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.
Just because some business writers uppercase explanations of acronyms and even uppercase many other common nouns (in fact, often any and all concepts) in blatant disregard of general English usage does not mean we should do the same, especially since this would violate the very explicit guideline on acronyms in MOS, whose purpose is to ensure time is spent on improving WP's content instead of being wasted on unnecessary endless repetitions of the same discussions. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Acronyms and abbreviations, initial capitals should not be used in the full name of an item just because capitals are used in the abbreviation and this is specifically called incorrect if it's not a name (proper noun). --Espoo (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. I see what you mean, vis-a-vis Google Books. One of those sources on the first page is written by an authority on the subject. My memory appears to have been clouded by my encounter with the BBC staff who felt it was necessary to use lowercase in "NASA" (Nasa).
On the other hand a Manual of Style isn't more important than usability and readability. Capitalizing Master Production Schedule (like bolding each use of Wiki article topics in the article) might be reasonable for those who are learning. Just a reminder from the intro to Websters and the OED, dictionaries, these works are descriptive, not prescriptive. It's not a sin to make the language express what you want it to.
i misassumed that the change to case was more of wiki's fanaticism to remove capital letters from the face of the earth. i see that isn't so in this instance. regards, piano non troppo (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)