Let me clear up a few things, starting with content.
A CMS (Content Management System) is a mechanism in which the content and its media, pertinent to the site, is stored and can be manipulated: added, edited and deleted. These three basic functions form the core of a CMS. Such system may or may not include features to which the content may be presented to the user. However, the system does not offer additional features for specific requirements, such as forums. The system may provide provisions for textual content to be edited, adding in formatting where necessary to promote certain effects to the user. The system does not focus on entertaining a template system or a poll system. The CMS may give the option of how the content is displayed and delivered to the reader. Primarily, the system does not offer a feedback mechanism for content readers to communicate with the content authors/distributors. The platform does not provide social networking or other capabilities. These fall within the grounds of a complete Site Management System.
Take for example, my version of a CMS, as you may have seen earlier in the thread. All that piece of software does is provide a page for a user to add and edit "pages" or content. The editing interface is accompanied with a WYSIWYG editor, just to ensure that any content added is formatted correctly. Fields to define the page's meta information are provided. Basically, the minimum features a page should have to be successful. This is the basic and primary definition of a CMS.
To be clear, how much development have you done with a CMS, how far have you taken it with your projects?
I guess what I really want to see is a detailed case study to support why you’re against giving CMS (WP for exampe) the credit it deserves? But not just googling for answer and claim that you've defined whatsoever again. I don't want see yet another eassy either. I’m sure we could go back and forth forever with you giving reasons and me countering them.
Apparently I hit a third rail in the CMS world, because the comments kept flowing.
And, it still remains a vendor and consultant dominated landscape that you trying to frame the space based on the tools and put up artificial walls based on product price points or analyst quadrants/waves. And yes, I lump myself into that bucket, although I try my hardest to stay on the outside.
Don’t even get us started on what to call our space (SMS, WCM, CMS, BAH).
Nowadays, a CMS removes this requirement by providing an interface to which the user can publish data; direct from raw stimulus to web, visually formatted pages (as a style). CMSs these days may provide an "asset manager" to exert control over visual and aural stimuli. All CMSs do provide a template system, to which extent, is giving pathway towards a "Site Management System". Take for example, WordPress. It has CMS capabilities, however, it's feature-rich models gives it several other components. An example is plugins. Its plugin capability extends the possibilities to which the core software can be used for. We are seeing embedded forums etc. Wordpress provides both CMS and blogging facilities, the former, in the format of its pages system. Heck, what's tagging?
Unfortunately, these "CMS" devices are becoming ever bloated with extra features. Gone are the older days where the software didn't even know what search engine optimisation was. For some reason, SEO has exploded into the web. Content managers and indeed web masters are becoming lazy in promoting and performing basic SEO. Good SEO stems from the content itself. CMSs are adapting to providing a complete site solution, and not just focussing on content delivery and management itself.
You see.. . any topic with so many evangelists touting “How to use ABC as an XYZ”, probably means that either 1) ABC is admittedly not an XYZ, but it can be used in a similar fashion if tweaked or used in a certain way, or 2) ABC is not quite as intuitive as we might have thought, and these how-to videos, articles and blogs are required to educate users. I tend to think number one is more likely.
Well, the all-too-easy argument that WP is a system which manages web content; therefore it must not be a CMS. Sorry, this doesn’t hold water for me. Using that logic alone, toilet paper and disposable napkins are both paper towels. We know this doesn’t make sense, so let’s not get literal. I’ll grant you that the other term could be better defined--more on that later.
The argument that if someone uses WP as a WCMS, then that makes it one. If you’re being honest, it won’t take you more than ten seconds to come up with five examples of tchotchkes you use for unintended purposes.
.
)
. Again... communication through postings is not always that easy... I was talking in the 'hypothetically' sense when I say: 'then the future of XenForo as a forum-only solution will be problematic, I'm afraid'. What I meant is ...' if XF is going to be a forum-only (for whatever reason: lack of resources is one of the reasons you stated for example), then the future will be...'.
Don't start this again. 
