Talk:CMS

Page makeover

This CMS page is getting quite unruly. I would like to see it get pared down a bit, as there's some terms that, IMO, should be removed. Any comments? - grubber 16:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated the page per MoS:DP. Might be easier to pare down now. Tedernst | talk 21:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed some broken links - tux_the_penguin{not signed in}

I increased the organization of the page and removed extraneous links, per WP:MOSDAB. I think we should remove every middle school entry that is not linked to its ownl to delete its entry from the CMS page. If, however, these schools are not shown to be anything more than average middle schools, I suggest that the removal of these entries will do more good than their presence. -- Jeremy Reeder, CJS, CPS 03:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One might make the same argument about ALL of the middle schools listed. Trevor Hanson 04:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one certainly might. I interpret your response to mean that you favor removing all middle schools from the page. And, I, in fact, agree. In the case of such a common acronym as CMS, I don't think it makes sense to list every possible meaning. Since interest in any particular middle school is almost totally limited to a very small geographic area, I believe that almost every interested person already knows the full name of the school. When that is not true, a geographically limited search may produce better results. -- Jeremy Reeder, CJS, CPS 02:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are differences of opinion about treatment for places of local interest, but it is hard to imagine that Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage is enhanced by having an article for every middle school in the world. (Why not go to the logical extreme? Let's create an article about every organization and every person on the planet.) Regardless of who may be interested in the middle schools in a particular locale, we must not lost sight of the need for verifiability and (even more) notability: Wikipedia is not a directory. However, expunging such entries means stomping on the myriad students and teachers who are thrilled to leave their own footprints on Wikipedia – some of whom will be the next generation of serious Wikipedia contributors. So although such articles don't belong here, a Wikipedia Content Police could be counterproductive. My first blush reaction – "get rid of them all" – is being tempered by the realization that this is a larger, Wiki-wide issue. Trevor Hanson 06:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the set of middle schools with one line referring to all middle schools to which the acronym could apply. I believe this action matches the desires of all those who have expressed opinions here. References to specific middle schools might be well placed in a section of the Middle schools page.

- I removed the link. If there are many "CMS"'s as far as middle schools, then a page like CMS (school disambiguation) might be more appropriate. Linking to Middle school doesn't get the user any closer to a middle school named CMS. Any ideas? - grubber 04:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Situational question

There's an odd situation about IBM's CMS which historically had 2 distinct names:

Cambridge Monitor System
Conversational Monitor System

In other words, IBM changed the name, but the CMS remained the same.

I attempted to reflect this in the disambig with this line:

Conversational Monitor System, previously Cambridge Monitor System, an operating system

I don't believe this is worth 2 separate lines in a page that is already heavily loaded. However, SlackerMom undid the change with this reason:

revert redlinks to blue links, one blue link per line)

I'm not sure what redlinks refers to in this case, but I believe this is a little different situation in which we have 2 names with same acronym for the same product. I believe it's clearer if both names have the same link, and I think it becomes less clear if this is split into 2 lines.

Is the rule quoted sealed in stone? Thank you for clarification.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 09:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are times when it serves the purpose of clarity to allow two blue links in one line, and I understand the reason for your question, but there is no need for two blue links in this situation since both of them go to exactly the same article. Including both names in the line is sufficient for clarity and keeps people from having to choose which link to click for more information. (The issue of the redlinks was a separate one caused by changing capitalization in two other existing links on the page, which had caused them to become red rather than blue.) Did that answer the question? SlackerMom (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wellllllllllllll, as a tech writer, I felt the two links made the point more clearly. (Thanks for writing back, by the way.) The situation came to my attention when I scanned down the list looking for "Cambridge Monitor System" and didn't spot it until I did a second scan for "Conversational Monitor System". However, if it violates some Wiki rule, I suppose we're prevented from doing it.

Thank you. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, that is an interesting problem, and I think the blue link should generally be the one that most people would be looking for after typing in "CMS". If the name of the article isn't the most commonly used name, that might be an argument for using the redirect instead (Cambridge Monitor System). (If, for example, IBM changed the name, but nobody knows or uses the new one.) If it's too hard to guess which one would be most likely to be searched for, then I think we should probably default to the current article name and let any argument be waged there. While I agree that the blue does make the links easier to spot, it also implies that there are two different articles, which is obviously not the case. SlackerMom (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cubic_metre_per_second

Add Cubic_metre_per_second. Jidanni (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]