Jump to content

Talk:ITIL: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Harmonised ratings
Line 2: Line 2:
{{British English}}
{{British English}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Computing|class=c|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Business|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Technology|class=c}}
{{WikiProject Computing|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Systems|class=c|importance=mid |field=systems engineering}}
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|class=C|importance=Low}} <!-- "Responding to growing dependence on IT, the UK Government..." -->
{{WikiProject Systems|field=systems engineering|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Technology|class=C}}
}}
}}
{{Merged-from|ITIL v3}}
{{Merged-from|ITIL v3}}

Revision as of 18:33, 9 July 2016

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)[reply]

No. Why would any other variety of English be more suitable? --Michig (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No; see MOS:RETAIN --hulmem (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

As Michig, suggests, if you agree that the outdated title of this page 'Information Technology Infrastructure Library' means that it should be moved to the page 'ITIL', and, instead, the old, outdated title moved to a redirection, please note this here.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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]