Talk:Jira (software)

Advertising claim
This advertising should be removed.


 * Of course it should. Now where was it? Please point out the WP:POLICY-based problems in this article. Also please familiarise yourself with our policy on what blatant advertising is, and the fact that merely being commercial isn't a reason to call something spam, an advert or unwarranted.
 * I've also reverted your deletion of mention of JIRA in other articles, as that was merely biased WP:POV vandalism. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is Jira allowed when all references are from the developers site and competition software is not allowed? I see pages for other solutions added and then later they are gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.24.55 (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As a WP:PRIMARY source, it is necessary for some claims, but I'm not sure what your specific issue is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The article says that this product is "more internally customisable" than its competitor and that it "is wide in use ... because of the versatile functionality ..." These seem like advertising claims, and appear to be either unsourced or sourced only to the company that produces the software. It would be nice to see what competitors say about the product, and what third-party reliable sources say about it. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Those are indeed claims that cannot be sourced to the product's own marketing materials, since they're self-serving comparisons to competing products, for which there is no WP:INDY evidence. It has to come from a secondary source, per WP:AEIS (it constitutes both analysis and evaluation).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't belong
Skype is not open-source and does not belong under that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparcdr (talk • contribs) 11:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I changed the subject heading to Adoption in open source and other projects. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Negative tone?
Is it just me, or does this article have an unnecessarily negative tone to it?

"Starter licenses are also available for Confluence, GreenHopper, Bamboo, FishEye and Crowd."

Um, what relevance does that have to an article about JIRA?
 * Since JIRA users benefit greatly from a tight integration with these products, it may be of interest to them. --Demonkoryu (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"In an evaluation in October 2006,[28] the official website of the Python programming language considered a move from SourceForge to a different issue management system,[29] with Launchpad, JIRA, Roundup and Trac suggested as replacement systems. The discussion (with most comparisons between Jira and Roundup) resulted in a decision for Roundup.[30] In 2007, a request was made to the Eclipse community to replace Bugzilla with JIRA. The response was that migration would "cost" too much, no benefit could be seen in JIRA over Bugzilla, it was more difficult to configure for the individual user particularly for email preferences, and JIRA is not open source.[31]"

Yes, yes, there are hundreds of evaluations going on all the time and sometimes one product wins and sometimes another product wins. What notability do these two paragraphs have for an article about JIRA?

"Security In April 2010 an XSS vulnerability in JIRA was the stepping stone to the compromise of key Apache Software Foundation servers.[32]"

Again, there are hundreds (thousands?) of significant security breaches occuring every day. Why is this notable? And it wasn't the stepping stone, it was one of the techniques involved. And it wasn't "key Apache Software Foundation servers", it was a couple of servers used for project management, if I understand it right. And the company that makes JIRA fixed the vulnerability promptly.

I would like to try editing this article to make the tone more neutral, if nobody has any objections. Thanks. RenniePet (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between neutrality and criticism. These are all in the criticism section. If you can make criticism neutral, be my guest. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I've made my attempt at reducing what I perceived to be an overly negative tone. As for criticism, I think criticism is fine, but it should be documented general criticism, not two specific evaluations that were lost and one security breach. Documented general criticism is notable and relevant, two lost evaluations are not - otherwise the article could list hundreds of lost evaluations, and hundreds of won contracts. As for the single security breach, all programs have security problems, but is there any documentation that JIRA is especially vulnerable or the company is poor to fix vulnerabilities when they are found?


 * Actually, I think it would be a good idea to throw out the whole "Adoption" section, perhaps moving the first sentence to the lead. RenniePet (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

hardware/software installation prerequisite
How or where do you install it? Does it need servers/services? What services does it need? Which servers does it need? That is, does it need a web server? Does it need a Java server? Does it need Apache Web Server, or can it run from IBM Websphere, or can it run from any generic web server? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here you go --Demonkoryu (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Licensed free for Open Source projects? Is this changed?
According to the link https://www.atlassian.com/licensing/jira there is no reference to free use for Open Source projects or any of the other things claimed here at Wikipedia… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backfromquadrangle (talk • contribs) 16:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A short search turned this up: http://www.atlassian.com/opensource/overview --Demonkoryu (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Skype stopped using it 15-05-13
Specifically they used the word "decommissioned" yet said "If you have an open issue we will continue to work through these, however, you will not receive any more updates on their status." so maybe they're still using it even though external access to it has been withdrawn. I'm not sure if this warrants removal of reference to Skype or whether it should simply be a case of adding this point. Harry The Bustard (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Could we keep the original statement, minus Skype and plus RTR and Etsy? I have worked at both and it is utilized heavily there. It would become... "Some of the organizations using JIRA for bug-tracking and project management are Linden Lab,[11] JBoss,[12] Spring Framework,[13] Hibernate,[14] Fedora Commons,[15] Rent the Runway and Etsy." Hsdouglas (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)HSDouglas
 * No. You can't edit another editor's comments and the only way it makes sense is if you do that. I reverted the heading. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

JIRA or Jira?
Why is Jira in all caps here? Does it stand for something? Every other time I see something which is normally written in uppercase, I found that a Wikipedia editor has fixed the case, explaining that just because a name is stylistically written in uppercase, doesn't mean that the name itself is uppercase. 203.30.72.10 (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Lede paragraph: "The product name, JIRA, is not an acronym but rather a truncation of "Gojira", the Japanese name for Godzilla." Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (it also means a vexing problem, in Japanese. じらされる was this not another original meaning?　http://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=%E3%81%98%E3%82%89%E3%81%99
 * I don't think the above answers the question. If Jira is not an acronym what is the reason to capitalise it? 155.63.200.55 (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be, but that's how they spell it. Ask them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

After some edits, use is now split. The text uses Jira, but the page title and the name over the box is JIRA. It's also listed in all caps in the disambiguation page. Should the page be renamed "Jira (software)"? 72.22.163.41 (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No. That's not its name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed; it is known as JIRA in the workplace. Hsdouglas (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)HSDouglas

[Michael T. Bunney, 2015-07-09] Companies often use product or company names in all caps to make them stand out. When I worked as a newspaper editor I saw this often in press releases. Editors routinely normalize the casing. Sometimes magazines put their name in all caps when referring to themselves. While legitmate uses of capitalization should be followed (for example, McDonald's and IBM -- not Mcdonald's and Ibm), in cases where a company uses all caps when there is no rationale for doing so other than to make it stand out, the capitalization should be seen as a form of emphasis (like bold or italics) that is not intrinsically part of the name itself, and it should be removed. Hence: Jira.
 * McDonalds is a name. IBM is an acronym and should have initials. Also, it's "legitimate". The product name is JIRA, just like other product names are iMac, iOS, and iTunes. Rules of spelling do not always have to be followed by companies and there's no reason for Wikipedia to follow them when this company's other product names (Confluence, Fisheye, Bitbucket, Stash, Bamboo and others) do not. The product FAQ does not explain why it's in all caps, but unless we have a reason to change the product name, we should not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I recently noticed Confluence correcting my capitalization from JIRA to Jira. And their documentation pages have started using Jira. Compare Administering JIRA Server 7.5 applications (all-caps) with Administering Jira Cloud applications. &mdash; tbc (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

According to https://community.atlassian.com/t5/Jira-questions/Is-it-quot-JIRA-quot-or-quot-Jira-quot/qaq-p/681163, it was officially changed from 'JIRA' to 'Jira' in 2017 following a rebrand. Saw-lau (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 30 October 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. The language of MOS:TM argues against using upper case in article names only for style reasons, when the title is not an acronym. There's also a local majority for the move (about 9 to 3). There's no reason to believe that the majority's reading of policy and guidelines is incorrect. In the wild, both upper and lower case are seen. As IIO notes, this 'Jira' is a reference to Godzilla and is not an acronym. MOS:TM says: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one.. It's always puzzling when WP:COMMONNAME is used as an argument in a style discussion, since we go with Wikipedia style even if another style is more common. However, all MOS:TM is saying is, 'don't apply the Wikipedia downcasing to the name if the result will be a version of the name that nobody ever uses'. Obviously, people *do* use the lowercase style even if it may not be more common. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

JIRA → Jira (software) – Per MOS:TM / MOS:ALLCAPS ("avoid: TIME, KISS, ASUS"): Lots of organizations and brand names like to use all-caps name styling to try to make themselves stand out from the crowd and appear more important. It's an annoying practice that Wikipedia should generally not follow. Please see prior comments on Talk page. This is not an acronym – just purely promotional styling. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Andrewa (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. The article notes that the name is not an acronym. sst✈discuss 09:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE The product is named JIRA, not Jira. It's not an acronym, it's a word that is written in all caps. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried to review the sources cited in the article to see how this software product is referred to in articles about it that are high-quality third-party reliable sources. Unfortunately, I could not find any such sources cited in the article. What I seem to find is just citations to the company that produces the software, some blogs, forums, wikis, and primary evidence (such as citations to primary sources that may show that the software is being used somewhere but are not actually commenting about the software). Most of the citations seem to just be referring to things written by the company that produces the software. I notice that the usage on the third-party sites that are used as primary sources seems mixed – some all-lowercase, some all-uppercase, and some mixed-case (e.g., "Jira" at https://issues.apache.org/). Generally, the sourcing in the article seems very weak. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If the product name is a word written in all caps, not an acronym, Wikipedia naming conventions are to name the article without all caps. sst✈discuss 06:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean iTunes and iTunes Store (where the starting character is not a capital but a later character is) and other similarily capitalized products? Could you point me to a policy or guideline that supports this idea? I may have seen one before, but I can't recall it just now. Or even point me at articles where the convention is to name the article without all caps. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "iTunes" is not written in all caps, so is irrelevant to this discussion. sst✈discuss 06:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is that iTunes (iMac, iPad, etc.) do not follow capitalization rules and are permitted on Wikipedia as products. You claim that only acronyms are allowed to be capitalized, but I don't know of articles that support your point. So your point is irrelevant. This is a product name that does not follow normal rules of capitalization, just like the Apple product, so it is very relevant. You don't know the rules for indenting with bullets (I just fixed yours: you're welcome) and so, can you provide some relevant examples to support your claim? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Some relevant additional guidelines are found at WP:TITLETM. It says to avoid the decorative promotional styling, at least "unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark", and describes changing Invader ZIM to Invader Zim as an example of the intended practice. It describes a separate specific exception for "article titles with the first letter lowercase and the second letter uppercase, such as iPod and eBay", so those are treated separately. Here we seem to have either mixed or absent examples of "common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark", so we cannot determine that "the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common" in such sources. In such a case, the guidelines thus say to use "Jira". We have very few independent sources, and some of the cited sources use "jira" or "Jira" (e.g., Apache as mentioned above). This, of course, is in addition to what is stated at MOS:TM and MOS:ALLCAPS, which further discourage the all-caps and provide various examples of what to avoid, like TIME, KISS, ASUS, and REALTOR®, saying we should instead use Time, Kiss, Asus, and Realtor (and again discussing the exception for the initial lowercase letter as in iPod and eBay). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet even Apache lists it correctly here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Dashboard.jspa 208.81.212.222 (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: According to User:Walter Görlitz, the above IP address is an alternative account for that user. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is correct the other way too. It's just not as promotional when using mixed-capitalization. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Still no actual examples? And just how does all caps look promotional? Are you now going to say that writing by e.e. cummings that are in all lower case are the antonym of promotional? I don't follow how case makes something promotional or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It may be worth noting that the article title for E. E. Cummings is rendered with ordinary English capitalization formatting on Wikipedia. Differences from that convention are often promotional. I would not necessarily say that self-promotion was the poet's motivation, but many companies do like to render their names and the names of their products in all-caps for promotional purposes. Regardless of the true motivation, which it is not necessary for us to identify, Wikipedia guidelines discourage us from doing that – and I personally agree with that aspect of the guidelines. I don't understand the comment saying "Still no actual examples?", as I already provided the example of Apache's use of "Jira", and several other examples like TIME, KISS, ASUS, and REALTOR®. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do believe you're not reading what I wrote, so why am I discussing with you? We'll get the policy change because it's inconsistent. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Why is this even considered useful? The name is JIRA, per WP:COMMONNAME (Sorry, does that have to be wp:Commonname now?)
 * This just looks like the worst and most time-wasting sort of bureaucracy Andy Dingley (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree but I know what you're getting at... the guidelines don't seem sufficiently clear in this case. In fact it's a perfect example to add to WP:TITLETM to clarify that guideline, which I'm going to propose we do. What other guidelines need tweaks, do you think? Andrewa (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose but relisting... the relevant guidelines do give some support to the move IMO, but not consistently and they shouldn't. The capitalisation is common (universal in fact) and a good (even perfect) natural disambiguation. If we don't do this move we should tweak WP:TITLETM and possibly other guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - al ot of the opposition to this move seems to be opposition to WP:TRADEMARK. If you disagree with the Wikipedia policy, it would be better to try to change the policy than to try to get this article to ignore it. Ground Zero &#124; t
 * Note that MOS:TRADEMARK has a big blue box at the top that states: "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions."... so those who oppose the move are not necessarily opposing MOS:TRADEMARK... they are merely saying that JIRA should be considered an exception. It's not so much that people oppose MOS:TRADEMARK as that they support WP:COMMONNAME Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A valid point in a way, see WP:correct, but mainly an invalid one... if the ONLY reason for your support of this move is that the rules seem to support it, then you should think again. The rules are ONLY there so that, in the long run, reader experience is improved. That's why ignore all rules is policy... Wikipedia is not a bureaaucracy. See discussion below. Andrewa (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed WP:COMMONNAME and it is a general policy offers no guidance on all-caps product names. The way it is being invoked in this discussion suggests that it completely invalidates WP:TRADEMARK. I see no argument being advanced here for why JIRA should be treated differently from any other all-caps word that is not an acronym. If an exception is to be made for a general rule, then surely that exception should be different from other cases to which the general rule is applied, like TIME, KISS, ASUS and REALTOR®.Ground Zero &#124; t 09:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think JIRA is "different" ... In the examples you give, the majority of reliable independent sources don't actually use the "official" all caps version when discussing the subject (in fact the majority of sources write about these subjects as: "Kiss", "Time", etc). This is not the case with JIRA, where the vast majority of independent source routinely do write it using all caps. Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have found some reliable independent sources that discuss the topic, it would be nice if you could add citations to those into the article. Thus far we have identified very few reliable independent sources (and the ones we have seem like primary sources that don't really discuss the topic in detail). The capitalization in the sources cited in the article is mixed, so I believe we cannot determine that "the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common" in such sources. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Try doing a simple google news search.  It took me all of two minutes to find lots of independent news outlets that mention JIRA... and the overwhelming majority use all caps when doing so. Blueboar (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. I am against using WP:COMMONNAME to justify allcaps trademarks in most cases. This is not an exception to the rule. ONR (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Flawed argument... In most cases, WP:COMMONNAME would not justify allcaps... because the independent sources don't present the name in allcaps. In rare cases, however, they do... and in those rare cases, we should make an exception. Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per de facto Wikipedia practice: we use normal typography unless you are really a big fucken deal. Thus Yahoo! and eBay get the star treatment, others don't. If Jira decides to go with JIRA! or J!ra or j.i.r.a or whatever, I'll go with ithat if and only if the entity and that typography has become famous enough that it would be confusing to the typical reader not to do so. Herostratus (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per MOS:TM and MOS:ALLCAPS. This is the same situation as Time magazine.  The name of the product is "Jira", not being an acronym, and it is styled in marketing materials as "JIRA".  If we were to follow the reasoning of the opposers on this one, our article at EBay would for years have been at "ebaY", and now at "ebay", based on logos.  We don't base article titles on logos for a reason. Thus no "Macy&#9733;s", either. Given the number of Jira (disambiguation) entries, I would think the present title should redirect to the DAB page, but maybe this would still be the primary topic even after the rename. Worth looking into through the normal WP:PRIMARY analysis.  Since "Jira" as well as "JIRA" appears in the very first page of search results for   at Google, this does not rise to the "universally spelled that way" level that, say, iPod does.  There's no reason to make an iPod or Deadmau5 type of exception here. The sources just don't support it. The fact of the matter is that coders and the blogs they publish tend to write it JIRA because that's how they see it in the logo, and most of them surely assume it's an acronym. I did, and configure software packages like this as part of my living. (lots of the very same people refer to postgres when the actual product name is PostgreSQL, because, contrariwise, they're more familiar with the commandline name of the tool than with its formal name. Nerds are a fickle lot.)  It's the same thing as music magazines rendering KISS, CLIEИT, and NIИ that way because logos do so. It's an insider convention to visually emulate trademarks, a convention that WP has explicitly rejected for ages with only the rarest exceptions, based on a near-total absence of the non-stylized form in the real world.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not the same as Time. The commonname for that publication was never frequently capitalized. This product's name is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That was disprovable in under 3 seconds.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not even a correct search. Those on the first page are all from the company itself. Maybe if you took the time to actually check the results you'd find that you're wrong yet again. In the first 100, I see about 15 that are all caps. Much worse than the numbers I showed for JIRA. Too bad there's no template for "let me teach you how to use Google like an adult" or I would have used it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I spent about 60 seconds on it this time, excluding Time 's own properties and pages (I figured you'd do that yourself – what was that about learning how to use Google again?), and "TIME" used by third parties shows up multiple times in the first page of search results. [sigh] I think we're done here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And what ths the statistical distribution of TIME vs Time by third-parties? Which is more common? JIRA is more common by third-parties than Jira is. It is my claim that Time is more common than TIME. This makes them not the same case and the location the Time article cannot therefore be used as a precedent for relocating this article. That some people use the other format is not the main point for either, rather WP:COMMONNAME is. That is why I wrote "never frequently capitalized" and not "never capitalized". I recognize that some may have used it capitalized. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Our article naming decisions are not based on (always questionable and easily manipulable) alleged analysis of statistical distributions, which cannot be accurately gleaned from G-hits. The very fact that "TIME" shows up multiple times in the first page of hits is sufficient to demonstrate that it's common, and this RM is not about Time magazine anyway. I decline to debate this with you further, and I doubt anyone else here cares to see it continue, per WP:BLUDGEON. Whether you like the Time example or not is essentially irrelevant since it can be replaced at will with any number of other examples, e.g. Alien 3 not Alien3, and Macy's, not macy&#9733;s, etc., etc., etc.  Time to move on.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support as per . Tiggerjay (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as per . This isn't an acronym but a pun on Godzilla. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support the current title should redirect to the disambiguation page -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
I have raised this example at Wikipedia talk:Article titles, please comment there. Andrewa (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WAIT... Please do not start a competing discussion at WT:AT... it's fine to post a notice at that page pointing to this discussion ... but since a discussion has already started here, this is where it should continue. Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree... the discussions are not competing. Discussion here should focus on this case. Discussion at the policy talk page should focus on the wider issues. Good to have both in their proper places. Andrewa (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Counter-disagree. They're worse than competing; the thread fork at WT:AT proposes a change to AT policy that would directly pre-empt this RM.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion regarding WP:AT has been archived through lack of interest anyway... So now we'll just need to see how this RM pans out. Yes, had consensus been reached concerning the proposed change there, then this would have made this RM a lot easier to decide. I can't see any problem with that. Remembering that a higher level of consensus is required to change WP:AT than to make this move, it would have saved time... assuming this move request is defeated, as I hope it will be. Andrewa (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * From a WP:AT point of view ... It does not matter how the company itself capitalizes the name (see: WP:Official names)... what is important is how reliable sources that are independent of the subject present the name. If those independent sources routinely present the name using all capital letters, then the capitalization should be considered an integral part of the name (similar to the lower case "i" in names like "iTunes"), and WP:COMMONNAME applies.  A quick google news search seems to indicate that independent sources do routinely capitalize... so I am leaning towards KEEP as JIRA... but I would welcome a more detailed analysis of source usage.  Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree and very well put. But all please note WP:mxt. Andrewa (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Official names is an essay and seems to contract the guidelines and policies presented in the section above.
 * I think you mean contradict? If so, that's a serious charge and would make it completely useless, to the point of being counterproductive. If you can substantiate that charge, you should at least discuss it on the article talk page, and there could even be a case for deletion. But I'm still hopeful that the essay does accurately reflect and help to clarify policy, as was intended, see below. Andrewa (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's an analysis for you: www.stickyminds.com is a software testing and software project management website. There are fifteen articles on the site that mention the product. Of the 15, 11 use "JIRA, 3 use "Jira" and 1 uses both "Jira" and "JIRA". The most common (73%), but not unanimous, use of the term is "JIRA". 208.81.212.222 (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: According to User:Walter Görlitz, the above IP address is an alternative account for that user. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, so from a WP:COMMONNAME analysis this tells us that the name is "Jira" not "Jyra" or "Kira" or "Jima" or "Jiro". From a MOS:TM analysis (where style is accounted for), this tells us that this is not a case like "Deadmau5" and "iPod" in which the plain-English spellings basically do not exist in RS. It in fact proves that the plan-English spelling  exist in reliable sources, disproving the "JIRA is the name and that's that" view, even if some geek mags and webzines have a tendency (not even a consistent one in the same publication/site) to emulate the logo. It's a tendency that WP just basically WP:DGAFs about for the same reason we don't accept "Ke$ha" or and "P!nk" or TIME magazine, regardless of the fact that these attempts at mimicry of logo stylization can be found in some RS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you lost credibility with me when you added ec when you were the only editor of the talk page. You've lost even more credibility with me with your argument "plain-English spellings" argument:  . There is no plain-English spelling and so the COMMONNAME in English, unlike time, etc., is what the product owners give it and those who use it (see the analysis I provided above: search for www.stickyminds.com) commonly call it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes... WP:Official names is an essay... However... it expands on our WP:Article titles policy which states: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. In other words... the essay is fully in line with policy. Blueboar (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And no citation to WP:OFFICIALNAME is really necessary anyway, given MOS:TM and MOS:ALLCAPS, with WP:AT and its NC guideline pages repeatedly deferring to MOS on style matters.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Where specifically do you see WP:AT... repeatedly deferring to MOS on style matters? In the case of NC guidelines that might be valid and helpful, but the policy itself should take precedence over the MOS, surely? Andrewa (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Go to WP:AT, open the page for editing and search for "Manual" and "MOS"; repeat at each of the NC guidelines. See also years and years of discussions in which it's been concluded that style is an MoS matter not a COMMONNAME (or otherwise AT) matter. COMMONNAME tells us what a name  (Alien 3, vs. Alien III or Aliens: 3); MoS tells us how to style it (Alien 3 not Alien3, despite the use of the latter in marketing materials). These are not new discussions, and the move proposed here is completely routine.  The only way it would not be was if virtually no one ever referred to this project as "Jira", but that simply is not the case here.  This is not an "iPod" or "Deadmau5" case where no sources support the plain-English version MoS would expect by default.  What we have is a case where some preponderance of sources follow the trademark stylization because they mistake it for an acronym.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad you think that... it was certainly the intention that the essay should accurately reflect and explain the policy, speaking as the original author of and still I think major contributor to that essay. If anyone thinks it is not in line with policy, please raise that on its talk page. It's quite widely cited (over 400 incoming links), so probably best not to be too bold in changing it without discussion. The number of incoming links seems to also indicate that it does add something. Andrewa (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't see that it's saying anything wrong or needs alteration; we simply can conclude not to use the trademark stylization, without having to rely on OFFICIALNAME for the rationale.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * you didn't give an adequate summary and the policy discussion was no consensus from what I see. Please give your rationale. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note Walter is referring to my closure here which I've undone. I don't have the enthusiasm to get into a protracted debate about this and inevitably have it taken to MRV. Best of luck to the next closer. Jenks24 (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just wanted a rationale not a proclamation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Jira (software). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110807185746/https://developer.skype.com/jira to https://developer.skype.com/jira/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit requested on March 14
Hello, my name is Patricia Wagner and I'm an employee of Microsoft. I work in the Cloud+Enterprise division as a content publisher for Visual Studio Team Services, Team Foundation Server, and Application Lifecycle Management products. We are reviewing Wikipedia articles that relate to our areas and would like to update some to better represent the current state and features of our products. Please review the changes below and let me know if they are acceptable to you. Thank you very much for your consideration.

In the Bug tracking system, client-server, free software section, please add this entry after The Bug Genie:

Team Foundation Server Express (2012)

In the Bug tracking system, client-server, Proprietary section, please add this entry after Jira:

Team Foundation Server (2005)

In the Bug tracking system, client-server, Hosted section, please add this entry after YouTrack:

Visual Studio Team Services (2013)

Pat MSFT (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Patricia. The section that you asked to be updated is not actually part of this article. You requested changes to Template:Bug tracking systems, which is a navigational box simultaneously transcluded across many articles, so future requests to alter the template would be better placed on that template's talk page. I added Team Foundation Server to the Proprietary section, but the other two programs that you mentioned do not have separate Wikipedia articles of their own, so it would not make sense to include a link to them in the navigational template. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

JIRA bugs being abbreviated to JB
Re: my edit of the page for JIRA (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jira_(software)&oldid=prev&diff=739586239). It was about "JIRA bugs being abbreviated to JB". I've been working with JIRA for 5+ years in different companies and I've never, ever seen anybody refer to a JIRA bug as "JB"; nor is it mentioned anywhere in the official JIRA documentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walenzack (talk • contribs) 20:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. It is clearly dubious and has been removed. No citation needed required. However, you can add a |reason= parameter in most templates to explain. You can also use the edit summary to explain. Both make your intentions clear. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jira (software). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707183642/http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/secure/Dashboard.jspa to http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/secure/Dashboard.jspa
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130127024555/https://studio.plugins.atlassian.com/wiki/display/SVN/Subversion+JIRA+plugin to https://studio.plugins.atlassian.com/wiki/display/SVN/Subversion+JIRA+plugin
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714193013/http://www.atlassian.com:80/software/jira/licensing.jsp to http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira/licensing.jsp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This is an encylopedia
It's not general information about the subject or bug reports or change logs about it. Adding some fact about (last edit wins) it is not really saying anything of value. If you want to add it, a reliable, secondary source should be found to support this or any "bug" you may think of adding, lest the article become a coat-rack for everyone's personal peeves with the web app. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources baking feature claims
First WP:PRIMARY sources "may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." There is no interpretation of the information so it may be used here. The issue about over reliance on primary sources is one about notability, not reliability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * From WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Out of the 22 cited references, 13 of them come directly from Atlassian's website. You don't think that's a problem?
 * Given that the article has been tagged since 2015 as "may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject" you don't think it's time to change this?
 * And I agree with you about "notability". If the information can't be sourced from elsewhere, it probably doesn't belong in the article. Is the purpose of Wikipedia to repeat a company's marketing materials? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Many references are from atlasian.com, but not all.
 * I do think it's time to change this, but the change does not start with removing the primary sources, it comes with finding adequate replacements.
 * You'll see I agreed that it should be rewritten with better sourcess here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JIRA, but Wikipedia:NOTIMELIMIT seems to apply. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It can be misleading to focus on the number of sources from a given domain. A primary source is appropriate for the claim "Jira integrates with Subversion", and if that information happens to be on a different atlassian.com page than another linked in the same sentence, that's fine. Better to ask:
 * Is the Features section written at an appropriate level of detail?
 * Should Wikipedia articles about bug trackers (not just this one!) list which version-control software they integrate with?
 * How are we deciding which other features of Jira to mention? Can we find secondary sources to guide these decisions, in addition to primary sources for the facts?
 * Are secondary sources used well in sections where they're needed most? (The history of Jira, whether Jira is widely used, comparison to other issue trackers, and when connecting Jira to specific project management methodologies) 98.184.197.119 (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Add "Work management"
Please consider a request to add "Work management" in the function items. Example: genre = Bug tracking system, Project management software, Work management software Mocha c jp (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Work management is a synonym for Project management. We do not need to repeat the same concept twice. MrOllie (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Atrasian describes it as for work management.　https://www.atlassian.com/software/jira/work-management
 * According to vendor documentation, PM and AM are different ideas. https://clickup.com/blog/work-management/
 * Also see Collaborative software.
 * Therefore, if the parallel description(Projectmanagement,Workmanagement) is incorrect, I think that Workmanagement should be correct. Mocha c jp (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced by vendor branding efforts. Project management is the widely used term. Linking another Wikipedia article where you improperly added the same neologism establishes nothing here, but did alert me that that needed to be reverted as well. MrOllie (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Comparison of project management software
I would like to add Along with "Comparison of issue-tracking systems". Mocha c jp (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)