/blog/graffiti-cms-is-certifiably-awesome/ http://www.cmswire.com/cms/cms-reviews/quick-take-review-telligents-graffiti-web-content-management-004039.php

198.238.208.2 (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

TangoCMS

A new version of TangoCMS (2.3.0 Dolphin) has been released (2009-06-29), the page needs updating accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.206.182 (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

TangoCMS 2.5.3 was released on the 6th April ([1]) - can the listing be updated please? AlexC223 (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

SilverStripe CMS

{{editsemiprotected}}

There has been a new version of SilverStripe CMS released - 2.3.2 released 2009-06-19.

Question: Welcome and thanks, do you have a reference? Celestra (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Mura CMS

What about Mura?

http://www.getmura.com/

http://mura.riaforge.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.170.173.254 (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What about adding a table of all the ColdFusion CMSs (for that matter)? dbabbitt (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing Column?

There is a lot of info here about how these systems are implemented and licensed but not WHAT THEY ARE FOR!

The term "Content Management System" can mean many things and such systems can be used in many ways.

For more on this please see the Content Management Systems article, particularly the list under:

"Content management systems take the following forms:"

It would be helpful to add a column to the tables in this article that provides some indication of the main intended use(s) or audience(s) of each system. Perhaps the tags included in this column could be derived from the aforementioned list in the aforementioned article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.248.11 (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Flat-File CMS "pivot"

The link is not correct, as it redirects to a disambiguation page which doesn't contain any reference to "pivot" (as a CMS, I mean). However, their website is: http://www.pivotlog.net/, if this may help you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.203.155.31 (talk) 05:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"Others" which should be in "PHP"

Some of the items in "Others" (3.6) are written in PHP, but appear to have been separated due to their use of Smarty (XOOPS, Serendipity, Zikula) or XSLT (Xaraya). I'd like to suggest that these should be moved into the "PHP" (3.3) table as there's no reason to separate them: they're PHP. I noticed that Xaraya is already in the main table... 1.1.5, while the one in Others is 1.1.3, 10 months older, but it mentions SQLite and SQL Server support which the other doesn't. They need merging (by someone who can check up on it). Also, Django isn't a CMS in itself - though there are packages for it to make it a CMS. It should be removed from here (and possibly some such packages added). Chris Morgan (talk) 05:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable entries

As is the convention in lists such as these (Wikipedia:LIST), only entries with an associated article should be listed. To add an entry here, an article should first be created. I will start to remove the entries without an article shortly, after giving some time for people to start on entries they may have been planning. Greenman (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Open Source First

The open source entries should be listed before the proprietary stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.166.141 (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Any reason? :) Greenman (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course: The badge on the page says "Free software portal" and then starts out to list commercial, decidedly non-free stuff first. Frankly, this is bordering fraud. Imho, there should be a different page for commercial CMS, where all the commercial listings be moved to instead, maybe with a link to that page (like "For commercial offerings, go to this page"). I also think that all packages should include a mandatory license field, with only OSI-approved licenses, or a subset thereof, being allowed. I have nothing against listing commercial CMS offerings in Wikipedia, but pretty please not on a page that claims to talk about "free software". 193.221.127.48 (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

But why would an article named "List of content management systems" be considered part of the free software portal? I could see it if the article was named "List of free content management systems", which it isn't. The name as given has nothing to do with free (as in speech) or not. If there is any reason for a "free software portal" link at all (which I doubt), the proper place would be at the bottom of the page somewhere. In any case, this page is not primarily about free software. It is about content management systems. 68.231.118.191 (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe it would be better to remove this from the free software portal then. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Django

I don't think Django is suitable in cms list. It's just a framework not a cms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.131.195.60 (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree, I've removed it. Greenman (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Add info on which CMS's are used most

Not sure how to integrate the information, but I think there should at least be a link somewhere to http://www.backendbattles.com/Content_Management_Systems. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.16.193.254 (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

uCoz updates

The article uCoz has been updated by a non-registered user. Article now reads like an advert and Awards and References are dubious. uCoz is still clearly notable, but the article may need a revert; certainly a clean up. Sendalldavies (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

AdaptCMS Notability

All of the current references are on adaptcms.com and insanevisions.com (both domains have the same owner). I believe the article needs other references to satisfy notability guidelines. Sendalldavies (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)