It's more than just changing labels - by that I assume you mean changing what is displayed. There's already at least 1 translation plugin that lets you change the label text in the GUI to be whatever string you want.

The real work is that the field names in the JQL aren't updated if you use the translation plugin. So you can rename the field Priority to more accurately be Severity which is what it should actually be called, but the JQL field name will still be priority. Which is very confusing for everyone.

I realize that it has not been quite a year yet but I was wondering if we will ever have any movement on this issue or if we should consider this a dead request?

It would be amazing if we could truly customize the naming structure the way that fits our business and workflows and not be confined by the naming convention that exists for system fields. This change would be nothing more than changing the system labels and would not have any effect on the functionality of the system as I see it.

This would be a major improvement to an already great platform.

How about just permitting different labels while keeping actual field names the same? The Summary is an important key for many issues. But we don't always view it as an issue summary. For example, in Service Desk we created a tracking app for permissions changes and the employee name is the key. The summary is the correct field to use for their name, but we would rather this be displayed as "Employee Name" in searches, queues, and issue screens. 

Funny that we effectively relabel any field in the Service Desk customer portal, but are stuck with the fixed identifiers in the Jira UI.

I used to use the inproduct translation and would love to see this implemented as a core feature. Add it to the system plugins edit interface or similar. I assume it is sometihng that would be trivial for Atlassian to implement in a controlled manner and it would be of benefit to many users. Jira has moved on considerably from it's original incarnation as a bug tracker and project management tool for software teams. As it penetrates the wider enterprise you need to understand that people are not necessarily working on 'issues'. It is now a generic task management platform and as such the term 'issue' is a legacy that should be permitted to change. For the past 10 years I have been a Jira user and advocate, at the first company where I rolled it out I preached to the two users in the team that couldn't get their head around the term 'issue' to just suck it up and understand that just meant 'task'. Now, in my new company, I used inProductTranslation up until recently upgrading to 7.8.x; my new users are actually more non-software than software - almost 97% of users will not be interested in the software development end of Jira and as such it is really a task management tool for us. I have 35 seats so do the math and you will realize that it is only me that really cares about the software end of things

Anyhow, that is why I vote for this to be implemented properly by Atlassian, to not do it is a barrier to growing the wider use of Jira across the enterprise. Rediculous I know, but it is a fact.

@Rena - In case the age of the issue wasn't a tip off, I suggest that you not expect any motion on this request. Instead plan on never being able to do these things.

My business leaders want to rename 'Create Issue' (a screen title) to something else, but not the word 'Issue'.  And the want the Jira standard field 'Summary' changed to something else.

Hi Guys,

Is there any plans for this feature to be implemented?

Regards,
MG

Nico J, I tried to do this via language pack doing the following:

https://community.atlassian.com/t5/Jira-questions/Change-the-name-of-system-field-component/qaq-p/643697?utm_source=atlcomm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=immediate_general_answer&utm_content=topic

but this doesn't work unfortunately...

Agreed! If there are language packs, then it's certainly possible to change the labels. Allow us to customize that to fit our business need and user base.

Can I add my voice to this please. It's pretty easy to allow the customisation of labels presented to a user so not sure what the argument against it is - the fact that the system needs to be accessible for non-technical people is irrelevant as renaming the fields would not be mandatory.