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)

LinkedIn is not a source and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. If you want to keep the public informed of your company, make sure your website is current and they'll know.

If you want another update, please create a new request with the specific changes you want to make. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Edit request

I would like to suggest a minor change to the IntelliJ IDEA section. According to it's main page on the website (specifically the animated tagline), IntelliJ IDEA is primarily aimed not only at Java, but at JVM-based languages in general, which also includes Groovy, Scala, and Kotlin.

Here's the updated section with the suggested edits:

IntelliJ IDEA was JetBrains's first IDE. It is cross-platform and is primarily aimed at JVM-based technologies like Java, Kotlin, and Scala, as well as more specific directions like Java EE and web development. An open-source version is available under the name IntelliJ IDEA Community Edition, and a proprietary version as IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate Edition. IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate Edition can be made to include the feature set of PhpStorm, PyCharm and RubyMine via plugins. ArtySark (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Please check for disambiguation links. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

My fault. I should have done that. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It's all good. I caught the issue. Did the dab bot flag your talk page too? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

No... I wasn't even aware a dab bot existed. Do I have to subscribe to it somehow? BernardoSulzbach (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

No. It will find you. I think there's a grace period, but it checks for recently added content and notifies if there's a dab link. If you want to see the type of links you're adding by kind, User:Anomie has a link classifier that colourizes them. I find it useful. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I see. Well, I got the script now. Hopefully, this will not happen again. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Edit Request

Hi, I would like to ask you about the recent update related to SolarWinds under the "History" section. As you can see in the TeamCity talk page(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:TeamCity) and the discussion on another talk page(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_United_States_federal_government_data_breach#Role_of_JetBrains), mentioning about the claim from the New Your Times article might not be appropriate at the moment. Also, mentioning "embedded malware in JetBrains' software" could be misleading as it sounds like any product at JetBrains. Please have a look at the discussion on the talk pages above and share you opinion.

--JB2020M (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems to belong here as this article is larger. I won't close t he request though as I was involved there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @JB2020M: The inclusion is pertinent to the article. Removing it would not be an improvement. Orville^talk 06:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi@Orville: thanks for the answer. Due to the decision from the other articles, I thought it would apply to this article as well. I hope the following conclusion of this story can be added here in the future so that it won't be remained as a negative scandal. Thanks for reviewing it. --JB2020M (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Space EAP

We need to update “It is currently in Early Access Program.”part under the Space section because the EAP was over last year. It has been publicly launched. Since it's invalid information, it would be nice to update it.--JB2020M (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Update it to what? Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: It could be: "After some months in Early Access Program, it has been officially launched in December 2020. "--JB2020M (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Request fulfilled, though I used "beta testing" instead of EAP since that's what both sources said. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!--JB2020M (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

References

The COI tag

Hi Wikipedians,

As I am working at JetBrains, I would like to ask you in this talk page if it’s now possible to discuss the COI tag (whether it could be removed).
I don’t know exactly how it was there at that time, but there might have been some contribution from affiliated people without knowing the Wikipedia policy.
To prevent additional issues in the article, our colleagues have been informed about the Wikipedia rules regarding the COI and made no direct edits since we had the tag in 2019.
If we have a chance, I would like to ask whether Wikipedia editors could discuss it and remove the tag if you don’t see the problem anymore. --JB2020M (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The article is a bit wordy and ad-like (the products sections need a tidy up or compression - maybe a table? By it doesn't look like it warrants the COI tag. Anyone else got an opinion? peterl (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC) (Unaffiliated with Jetbrains)

@MrOllie: added the {{COI}} here. I don't see that the editor supplied a reason, but the editor is still active, so we can (and should) ask and come to consensus that it is not an issue before removing the tag. There are four entries above that indicate who is suspected so I think there's a bit of a clue there... Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This article has had a number of COI editors. If memory serves I added the tag after noticing the contributions of User:Hadihariri on this article (for example this diff). As long as the article is 'a bit wordy and ad-like' it sounds like cleanup isn't done yet. - MrOllie (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I've read the article through and find it pretty neutral. Yes, it is a long and detailed one but the company is also big and has lots of products, it plays an important role in IT so it's reasonable to have a detailed article. Yes, there are expressions like "award-winning ReSharper plugin" but such claims are properly cited.

I think JetBrains employees have learned their lessons so it's fair to remove the tag. I'm not affiliated to JetBrains but used their products and respect the company. Nikolay Komarov (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

You could be one of the potential CoI editors, no? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah I hadn't seen those. Started the work on cleanup; also cleaning YouTrack which suffers from similar issues. peterl (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Peterl: Thanks for starting the clean-up process. Are we going to have a chance to talk about removing the tag when the clean-up is done?--JB2020M (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I've done a bit more cleanup, but it still needs heavy cleaning peterl (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Peterl. Would you mind clarifying your association with JetBrains? I'm in software development and so this falls into my area of interest. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Walter Görlitz:. Thanks for asking. I am a software dev and educator in Australia. I have no paid or reimbursed association with JetBrains, but have used their products. peterl (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

History section

It's written incorrectly in the history section.
"JetBrains said they had not been contacted by the New York Times"
It's not by NYT, but "contacted by any government or security agency" according to the reference.
--JB2020M (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I hadn't seen that. Updated it. peterl (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! --JB2020M (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Create separate products page

Hello, I have created a separate article for products and services available at List of JetBrains products and services in order to narrow the article to the company and help remove content which might seem like promotion. DownTownRich (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request

Hi!
I'd like to ask for some updates to this article.
Please share your thoughts and update them if you think they are applicable.

1. Undisclosed payments tag
May I ask you how is going with the clear up process to remove the undisclosed payments tag? If there hasn't been any COI activities detected and the article is neutral enough, can we move forward with it? What is the current status?

2. History section - about the New York Times article
There are an article from NYT and a video which mentioned that JetBrains wasn’t involved in the breach in the end. I think it's important to update the news about the SolarWind case as there was a follow up article. In the new New York Times article, it was mentioned "When asked about the possibility that software tools made by JetBrains, which speeds the development and testing of code, was the pathway, Mr. Ramakrishna said there was still no evidence."

3. The number of employees
The recent number is 1900.

4. Office list
The current text could be misleading even though it was written in the past tense. Could you please update it as follows?
"As of 2022, the company has offices in Prague, Munich, Berlin, Boston, Amsterdam, Foster City, Marlton(New Jersey) and Shanghai."

5. The title of the "Ktor" section
The "t" from Ktor should be converted to lowercase according to the official name.

--JB2020M (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi! With regards to 1: The article was not neutral and I have performed a cleanup and removed the COI tag. Wikipedia is not the place for long listings of products and their features. 2. The official statement by JetBrains, denying involvement, is already included. Remember that the NYT is a newspaper of record and overall a formidable source, so strong evidence to the contrary is needed to include a longer form rebuttal. 3. Done. 4. Done. 5. Done. Ovinus (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! @Ovinus:

1. Thanks for cleaning up the article and changing the tag. To improve the citation issue, please let me know if you need any help with finding resources for citations. Also, it would be great if you could point out where we need more sources.

2. Regarding the no.2, I thought we need to add a third party article as an evidence as well. The new article I provided above is also from New York Times.

3. "Berlin" is missing in the office list. Could you please add it as well?

JB2020M (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Done for all three, thanks. And basically, I'd like to see more third-party sources discussing the merits of JetBrains's various products, and perhaps ratings (although the ratings themselves wouldn't be included in the article—just the commentary). For example, any reviews of PyCharm educational edition? Ovinus (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your help! JB2020M (talk) 10:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ovinus:BTW, I'd like to ask for your review on the "Team Tools" part. I think we are now clear that the New York Times issue has been explained in the history section. Therefore, the following text could be misleading about the fact: "The New York Times reported that TeamCity may have been used by Russian hackers of US governmental and private agencies, in potentially "the biggest breach of United States networks in history"." Can we delete the text from the description of TeamCity?JB2020M (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• JetBrains Logo 2016.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request

Hi! Please have a look at the edit suggestions below and help update some outdated information.

1. There have been updates on JetBrains offices. They are also located in Cyprus, Serbia and Armenia.

 Partly done: removed the lengthy list of locations in lede as undue weight, information about locations may be readded in its own section if editors really think it's of interest. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@GiovanniSidwell Thanks, but there is a mistake in the shortened list as there is no office in Hong Kong JB2020M (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what I was looking at, I have removed Hong Kong from the list of office locations. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

2. In the History section, the following sentence is wrong: “In 2012 CEO Sergey Dmitriev left the company and was replaced by Oleg Stepanov and Maxim Shafirov.”

Sergey Dmitriev never left the company and he is still at JetBrains. I think there was misinterpretation from resources. Please delete the sentence. We could add that the current CEO is Maxim Shafirov.

 Partly done: I removed the statement that Sergey Dmitriev left the company, as that does seem to be a misinterpertation of the source. However it appears his replacement as CEO is well-documents so I left the majority of the sentence intact. The provided citations do not clarify when/if Shafirov became sole CEO, but he is already marked as such in the infobox so I did not modify anything for that. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

3. Ktor in the “Team tools” section would be better moved to the "Programming languages" section and mentioned together with Kotlin.

 Done GiovanniSidwell (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

4. The TeamCity part in the “Team tools” section: I think we are now clear that the New York Times issue has been explained in the History section. Therefore, the following text could be misleading about the fact. Can we delete this part from the description of TeamCity? "The New York Times reported that TeamCity may have been used by Russian hackers of US governmental and private agencies, in potentially "the biggest breach of United States networks in history"."

 Not done for now: Please establish a consensus with editors engaged in the subject area before using the {{Request edit}} template for this proposed change. I don't believe this would be an uncontroversial change, but I am open to this modification if there is concensus.

5. The support for Upsource will be terminated soon. Feel free to update the information. "Space" can be added instead.

 Done GiovanniSidwell (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

JB2020M (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: specific responses in line. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Consensus regarding the request above (no.4)

It is clear that the New York Times issue has been explained in the “History” section. Therefore, the following text in the TeamCity part could be misleading about the facts. Can we delete this part from the description of TeamCity? “The New York Times reported that TeamCity may have been used by Russian hackers of US governmental and private agencies, in potentially “the biggest breach of United States networks in history”.”

As the editor who helped with the request above asked to establish a consensus, I start a discussion here for other editors. JB2020M (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The changes are not supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 19:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit request about CEO

Hi, please update the information on CEO of JetBrains.

As of 2024, there has been a trasition in this position. Maxim Shafirov has stepped down and Kirill Skrygan is the new CEO.[1]

Additionally, if you could have a look at the request above about "consensus" and guide me what can I do furthur, that would be great. Thanks! JB2020M (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 Note: I suggest also providing another source (if available) so there is more than just a primary self published source. Shadow311 (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done While a secondary source would likely be ideal, I do not think referencing the source provided by JB2020M would be unreasonable in this case. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 21:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! This is only external source published as of Feburary 6, 2024. JB2020M (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit request (Logo)

Hi all,

Just sharing a minor edit request for the JetBrains logo since an updated branding was shared recently as seen here on their Brand Assets page: https://www.jetbrains.com/company/brand/#logos-and-icons

Thank you. 2A01:C23:5D1A:5E00:45:1F62:8D7C:4559 (talk) 07:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)