Talk:List of content management systems/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Until Joomla is added, this list is not credible.

Shouldn't it be

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)

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)

A table maybe useful here since it seems that the information provided is: the name, the language (PHP etc.), the license and a link. This could be split into 4 columns.

I also have a list here of more CMSes and their licenses in tabular format:

Product Name               CMS Type                                                                License
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advantage                  Enterprise CMS                                                          ASP hosted 
Apache Lenya               General CMS                                                             Apache SL 
Ariadne                    General CMS                                                             GPL 
Atomz Publish              General CMS                                                             ASP hosted 
BackStream                 General CMS                                                             ASP hosted 
Bitflux CMS                General CMS                                                             GPL 
Bricolage                  General CMS                                                             GPL 
Campsite                   General CMS                                                             GPL 
Cocoon                     General CMS                                                             Apache SL 
Cofax                      Framework                                                               Cofax Software License (Apache-based) 
Collage                    General CMS                                                             Proprietary 
CommonSpot                 Enterprise CMS                                                          Proprietary 
Communique                 Enterprise CMS                                                          Proprietary 

DCP-Portal General CMS Proprietary Dynamicweb,General CMS, Proprietary Documentum 5 Enterprise CMS Proprietary

Drupal                     General CMS, Framework, Front End, News Portal, Blog                    GPL 
Ektron CMS100              General CMS                                                             Proprietary 
Ektron CMS200              General CMS                                                             Proprietary 
eNvolution                 News Portal                                                             GPL 
eZ Publish                 General CMS, Enterprise CMS, Framework                                  GPL 
FatWire Content Server     General CMS, Enterprise CMS                                             Proprietary 
FileNet CM                 General CMS                                                             Proprietary 
HardCore                   General CMS                                                             Proprietary 
IBM CMS                    General CMS                                                             Proprietary 
Icoya OpenContent          General CMS                                                             Proprietary 
Inmagic                    General CMS                                                             Proprietary 
iUpload                    General CMS                                                             Proprietary 
Jahia                      General CMS, Enterprise CMS, Framework, Front End, Editor, News Portal  Other Open Source 
Managee                    General CMS, Framework, Front End, Editor, News Portal, Blog            Free Trial / $500 
Mason                      General CMS, Framework, Front End, Editor, News Portal, Blog            Other Open Source 
Mediasurface               General CMS, Framework, Front End, Editor, News Portal, Blog            Proprietary 
Metadot                    General CMS, Enterprise CMS, Framework                                  GPL 
Microsoft CMS              Enterprise CMS                                                          Proprietary 
Midgard                    Framework                                                               LGPL 
MySource                   General CMS                                                             MySource Public Licence 
NPS CMS                    General CMS                                                             MySource Public Licence 
One-To-One                 General CMS                                                             Proprietary 
OpenACS                    General CMS                                                             GPL 
OpenCMS                    General CMS                                                             GPL 
PHP-Nuke                   General CMS                                                             GPL 
phpSlash                   News Portal                                                             GPL 
Plone                      General CMS                                                             GPL 
PostNuke                   News Portal                                                             GPL 
Profium                    News Portal                                                             GPL 
Red Bridge                 News Portal                                                             GPL 
RedDot                     General CMS                                                             Proprietary 
Red Hat CMS                General CMS, Enterprise CMS, Framework, Editor                          Other Open Source 
Rhythmyx 5                 General CMS                                                             Proprietary 
SilkRoad Eprise            General CMS                                                             Proprietary 
SiteRefresh                General CMS, Enterprise CMS, Framework, Front End, Editor               Proprietary, ASP hosted 
SiteSage                   General CMS                                                             Proprietary 
Smartwebs IRT              General CMS                                                             Proprietary 
Stellent CMS               General CMS                                                             Proprietary 
TeamSite 5                 Enterprise CMS                                                          Proprietary 
Tiki                       General CMS, News Portal, Blog, Wiki                                    GPL 
Tridion R5                 General CMS, Enterprise CMS                                             Proprietary 
Typo3                      General CMS                                                             GPL 
UpdateEngine6              General CMS                                                             Proprietary 
Userland                   General CMS, Blog                                                       Proprietary 
Vignette V7                Enterprise CMS, Framework                                               Proprietary 
VIP Enterprise             Enterprise CMS                                                          Proprietary 
Web500                     General CMS                                                             Proprietary 
WebGUI                     General CMS, Framework                                                  GPL 
Xaraya                     General CMS, Framework                                                  GPL 
Zope                       Framework                                                               GPL

Reformatted « 

✆ ✉

 » 5 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)

--ShaunMacPherson 4 July 2005 20:46 (UTC)

I like that idea. The article already looks like a huge mess and really needs something like this to clean it up. « 

✆ ✉

 » 5 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)

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)

There seem to be various Nuke and Plone derivatives - IMO changing the odd few lines of code here and there doesn't really make it a new CMS.

The list is now very comprehensive, which in itself might be a problem isn't it's a little too big now - can anyone think of some splits?

Thinking on the commercial side to split regionally onto other pages since if someone is interested in a commercial CMS they want them to be available business hours etc.

Before splitting the list out I'll wait for comments though.

IMHO, "Movable Type" is not OSS, because it requires a fee for commercial use

--

Why is CityDesk in the Heavyweight (>15000$) category? It's 299,- per editor, and clearly aimed at small to middle companies.

--

Isn't MediaWiki also a CMS? -J

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)

It was actually moved over the redirect that used to exist here by

?

13:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Consolo is free to use for developers. It is one of the most polished, feature-filled and well designed systems to use for free. Despide the fact that it is complete and ready to use, developers can customize Consolo to a large extent to suit their needs, and also sell Consolo to their clients. The free version of Consolo handles everything the licensed versions do - including xml, xhtml, Flash, databases. Limitations only apply to number of login-accounts. No expiration date

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."

RE:March 2006 Cleanup
If this page is meant to be a comparison of CMS's. Then what is the comparison that we should agree on. Should the comparison be about ease of use for the programmer or end users?

The current list of cms's is about free and commercial programs, with commerical products being further split by price?

Even the information listed for each of the sections is different!

As you can see from this summary:

"Free and open source software".

Name/Platform/Supported databases/Latest stable release/Website

"Commercial Inexpensive (< $2000 )"

Name/Info/Country(ies)/Website

"Commercial Medium (< $15,000)"

Name/Language/Members/"Forms/WYSIWYG"/API/Country(ies)/Website

"Commercial Expensive (> $15,000)"

Name/Description/Countries/Website

Why the different columns?
How about the "commercial cms's" have the same infomation as the "free cms's". Is't the database type relevant?
Don't the Free cms's have "Forms/WYSIWYG" or an "API".
Why do the "Commercial Expensive (> $15,000)" have a "description" or <$2000 have an "Info" Column?

If we keep the page as is should we have one more catagory for "commercial unsupported but free eg:Trialware,Shareware" or something similar. In my brief look I found that Orbspinner is not being worked on by the author and has been left as a non expiring trial program, and is currently listed under cms's that cost $.

Maybe the page needs to be split in to free and commercial.

Please add your thoughts.

I am interested in helping to clean this article up.
Jrinaldi 20:09, 01 April 2006 (UTC) (not an April fool!)

If not one objects I will commence cleaning up this article next week. Jrinaldi 04:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the Members column in commercial medium for? --Sindri 15:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

It would have been MUCH better to remove the redlinks without removing the contents. Removing the listings that had a redlink is in effect destroying content. Case in point - one vendor had a relevent wikipedia page, and linked to it on this page. The other page was deleted because another person thought it was copyright infringement (it was not), and then this page then shows a redlink. The entire listing for the vendor on this page was deleted by this activity. Remember, the goal is to remove the bad links, not the content. This has happened multiple times in the past year.

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

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)

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)

• Re:

Ok, I've added the two columns they are Price and Online Demo. I think that division of content management systems by price is very obscure, in the sense that for comparison price matters, but it's not listed anywhere. What concerns Online Demo, I think that it is an important aspect as well! Most of the systems listed here don't offer an Online Demo, under which I impy a live working system, which a person can try, not just documentation telling how good it is. --Totl 10:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

I think that latest version numbers are useful, and in order to be more updated, a release date should be included next to the version number. Thus, it will be more obvious when some entries' date of latest release is old, that it is time to check it. Or even a note like: (as of March 2007). Ibanezix 10:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that this page has now got too large to be useful? How about placing points of comparison on this page i.e. staging / non-staging, workflow, forms/wysiwyg/hybrid, etc. on this page and place the lists on further pages. It probably is still worthwhile if someone is searching for a CMS to keep the split over price bracket since that is likely to be the one point they can't move.

It would be really interesting, to have some information on the market relevance of the products (per year). Of course I understand that this is quite a challenge and it's not only done with an additional column (or a replacement of the 'latest version' column. - I agree completely that it's obsolete since this information is outdated very soon. And there is no use to it, because you can get the info from the provider's page - if not, it's not relevant anyway.)

Btw: Sorting those tables would not be bad. But that's a request concerning the wikimedia software...

Keyanoo 12:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is things such as Market Relevance are simply not available, lied about, and get outdated about as fast as the latest version number for software. --Sindri

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)

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)

OK, here's the logic: We can't list every CMS in the world--the list would be unmaintainably large and of dubious value in an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is not here so that people can promote their favorite products. So we need some rough measure of notability, and the one we tend to use on this page is whether there is a Wikipedia article on it. If there isn't, or if there is but it gets deleted for notability reasons, then the CMS is probably not notable enough for this article. So the advice people in your position get is to demonstrate notability by writing a good article on the CMS they think should be included here first, then include it in the list. I hope that's a useful answer. · rodii · 02:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that authors destroy content on this page about once every month or so. Frequent excuses are removing redlinks and the most recent is removing non-articles. The effect of both of these is destroying valuable content for other users that are using wikipedia to find CMS vendors. Some perspective - this page ranks very high in Google search results for CMS searches - many users visit this page as a result. If the desire is to remove relinks, then simply remove the link but leave the content. There is no valid reason to remove vendor listings simply because they are not other articles, especially considering that wikipedia does not want to have commercial web pages for every vendor's products. It would be beneficial if the community would revert content editing changes that result in destruction of content on this page.—The preceding

I welcome a discussion about this, but unilaterally dictating that a long-standing practice be dropped is not a good way of going about this. I've given my argument about this before--look directly above your comment. But I am happy to hear what other people say. Realize, though, that this list operates like most other software-oriented lists on Wikipedia, in that we can't allow it to become a spam magnet, and we can't list every CMS in existence. (I have heard this "destroying content" accusation before here, by the way, and I don't like it. Selectivity and keeping an article focused is not a crime.) · rodii · 01:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This list is in my opinion much better after the non notable entries have been removed, and probably much more usefull for users looking for a CMS vendor. Wikipedia has pretty well developed guidelines regarding notability of content and removing listings of systems that are not notable enough to have their own wikipedia entry is quite well in line with that. --Sindri 09:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The notability guidelines that you quote say NOTHING about having another Wikipedia article to qualify for notability. The current practice enforced here in this article is not consistent with the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.70.37 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that the address of the above anonymous user 24.72.70.37 (talk · contribs) resolves to regina.accesscomm.ca and past edits revolve around including ADXSTUDIO here. ADXSTUDIO is, coincendently, located in Regina. This user's arguments are very similar to those of banned blocked user Shan [email protected] (talk · contribs) who also advocated for ADXSTUDIO. Seems like the no redlink policy is working well for this article. JonHarder 23:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

But the user has a point - the guidelines do not specify that having another article is required for notability. I would not agree that the redlink policy is working - just look at the list of CMSes in this article and compare it to industry lists - most of the major vendors are missing here. WebCmsXpert

Vague generalizations don't really help us here. Which "major vendors" are missing? If they are indeed "major" and meet the notability criteria, then creating an article for them that meets inclusion guidelines should be fairly easy - please

be bold and do it! -- Satori Son

05:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. It is straight forward to create an article for a notable product. I know of an editor who is probably creating a dozen technology-related articles every week that are the merest stubs and they are rarely deleted. The editors that get into trouble are those who create a new account named "foo-bar-sales" and then create the article "foo-bar-widget" with multiple links to "foo-bar-site" from that article and then add those same links to five other articles and then come to this article and wonder why their first article went all red. JonHarder 14:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

However it should of course be quite possible that "foo-bar-sales" writes a reasonably NPOV article about "foo-bar" with a single link to "foo-bar.com" and everyone is happy with it and it does not get deleted. (Knowing a few sales people I realize this is unlikely to happen :). Then again I have sometimes seen articles (for example the Vignette article) clearly written by salespeople get deleted while they would have been easy to fix to be more NPOV. --Sindri 18:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The point that 24.72.70.37 was making is that the official policy on Wikipedia notability does NOT require another article for notability. The response to that user by JonHarder was an unreasonable and unprovoked personal attack on the user and did not address the original complaint. As for my own comments, and to qualify the question that was asked of me, here is a list of notable commercial CMSes that have once been on this list but are now deleted: Interwoven, Ektron, OpenText, SiteCore, Vignette, IBM Websphere, Ingeniux, Hannon Hill, Immediacy, Hot Banana, WebSideStory, and others. The root of the problem is that any hint of a commercial page will result in it being deleted, then it is deleted as a CMS here. This policy is heavily weighted towards open-source products and against commercial products. In my own opinion, this page should be deleted because the current trend of removing all the commercial CMS systems is resulting in a page that is not accurate - and that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a list service. Just count the commercial CMS systems in the list and compare them to the open-source CMSes. I can tell you that the open source/commercial ratio and systems listed in this page are not a reflection of the current state of the CMS market. Another acid test is to compare the vendors here with the other referenced sites (cmswatch.com and cmsmatrix.org) and note how incomplete and inaccurate this page has become. Finally, look at the change history for this article and notice all of the activity related to adding and deleting links. It is obvious to anyone that this page is not serving its purpose of being a CMS comparison, and that it is fraught with conflict and link management. My vote would be to delete this page or make it into a REAL comparison of CMS features between notable CMS systems as also recognized by the industry. WebCmsXpert 01:41, 28 Nov, 2006 (UTC)

For information on how to nominate this article for deletion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. We cannot decide to do that here, but, once nominated, the article will be evaluated by the Wikipedia community at large and the decision will be based on whatever consensus might emerge. Thanks, Satori Son 17:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's more an editorial policy of not including spam than one of not "destroying" content. By including only those products which have articles we introduce certain minimum standards that should keep the list to a manageable size. Not that Shan McArthur is in any way associated with ADXStudio or anything, right? [1].

WP:NOT the Yellow Pages. Just zis Guy you know?

16:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't going to go there, because it would be good to build a consensus on the general principle without going into the motives of this or that contributor. But this issue is usually raised by people whose products have been delisted. It would be nice if people would disclose their affiliations--they're not hard to discover usually and transparency is good. · rodii · 17:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that the following systems are missing from the list:

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)

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)

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)

And to give more perspective, we used to have a Wikipedia page, but that got removed because it "violated copyrights", despite me giving permission to list it, following all of the standards, and following up with the person who removed it. No go. So when that page was removed, our inclusion on this page was also removed because of this "notability rule". Please consider that having a Wikipedia listing for a product does not make a product notable. It has nothing to do with its notability. Notability has more to do with other factors that are well outside of Wikipedia. Yes, Rodi, you have heard a complaint about destroying content before - it was you who removed the listing in the first place. I would recommend that more fair / open / intelligent practices be used to determine notability instead of a single simple-minded rule of having to have another wikipedia page. I would suggest that notability criteria would include being listed in other CMS portals, having a product that uses current technology, having a product that has been released in the past 2 years be considered for notability. Many of the products that have been removed are notable in my opinion, therefore, removing them from the listing is "destroying content".

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 says

This 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)

ocportal is missing (www.ocportal.com)

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:

1. Having a recent product release that uses current technology.
2. Having a membership in a professional CMS association (ie: AIIM)
3. Having a set of features that collectively make the product a 'notable' CMS
4. Obtaining press release attention in CMS news sites (ie: cmswire)
5. Having a website that provides full product and contact information.
6. Being included in other CMS portals (ie: cmsmatrix)
7. 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 [email protected] (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)

Well using your "first and foremost" rule, non-cms software (like Trac) is being listed while notable commercial CMS vendors are being deleted. As I stated earlier, we need to have a much more robust definition to define what is notable and what is not, because the current standard is not working.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shan [email protected] (talk • contribs) 23:10, 21 August 2006

It appears a page for a CMS application (one of which I am a part and helped contribute the page), is the first of many CMS related pages [threatened to be deleted]. It would appear the individuals leading the deletion have little topic knowledge of CMS applications (or certainly few edits in the area). As a [contributing software developer] for 4 such systems and someone who has contributed several edits a year to these pages, I personally find this list and the subsequent pages to be extremely useful and is the place to go for spam-free, nicely edited introductions the many choices available in this area. If you are interested in preserving this topic area, [please speak up on the deletion discussion] about why these pages are useful. Thanks for any interest. --Spiderr 05:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• For your information: addressing another party of a discussion as a mob, even outside that discussion, does not build good will. —xyzzy_n 15:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• As part of the accused "mob", let me say that I don't think anyone involved in that AfD debate has any intention of trying to have this article here, or any other one on a notable subject, deleted. The goal of every editor for this article should be the one that is clearly stated and previously agreed upon: "This 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." That is sound policy and I have no intention of doing anything that does not further that purpose. --Satori Son 14:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your sentiment - I also see a lot of evidence of completely unqulified individuals leading the deletion mob. I would like to add that "having a wikipedia article" as the sole judgement of what is "notable" is completely ludricous. It makes absolutely no sense in the real world. Evidence that this "standard" is not working - the three leading commercial ASP.NET CMSes are not in this list, and their individual wikipedia articles were also deleted. Wikipedia doesn't like to have product pages, and I don't think it should. As such, this page is going to be reduced to a list of open source CMS products because one-by-one, each commercial vendor will be deleted. In many ways I wish this page was deleted and replaced with a set of new pages each containing full comparisons of the different features of CMS products for each of the primary platforms. The feature comparisons should be done with relevent features that would help users make decisions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shan [email protected] (talk • contribs) 15:48, 20 August 2006

• If by "completely unqulified" (sic), you mean not having a financial interest in whether any particular piece of software is listed on Wikipedia or not, then I'll cop to that. --Satori Son 21:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the previous opinion. As someone who is developing one the leading Content Management Systems I find it appalling the misinformation presented on this page. What happened to major Content Management systems that happened to be the World's most popular. There is no mentioning of Interwoven TeamSite, Vignett, Documentum, Stellent. This site seems to promote an agenda that has nothing in common with objective presentation of information. I propose to lock this page and have it to be modified by registered users only. I also propose to make meaningful comments a requirement for every checkin. That way at least we can learn the reasons for editors actions. (!) Jeff CMS

Er, misinformation? Unless the costs or system requirements are wrong there is none, only omitted information. The consensus is to list only content management systems that have articles on Wikipedia (and by the way, Vignette and Stellent are definitely on the list). If you want a "major CMS" to have an article, write one that establishes its notability in an

?

 2007‑02‑12t21:18z

I would suggest having some type of votes or points given for the maturity, usefullness and such for the different CMS's. With so many around, there has to be a huge difference in features, usability, etc.

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)

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)

• I see that no one objected to the external link and that you have now added it, but the description that accompanied it seemed a little like an advertisement. I have toned it down a little to comply with
  WP:NPOV and WP:ADVERT. Thanks, Satori Son
  18:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• Although OpenSourceCMS.com is a fine information page, it's reduced to LAMP (at least MP) CMS. Therefore it might be too focused? But this leads again to the question of a NOTABLE CMS? I believe, that the underlying technology makes some users believe that something isn't so important (notable) at all - so I'm guilty too, as I try to avoid PHP systems (no reason, just usance) and therefore I believe that OpenSourceCMS.com isn't so important ;-) Metazargo 09:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)