Talk:ITIL

British English?

While ITIL was started in the UK it has since become an international standard adopted everywhere. Should the article be re-written to remove British English? I'm not sure of the arguments pro or con in this area. --Jasenlee (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Why would any other variety of English be more suitable? --Michig (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No; see MOS:RETAIN --hulmem (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Most of the British English has been removed from the ITIL guidance already. The exams have had all of the language specific to the UK removed for some time now. The reason is very simple, and has already been stated -- it is used around the world. Keeping British colloquialisms and UK-specific spellings of words like "whilst" makes no sense.Flybd5 (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

See Also - AtTask

why is a product, namely AtTask, named in the See Also section? Is this correct? Andreworg (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Moving to a different title - ITIL

If anyone feels this needs to be moved to a different title then it should be moved, not copied and pasted. I would suggest gaining consensus here first might also be a good idea. --Michig (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

As Michig, suggests, if you agree that the outdated title of this page 'Information Technology Infrastructure Library' means that it should be moved to the page 'ITIL', and, instead, the old, outdated title moved to a redirection, please note this here. Fustbariclation (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a cut-and-paste from course material

I don't think detailed information of a commercial training belongs in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.126.92 (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"Definitive" library

There are both expressions in the article in here: Definitive Media Library and definitive software library. Is that how it should be or is there room for improvement in this article? --Alien4 (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Harmonised ratings

I've revised all ratings on the page to C-class - since the page is tagged for further citations, it automatically fails the B-class assessment, but is far more extensive than a Start-class would suggest. A B-class review (then updating all three WikiProject ratings) would then clarify if the citations template is still valid, and act accordingly. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is ITIL v2 given so much detail?

We are talking about a framework that is literally a decade old at this point (as of 2017), and has been superseded by a 2 new versions. To me, including so much v2 information is confusing and superfluous. Would anyone have a problem if all the v2 information was broken out into its own article, with clear notes that it is no longer considered best practices? BobTheMad (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ITIL. 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/20110912184827/http://www.apmg-international.com/ITILSCRquery.asp to http://www.apmg-international.com/ITILSCRquery.asp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)