Talk:JetBrains

CLion

User:Walter Görlitz CLion appears to be a likely candidate for an article according to other editor(s) and me - http://www.drdobbs.com/tools/jetbrains-clion-a-new-cross-platform-cc/240169026 http://www.infoworld.com/article/2609034/development-environments/development-environments-version-1-0-of-jetbrains-clion-ide-will-include-c-c-support.html and as already redlinked in another article, that's all I need to include it here so the dab page (which is all I care about) can have a valid redlink per WP:MOSDAB. Instead of just getting my job done, we now have an invalid redlink in the dab as it is not legitimised in this article, but is included in the other article. This is just about consistency. Instead of edit warring over this inconsequential redlink, I will leave for others to make consistent however they care. Note WP:MOSDAB is a style guide whereas WP:WTAF just an essay. Widefox; talk 21:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

CLion is a redlink, clion is not. The former doesn't even redirect there. It's been removed from the DAB as it's a redlink.

Write the article first. It doesn't meet WP:GNG. Sorry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

While removing the redlinks here generally had merit, standing firm on this one in the face of evidence to the contrary (and other editors) doesn't, although is trivial. MOS:DABRL doesn't need a redirect (clion blue link is irrelevant). Fine to remove the redlink, but next time please remove them all so it's consistent. Encouraging WTAF while stating failing WP:N just seems a bit involved when I'm just helping a dab. Thanks. Widefox; talk 22:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you're saying. There are no links to CLion other than from this talk page and it is not likely to become an article and so we don't want a redlink. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

My point is simple - it had arguably justifiable redlinks in more than one article that you've now removed. Repeating the same assertion doesn't make it more true. Do you not like it? Just because your belief is unfaltering in the face of evidence to the contrary, I'm not that invested in it, but curious about it and came for for info (fixing the dab along the way), certainly didn't expect an edit war. Widefox; talk 22:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Not justifiable as I stated and no redlinks anywhere now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

(see Talk:Clion): where the item is allowed per WP:DABMENTION - I fixed the incorrect removal. Moving on, it's now a redirect. Why all the removals? There's two RS above? It's a valid dab entry anyhow! Widefox; talk 08:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a plausible entry, no. I've nominated it for deletion. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

There's at least three RS, with competing products being notable. Yes it's early days, but this product isn't nothing. Widefox; talk 18:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected. You found three brief articles in RSes (although the Dr. Dobbs is a 404) that might carry it to notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Awards section

There is some edit warring going on over the awards section. First note - everybody here should be aware that this article has been subject to a ton of conflicted, promotional editing. Please see the tags at the top of this page.

The awards section has been in this article since it was created by Euginia_D who is one of the WP:SPA accounts identified above. It has expanded some since then.

Here it is as it stands today.

Awards and recognition

• InfoWorld's 2015 Technology of the Year Award
• Jolt 2014 and 2013 Awards: Coding Tools
• Visual Studio Magazine 2012 Readers Choice
• JAX Innovation Awards
• InfoWorld's 2011 Technology of the Year
• Visual Studio Magazine 2010 Editors Choice
• Jolt 2010 Productivity Awards: Development Environments

References

I tend to favor the arguments that for things like this, especially on an article that has been subject to this much promotional pressure, we should include only awards that are sourced to WP:INDY sources and we should consider not including awards that don't have their own article (in other words, if it is not notable enough for an article, maybe we should leave it out) Otherwise the content is very likely promotional both to the awarder and the awardee. But there is room for discussion, of course. But there is no reason to edit war. Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

As long as Jolt Awards exists, even if it is subject to likely deletion, it is notable enough for me. I consider deleting its entry from this article while Jolt Awards still exists to in principle be premature. --Hyperforin (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not just about whether the award exists or not, it's the promotional nature of the section. Very WP:PRIMARY, both for the award and the company. Self-referential and self-aggrandizement. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hm. Well that discussion didn't go far. Hyperforin, you are arguing that these awards are plenty noteworthy. As I noted above, we generally try to source content to independent, secondary sources. Every source above is by the awarder - not one of them is independent. Your claim that the content should go back in (and it is just here while we work this disagreement out) would be a lot stronger if you could present independent, secondary sources for any of these things.... Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hearsay and "Market Research"

Whenever I delete the spurious remark, "Forrester Research analyst Michael Facemire expressed doubts about the product's potential" (about CLion) from the article, someone (whom i doubt knows anything about the product) undoes the edit, with no explanation. What gives Michael Facemire "notable" authority to predict the future of a product he has no use for? "Market Research" organizations like Forrester (which employs Facemire) and Gartner are universally recognized as mouthpieces for whoever pays them. This implies, in this case, that one or more vendors of a competing product is paying Forrester enough to make it worth this Facemire person's while to bad-mouth a new product in that space. If CLion, in fact, actually had no likelihood of a future, it would not be worth his time to do so; Forrester's paying customers would wish to have his attention directed elsewhere.

"Market Research" firms' expressions are considered "hearsay" in court testimony, carrying no, or even negative, weight. They doesn't reveal anything about the topic expressed, but sometimes reveals motivations of other interested parties who prefer not to reveal themselves.

All this makes market research agencies' pronouncements not notable. What is the procedure to adjudicate this matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.12.29 (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

That's because you're wrong. You're minimizing what a reliable source says about the product because it doesn't support your agenda. That's censorship and fails WP:NPOV. This is not a court of law and so if what you say is true, it doesn't apply here. The market research agency's pronouncement passes WP:RS. If you want to bring it to a larger community, ask at WP:RSN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

4-year old prediction by Forrester researcher is now clearly irrelevant to vast majority of readers and should not be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1150:4700:F953:CBDB:AC51:F416 (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

If it's "old", we change it to past tense and get an update. If "old" content is not relevant, we should get rid of any content on all of Wikipedia that was is sourced to content written four years ago or longer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request

I am working at JetBrains and I have a conflict of interest with this article. I would like to request for editing regarding some incorrect or outdated information on this page.

1. Current text: “As of 2019, the company has over 990 employees in its six offices in Prague, Saint Petersburg, Moscow, Munich, Boston and Novosibirsk.”

• There need to be added ‘Amsterdam, Foster City and Marlton’

2. Current text: “YouTrack is localized into English, German, Russian, Spanish and French.” in the “YouTrack” section.

• There need to be added ‘Japanese’

3. Missing products and services need to be added: PyCharm Edu, IntelliJ IDEA Edu, JB Academy, ReSharper C++ and Plugin Marketplace

4. Some information in the History section is needed to be removed and updated.

• Suggestion to edit (only the text in red colour has been changed): JetBrains, initially called IntelliJ Software, was founded in 2000 in Prague by three software developers: Sergey Dmitriev, Valentin Kipiatkov and Eugene Belyaev. The company’s first product was IntelliJ Renamer, a tool for code refactoring in Java. In 2019, the president of JetBrains is Sergey Dmitriev who is the co-founder together with Valentin Kipyatkov and the CEO is Maxim Shafirov.

Thank you for your help. --JB2020M (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I had a look at it.

1.  Done.
2.  Not done. Maybe someone else can help you with this, I don't think it matters.
3.  Not done. There is no need to have an extensive list of products. Mentioning PyCharm covers the educational version well enough.
4.  Partly done. Provide something which fits better into the existing text. Sergey Dmitriev is mentioned leaving for bioinformatics. Can you propose a solution for the text that currently says they left? BernardoSulzbach (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, BernardoSulzbach! Thank you for your answer.

Regarding the number 4, Sergey Dmitriev did not leave the company. Yes, he was away from the CEO position and focused on the bioinformatics field. However, he has been the president of JetBrains since 2012. .

Please inform me if there is any problem. I hope that is a right answer for you. Thanks! JB2020M (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

References