Talk:Web content management system

Untitled
Should these links below be included?
 * Vendor Neutral Articles About Content Management Systems

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.90.147 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (links removed by user:Andypandy.UK)


 * Duh, NO. Why do you keep on with this? Link to the original articles or not at all.  &middot; rodii &middot;  16:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * contribs) 16:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: This previously blanked talk page reconstructed by dcljr (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC) -- See User talk:24.137.90.147 for related discussion.

Does this page serve any useful purpose?
There's very little content on this page; there's more about web content management at Content_management_system. In addition, there are some contradictions between the two pages. I don't have any preference either way, but it seems that either the relevant content from Content_management_system should be moved here, or this page should be removed. Groogle 23:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it really adds a great deal. Most content management systems have some web element these days. There's a lot of fluff in the CMS articles generally, and the section in Content management system is to an extent worse - its a loose collection of unsourced requirements that apply just as well to almost any system. Also, most of these systems exist on a continuum from simple templating systems (eg Bloxsom, nanoblogger, instiki) to the 'enterprisey' systems like BroadVision. If the two articles were merged, more eyes might improve the content.
 * BTW I cleaned the article up a bit - the baking/frying/parbaking terminology was only used by a single author (ghits in single figures). Systems often describe themselves as offline if they do the preprocessing thing; the online systems more often use the term 'dynamic' (but not Dynamic HTML, as previously stated in this article, thats something else entirely). It was bugging me seeing all those redlinks crop up in my watchlist, the terms arent in common use at all. Bazzargh (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Vendor Biased.
The page is also clearly vendor-biased; none of the disadvantages of Web CMS as compared to straight HTML are mentioned. -Such as extreme complexity of admin interfaces, the restrictive nature of the templates as regards page layout, backup/restore issues, an endless list of hacking/defacement vulnerabilities, and the need to edit websites 'live' (with mistakes immediately visible to the Web before the page can be proofread) are mentioned. --Anteaus (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Vendor Biased.
This page should be removed and replaced - vendor bias is clear and does in no way represent accurate or balanced information on WCMS

09:15, 22 March 2009

I am also developing a CMS through ASP.Net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.205.185 (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Disquiet
Can I add my concerns that in my POV this page is limited and dated --ClemRutter (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Capabilities section is full of unnecessary repetitions
Delegation entry duplicates Access Control, etc. Pmartycz (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Filenet isn't a wCMS
Why have filenet on this page? It's mainly geared toward the enterprise and files. Not web content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumblog (talk • contribs) 19:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)