Talk:Concrete CMS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note to Wikipedia Police[edit]

Um, why did you delete the lists of features? Take a look at the other content management entries on Wikipedia like Joomla and you'll see this is common practice.

And don't worry, I plan on adding the third-party citations you so diligently require. Sheesh, kill a guy for trying to contribute to Wikipedia, why dontcha...?! Mrmerlot (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, this comment was seen as a personal attack. I'm not sure how that's possible as I did not address this toward any specific individual. Be that as it may, I would strongly encourage you to help build this page and respond to my cogent response above versus taking personal offense. Mrmerlot (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding "COI" to the banner[edit]

I realize that this article is in need of some work, but please stop adding the Conflict of Interest warning to the banner. I have absolutely nothing to do with the concrete5 company. I am only an enthusiastic end-user. Thank you. Mrmerlot (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There does not seem to be a "conflict of interest" associated with this article. Neither the originator nor other contributors have added sales jargon to promote the software. Please remove this as an issue from the warning banner. Waykup (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment as the originator of the coi tag - I believe Waykup that he/she doesn't have a Wp:COI here and the tag should remain off. It should be noted that Waykup (talk · contribs) and Mrmerlot (talk · contribs) are the same editor though. Toddst1 (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, adding the COI banner without proof of an actual COI is simply incivil and disruptive. Odd nature (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Features list removal[edit]

As stated in the edit summary, the feature list was removed because it was a cut/paste from the project's web page. See wp:copyvio. Toddst1 (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with removing the "does not have an enterprise version" statement as this aspect of the platform is of paramount importance to anyone involved in deciding on an enterprise CMS platform. Perhaps it can be included on the matrix on the List of CMSs page. Waykup (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A list of what something doesn't have? There are no reliable sources for any of this... so let's, at minimum, keep the unsourced information down to the basics, which is what we have here. Wikipedia is not a users guide, an advertising service, etc... We're not interested in helping anyone chose the "enterprise CMS platform" that's right for them. That statement out of any sort of meaningful context (Why doesn't it have an "enterprise version?" Why should the general reader care if it does or doesn't? What reliable, independent sources discuss this absence of an enterprise version? etc...)has no place here. Bali ultimate (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be good to wait for more sources before adding much more to this article. henrik•talk 20:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Sources are only necessary for contentious points, and no one is saying the features of this application are contentious. Let's not make a mountain out of molehill. Feel free to keep the list in. Odd nature (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toddst1, it's not a copyvio if the list is rewritten and cites the source: That's called following the WP rules. I suggest Waykup rewrite the list and add www.concrete5.org as a source. Odd nature (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afd[edit]

I am looking to find any reliable third party sources and can find non. There are a few that at first glace might count but read like self-published sources targeted at the content-management software community: those sources may be independent, but they're still the industrial version of local newspaper coverage, and do not confer notability among the general public under the applicable notability guideline. Thoughts? 16x9 (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for third-party sources as well, 16x9, but this seems to be limited to sites that currently use the CMS. I think it's still a valid page (I created it under a previous account; and no, I do not have a conflict of interest. I am a contractor with the federal government, not an employee of concrete5). Check out an early and stable version of the Joomla! page which demonstrates that perfection isn't necessary to be a good page. Since concrete5 only recently became "free and open source," I would expect to see more reporting on it (besides the blogosphere) in upcoming months. Waykup (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking for perfection, I don't believe any CMS article has achieved a good or featured rating. Wikipedia does however require that articles have third party reliable sources that show notability of the subject. 16x9 (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood and thank you for not insisting that I have a COI... Waykup (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are overstating the issue, 16x9. Concrete CMS is clearly notable on it's face, and the sources provided below are sufficient. Is there a reason you seem opposed to this article? Odd nature (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant these sources? [1] [2] [3] They're not exactly Nature, Science or New York Times, but I think they could be used in lieu of better ones. henrik•talk 05:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this press release/marketing speak but I don't think wikipedia should lower it standards of notablitly (and blocking for that matter). The article could be rewritten if it EVER becomes notable. 16x9 (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the issues or concern with these sources. They meet the criteria for WP:RS, particularly CMS Watch, which is the equivalent of Gartner or Forrester Research. There's no risk of WP lowering it's editorial standards by using these links. Odd nature (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates[edit]

Sources have been provided which also establish notability. I've removed the templates. Odd nature (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate Claims of Uniqueness[edit]

  • Removed: "It differs from other CMS platforms by enabling site users to edit directly from the page." - Many CMS solutions have offered this functionality for over 5 years. Sendalldavies (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed: "This makes the platform easy to use with a minimum of technical skills." - Sales talk. All CMS solutions are designed to make website content editing simple for the end user. Sendalldavies (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed: "Also unique to concrete5 is the ability to edit images through an embedded editor on the page." - Not true. Many CMS solutions have had this functionality for over 5 years. Sendalldavies (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cmscritic review (ref 6) does not exit[edit]

I'm not editing the article as I could be accused of having a COI. The reference linking to the Review Farm website cmscritic.com no longer exists. cmswire, cmswatch and cmscritic all approach software owners like myself offering to write articles in exchange for reciprocal links, and in my experience cannot be counted on to give an independent unbiased assessment. Sendalldavies (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Language[edit]

Hi, what programming language is Concrete5 written in? The article doesn't tell! :) I can only assume that it's PHP (but what version?) due to the category. --Wutzofant (✉✍) 13:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Concrete5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concrete CMS lots of updates[edit]

Trying to get our wiki page up to date, https://forums.concretecms.org/t/wikipedia-coi-help/6033/3

Community Section Added[edit]

Concrete CMS has a large community of users and developers who contribute to the project. As of Aug 2023 there is more than +258 contributors. [1]

Users Section Added[edit]

Notable Concrete users

References

  1. ^ "Contributors to concretecms/concretecms". GitHub. Retrieved 2023-08-14.
  2. ^ a b c "Content Management Systems Used by Government Agencies – Digital.gov". Digital Gov. 2023-03-23. Archived from the original on 2023-03-23.
  3. ^ a b c "Websites using Concrete CMS". trends.builtwith.com. Retrieved 2023-08-14.
  4. ^ "Potawatomi Hotel & Casino - Hotel and Casino Marketing and Web Design". Trivera. Retrieved 2023-08-14.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Concrete_CMS&oldid=1201092795"