| Revision as of 01:31, 6 December 2012 editTechnofish (talk | contribs)4 editsm →Notability ? and Case Studies← Previous edit |
Revision as of 02:00, 6 December 2012 edit undoMiszaBot I (talk | contribs)234,552 editsm Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 100d) to Talk:Information Technology Infrastructure Library/Archive 2.Next edit → |
| Line 17: |
Line 17: |
|
|archive = Talk:Information Technology Infrastructure Library/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Information Technology Infrastructure Library/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
== Clarity of Text == |
|
|
|
|
|
I may be out of my depth here, but |
|
|
"Features include: |
|
|
|
|
|
* single point of contact (SPOC) and not necessarily the first point of contact (FPOC) |
|
|
" |
|
|
|
|
|
If there is a single point of contact then surely there is also a first point of contact (only one in fact). If I've misunderstood, which I suspect I have, then the text isn't clear enough. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
Impact of policies and procedures for technical supports (impact on cost, user experience, escalation process, tired support. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Merge sections "Frameworks mapping to ITIL" and "Variants of ITIL" == |
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that these sections contain overlapping and redundant information. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm new to editing wikipedia. But I'd be happy to try to re-word these two sections into prose which both lists and discusses: |
|
|
COBIT, MOF, BECTA's FITS, IBM's ITUP and eTom. |
|
|
|
|
|
But that seems to be a major change and I don't feel comfortable just diving in without warning ... I guess I'm not really looking for approval so much as checking to see if there's any objection from anyone watching this. |
|
|
] (]) 22:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'd agree that there's some redundancy. Looks like a good idea. |
|
|
:Go ahead and try making some improvements. If you need a hand with anything, just ask here (or try the ]). I look forward to your contributions. The worst that can happen is that somebody disagrees with you, in which case we can come back here to discuss the best way forward for the article; we won't bite! ] (]) 00:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::If you're doing a lot of rearranging, it can be helpful to use the "''Show preview''" button every so often, to get a feel for what the page will actually look like once you submit. It's important for content to be ''sourced'', so where practical, try to cite a source for things that are non-obvious or potentially controversial. (As a minimum, if you want to cite some other webpage, just put the URL in square brackets and somebody will come along and tidy that up afterwards). ] (]) 00:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for that - I'll see what I can do (btw fecnde is me - changed user to my real name instead of nick). Thanks for the quick feedback. ] (]) 07:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
ok ... that's done(ish). I'm not totally happy with some bits of that section (now merged just one) but I think that's cleaner. It feels wrong editing the live page. Is it possible to save something as a draft somewhere? ] (]) 08:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:I took the liberty of putting a copy of the text in your userpace, at ], where you can play around with a "draft" as much as you like; when you're happy that you've perfected it, you can bring it back to live. That page won't show up in Google searches &c. Hope that helps? Have fun! ] (]) 10:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Hey thanks! That is exactly what I was after. It felt really wrong editing the live version. When I'm done, do I just copy/paste the code or is there a merge feature? I guess I should rtfm :) ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 17:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:Next to the preview button is a "''show changes''" button which presents a diff of the current article and your proposed changes. Apart from that, it's just copy and paste. Merging page histories must be performed by an administrator, you can request it by placing <tt>{{tlx|histmerge|''page to merge histories with''}}</tt> in the article. ] 09:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::If all the changes to the userified text have been done by a single person, and any changed sections would be just pasted into the existing article not unlike a normal edit, and would all be attributed to the same person, do we really need merged histories? |
|
|
::Davebremer: the draft in your userspace is not a ''complete'' replica, because "live" articles have things like categories at the bottom which could be problematic if they appeared on a duplicate article in userspace, so I omitted those. Don't just overwrite the whole article, instead it would be better to replace the bits that you've improved. Other people might have worked on any part of the live article in the meantime, so be careful of that; MER-C's suggestion is helpful. ] (]) 10:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Avoid Restatement == |
|
== Avoid Restatement == |
| Line 64: |
Line 28: |
|
|
|
|
|
== British English? == |
|
== 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. --] (]) 17:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
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. --] (]) 17:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
:No. Why would any other variety of English be more suitable? --] (]) 17:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
:No. Why would any other variety of English be more suitable? --] (]) 17:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC) |
The article should not include a re-statement of what ITIL is, contains, addresses, etc. The sources referenced will do this -- or the article won't stay. As an article, it ought to be an overview of what the framework provides but not by specific applications. There needs to be enough detail so that similarities and differences from other frameworks can be shown.
Kernel.package (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Under ITIL Service Strategy is a broken link for ... "Strategy Management". I fixed a link for ... "Financial management for IT services", as it was just a typo, but cannot find an article for this topic. I could just make a stub, but that would be a waste, if the real one is floating around somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djwaustin-wiki (talk • contribs) 23:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
This article seems to be pure theory restating what ITIL is and says nothing to the extent that the framework has been adopted in practice and how widespread is its use. I think it needs some examples of notable organisations and details of how the best framework has been implemented and some factual statistics. Otherwise, on its own it is meaningless. It could be published by a government department but lots of documents are published by government departments that have zero notability or credibility. How many users are certified at least basic level ? For all readers know only Bob's bookstore in Tuvalu uses the thing .... --Technofish (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
