Talk:Theory of constraints

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2011; 2013; 2016;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Business C‑class High‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Marketing & Advertising C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Over-capitalization

Having become used to Wikipedia's minimal capitalization style I find reading this article more difficult due to the number of capitalized terms. Is it necessary? Does "Thinking Process" mean something different than "thinking process"? If capitalization of "Theory of Constraints" is a shorthand way to distinguish the Goldratt's concept from other theories of constraints, which other theories are there? If it were called "Goldratt's theory of constraints" we wouldn't capitalize anything but Goldratt.

I also suspect that editors here have fallen into the habit of capitalizing terms that have acronyms like DBR. That's not Wikipedia style. Jojalozzo 20:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The terms like "Thinking Process" and "Drum Buffer Rope" and "Critical Chain Project Management" and "Throughput Accounting" all reference specific terminology and techniques from the TOC body of knowledge. The community that uses these terms traditionally capitalizes them in this way. Isn't that what Wikipedia should respect?

I don't believe TOC is known as "Goldratt's Theory of Constraints" in the general body of literature - he is just known as the first person to articulate it (and one of its heaviest promoters).

Jackvinson (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of Constraints → Theory of constraints –

Per WP:CAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

History lead paragraph

This needs clarification. It currently states that TOC was introduced by Goldratt in 1984, adopted by him in 1997 and extended to itself in 1999. I suspect that some vital piece of information is missing. Trevithj (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]