was requested that given the recent work done on the article, that I review the need for the NPOV tag.  The introduction has indeed improved quite a bit, though there is still one problematic statement, which I have marked.  The addition of a criticism section has also helped round out the overall perspective of the article.  The "Details of the ITIL Framework" section still has POV problems because it contains normative ("should") "how-to" suggestions.  It is an official policy that Wikipedia is not an instruction manual.  This is mostly to enforce the vision of writing an encyclopedia, rather than simply a collection of all the useful information in the universe.  The value of information which is too detailed for an encyclopedia is recognized, and Wikibooks is provided to host such useful works, including how-to manuals.    

  

 I continue to think that the best solution for the details section will be based on splitting each practice area into its own article, and noting that ITIL basically was neither the first nor the last word on any of them. I have a 1980 IBM publication in hand for example that details Change Control, Capacity Management, Problem Control, Recovery Planning, and Service Level Planning.  

 I am still concerned about the namespace issue, and would recommend that (instead of tagging the practice areas with ITIL) we tag them with ITSM. For example,  

 *Change Management (ITSM) 
 *Capacity Planning (ITSM) 
 *Service Level Management (ITSM) 

 We can then go into origins and pros and cons of each one systematically. But I think the ITSM page should be the master, not the ITIL page.  

 Thoughts? 

 -Charlie 

 

 :You only need add a parenthetical tag to the title of articles if it would be ambiguous.  Since there is no existing article on change management, for example, it would be fine to put an article on change-management-in-general under the title "Change management".  Certainly articles discussing these topics in general would be much more appropriate to an encyclopedia than merely documenting the subsections of one particular government standard.  And any respectable encylopedia should have an article on something as important as change management.    

 ::My concern is that we will quickly get into disambiguation. "Change management" would also merit an entry for "organizational change management" which is a different beast. Agreed that the parenthetical shouldn't be ITIL though. ITSM is a discipline and not owned by anyone, that's why I propose it.  

 Can one of you guys better qualified than me also take a look at Service management please?  In my view the existing entry needs work