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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

• Support per nom. The article notes that the name is not an acronym. sst✈^discuss 09:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • "iTunes" is not written in all caps, so is irrelevant to this discussion. sst✈^discuss 06:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]

          • 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)[reply]

          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
                • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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 | 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 | t 09:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Support per MOS:TM and MOS:ALLCAPS. This is exactly 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★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 jira bug tracking -wikipedia 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • WP:LMGTFY: [3] That was disprovable in under 3 seconds.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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. [4]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]

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^★s, etc., etc., etc. Time to move on.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have raised [5] this example at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#A perfect example, please comment there. Andrewa (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • Agree and very well put. But all please note WP:mxt. Andrewa (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

      • 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)[reply]

      • (edit conflict) 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 does 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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: [6] [7] [8]. 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]

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 is (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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenks24:: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks. I just wanted a rationale not a proclamation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.