Talk:CMScout

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	CMScout is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Just wondering what I can do to improve this article, especially since CMScout is one of the only CMS's that specialise in the needs of Scouting.

The large list of features is unnessecary really. The other systems don't have this and it makes it look like the CMS is more feature-heavy than the others. Replacing the list with a couple of paragraphs similar in style to others would be a big improvement. See my comments below on notability for more info on my viewpoint Philipwhiuk 10:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-notable

A Google search on "CMScout -wikipedia", shows that there is only 939 matches. A link search on Google yields no matches at all. So I believe CMScout is pretty non-notable, and hence does not have a place on Wikipedia. -- Frap 15:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at a couple of CMS's on Comparison of content management systems tells me that there are at least 4 other CMS articles that are also non-notable as per your google search. I understand your reasoning behind calling CMScout non-notable, however please bear in mind that it is the only active CMS currently available (That I am aware off) that caters for the Scouting community. Jediwannabe 06:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess it might be a good idea to tag them with the {{notability}} template then. -- Frap 14:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Just my 0.02- Scouting software on the whole is pretty poorly represented here. There are probably only a handful (say, fewer than 10) regular English language Scouting publications, so the likelihood of 'multiple published sources' referencing CMScout is pretty low. This highlights a difficulty with the notability guidelines: they're not particularly kind to niche products and phenomena. Incidentally, I'm one of several CMScout users but even that in itself does not prove notability. Peterleroux 22:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Notability_(software) regarding the proposed deletion. Especially note 2. 10:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As I am both the author of this article, and the author/creator of CMScout itself I will be staying out of this discussion as much as possible, but I'd just like to reiterate what Peterleroux said "There are probably only a handful (say, fewer than 10) regular English language Scouting publications", of those handful of regular English language Scouting publications I'd estimate that maybe fewer then 3-4 actually publish their articles online making it even harder to judge a niche product such as CMScout by a simple google search. In the same breath I'd like to say that instead of trying to remove this article, rather try to improve it. -- YiS, Jediwannabe 12:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware that some consider it bad to add your own system, similar to adding your own biography. The reason is the WP won't contain every single CMS. Therefore the people who should add it are the people who use it. Allowing author's to add their own material distort's the material. If you would like some guidance on this, have a look at what wikipedia isn't. Thanks for joining the En.Wikipedia community.

Philipwhiuk 10:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So this is the current situation: CMScout is considered non-notable in terms of the wikipedia guidelines. I can't argue with that interpretation, even if I think the policy might be a little bit broken. BUT there is really no mechanism for a niche CMS like this to get published and become notable in terms of this definition. Will there ever be millions of websites using it? Not likely, purely due to the niche nature of the software. Conversely, as far as the scouting wikiproject goes, inclusion of this topic is useful. So I suppose we're kind of stuck between complying with the guidelines for wikipedia as a whole and making a particular portal a somewhat complete reference to it's subject matter. Peterleroux 20:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)