Talk:Umbraco

Article for deletion dispute
This is an article about an open-source CMS used in over 75,000 sites and I have created it for the simple reason that it was missing. It was marked as a candidate for deletion under the provisons of section G11, but only due to lack of good faith. Umbraco is a product similar to a list of other products that have a wikipedia article about them. Moreover it is mentioned in wikipedia articles about CMS just like those other systems, but unlike them has no dedicated article about it. For the record, I am in no way affiliated with umbraco.org.

Miltiadis Kokkonidis (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This dispute started a few hours ago when the article I created was not even a worthwhile stub; thought it could do with additional work, it is significantly better now. The article is about a major player in the CMS market. 0 gnews hits proves nothing except that gnews hits is not an adequate criterion. Though I recognise its value as a factor in such decisions in the absence of specialist knowledge, in this case such knowledge exists. The independent survey mentioned in the references has a well-documented and credible methodology for selecting the 20 CMSs it considers noteworthy; it excludes a number of CMSs that have wikipedia articles, but recognises Umbraco as the second most important .NET CMS in terms of market share. Miltiadis Kokkonidis (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the language used in the article (my bad) have been solved thanks to help from the Wikipedia community. Right now, there is, in my opinion, no reason to delete this article. Both noteworthiness has been established and the language has been fixed. Miltiadis Kokkonidis (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

On self published sources -- while I accept that Twitter isn't a reliable source, I fail to see how the use of umbraco.org is inadmissable in this article. The articles on Joomla, Drupal and Dot Net Nuke each cite sources from their own corporate sites to define their license and features. So the key question for me is it suitable in this context, if so we should be removing the concerns on the self-published sources here, or if not then the same concerns must be applied to Drupal and DNN --Mardenpb1 (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

After reading the drupal article, I fail to see why the Umbraco acrticle has to go. How ever i do agree that part the section about Umbraco's top x position is kind of spammy and should be edited. Woltersw (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll take that criticism on the chin -- not my greatest NPOV work. I've found an article that was written end of last year with more neutral ranking of the main CMS's on .net that I'll update the page with shortly. --Mardenpb1 (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that the issue of speedy deletion has a negative effect on the article. Those like myself that think the article belongs in Wikipedia have to 1) prove Umbraco is noteworthy and 2) ensure the language and the kind of information found in the article are appropriate for an article in an encyclopedia, not some marketing brochure. When trying to prove umbraco is noteworthy, we end up trying to give figures and facts showing that it is one of the important players in the .NET CMS market. I feel a bit uncomfortable with a significant part of the article being about figures aiming to show Umbraco is a noteworthy .NET CMS. It is. We need to move on from there and concentrate on improving the article. Unfortunately, it does not feel safe to leave out such figures; we still feel that we need to show umbraco is a notable enough CMS to have an article in Wikipedia about it. To be honest, the article would be better off without some of them, but at the same time those of us that are contributing to this article would be better off, if we did not have to worry about two things at the same time. We need to finish with this speedy deletion dispute and work on the article. Once we know the article is here to stay, we may have a cooler head about deciding what facts and figures to include and which to leave out.

Miltiadis Kokkonidis (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The whole deleteEAGERNESS of some wikipedia users is what puts a lot of people off the whole site... It is obvious to any sane person that wikipedia needs an article about Umbraco CMS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.200.224.138 (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Self-published sources
I am not sure all the annotations regarding self-published references are appropriate. What I write below is best read after reading the following: 1. Primary sources 2. Self-published sources

What the gudelines regarding primary, secondary, and teriary sources state: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. [...]  An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper is a primary source about the experiments performed by the authors. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources. Our policy: Reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge."

What the guidelines ragarding self-published sources state: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable. Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources."

There are a number of places where this articles has been said to be using self-published sources:

1. the open source backend is released under an MIT License while the UI is released under the Umbraco license[1][self-published source?]. [1] is the actual licence. This is actually best described as a primary source and the statement about it is a descriptive statement that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. So I will remove the [self-pusblished source?] annotation.

2. It was released as open source software in 2004[2][self-published source?]. [2] Is an umbraco.org page, not a personal page. It is the source whence anyone writing about umbraco gets this bit of information. Is it a reliable source? Well, it is not an independent source. So if umbraco.org wanted to claim umbraco was the first CMS and that it dates back to 1999, we would have reason to be cautious and report this as a claim, not a fact, but for the statement above, there is no obvious reason to say "Umbraco.org claims that umbraco was released as open software in 2004". So I will delete the [self-pusblished source?] annotation and leave the statement as it is.

3. Oracle support is being worked on as of 2010 [8][self-published source?]. 4. the codebase has been branched and modified to produce a version of the framework and backend UI which supports Medium Trust[9][self-published source?].

[8] is not exactly what I would consider an appropriate reference. [9] may be classified as a self-published source; this is frustrating because there is nothing wrong with a member of an open source community announcing his technical work in the community's wiki. Even if [9] is a self-published source, I trust it to be a reliable source, more reliable than any announcement a software giant makes in their website. I will delete [8] and leave [9] intact. The problem with [9] could be fixed if umbraco.org made an official announcement about the work described in [9] and a reference to that work replaced [9].

4. In 2009 there were 170[13][self-published source?] attendees [13] is a conference website. A conference website does not count as a self-published source of the sort Wikipedia articles should avoid. However, the information was not readily available on the link specified. [13] points to a page where you can get information about a forthcoming conference and register for it. I will delete it; hopefully, a more appropriate link will be provided.

Miltiadis Kokkonidis (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Download Statistics
The article states "In February 2010 Umbraco is the 2nd most downloaded Web CMS on the ASP.NET platform and grew from 117,079 downloads in 2008 to 275,366 downloads in 2009". This statement is misleading; the WCMS was not downloaded 275,366 times. The figures shown on codeplex states how many downloads the project had in 2009 (which includes readme files and documentation), not specifically how many times the source code archive / a single installation file was downloaded. Sendalldavies (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for new section: Document types, MasterPages, XSLT, etc.
It would be of interest, I think, for someone to add information about how these fit together, pointing out areas where umbraco differs from other popular CMSs. Miltiadis Kokkonidis (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)