Talk:Ease of doing business index/Archives/2013

2009 Rankings
12 September 2008: A few days ago the 2009 rankings have been made public. Azerbaijan is this year's top reformer. I would find it great if the 2009 rankings would be added beside of the 2008 rankings so that they can be compared! However, 181 were ranked and the recent report ranks now some countries different to how they occur in the 2008 rankings on here, please take a look at: http://www.doingbusiness.org/documents/DB09_Overview.pdf


 * Currently the page is only semiupdated to 2008 rankings! Updating this page is a problem as it seems to have been written at one point in time with no consideration given to how to maintain it. Currently factual data from rankings are sprinkled through the discussion often with no indication as to which year they refer. What is needed in my opinion is to separate out the data which varies year by year from the description of the index itself as much as possible
 * On the main page (this one) references to specific data from the Index should be minimised and all such references should be dated by year. A more historical viewpoint may need to be adopted describing how the index and its procedures have evolved through time.
 * I think we also need subpages Ease of Doing Business Index 2007 etc, which give the actual rankings year by year and which link back to the main page for a general discription of the index.
 * Hawthorn (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The USA shown easier to do buisiness with ?
As a Canadian I find it really funny that one can find a way to say that the USA is easier then Canada to do business with!

It must have been quite a challenge to find a way to get this result!

Obama talks about changing the NAFTA even if it is already being cheated by the USA to a level that no American citizens even know.

The list of cheats is so long I don't even no how many cases actually exist. The wood industry is dead in Canada is a well know case of the USA lying and contesting in court for years and years then agreeing to deal a 4 billion bargain. 911allo (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Curse these troubelsome, pro-America facts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.3.61.131 (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Same with many other statistics all over the world (wikipedia). Look at the HDI... according to the HDI you can live better in the US than in Denmark or Belgium. THAT is absolutely ridiculous! I think the US ministry of propaganda is WELL funded so that they can pay a lot of people ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.194.111.47 (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

New Discussion
A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Colours on map wrong
I note at least one country that has the wrong colour on the map. If it does truly indicate quartiles, then Ghana should be light green, not orange. There may be others wrong as well - was the map not updated the last time the ranking was done? Grutness...wha?  08:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Egypt is also wrong - it should be orange, not red. Both these countries are mentioned as being major improvers in the latest survey - this seems to support my suggestion that the map may not have been updated. Grutness...wha?  08:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

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: No consensus to move Mike Cline (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ease of Doing Business Index → Ease of doing business index – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

'Tis eye-poking with the caps, isn't it. And the top three google rankings on my browser downcase it, including www.doingbusiness.org, notably.

Per WP:MOSCAPS ("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:MOSCAPS 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. relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Tony   (talk)  09:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This has now turned into a pointless anti-caps crusade; it was useful before it hit the point of diminishing returns. The subject of this article is a specific object, called by its proper name. Please let's have no more of these. JCScaliger (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I supposed we could modify MOS:CAPS to say that once 90% of articles are consistent with the guidelines, the other 10% should be left as an example of what not to do. Is that what you have in mind by "diminishing returns"?  Dicklyon (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, all we have do is read MOS:CAPS as it is written:Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. Most capitalization is for proer nouns That does not say, or mean, never capitalize; as the nom would have it. JCScaliger (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support – after consulting reliable sources, I find that most books use lower case, including the World Bank book that defines it and 9 out of 10 on the first page of Google Books hits. Dicklyon (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is the proper name of a specific index maintained by an especific entity. MOS:CAP says to capitaliza proper names. This is not the generic name of a type of index. This would be akin to downcasing Dow Jones Industrial Average. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're going to just assert that without evidence and without commenting on the evidence I presented above? Dicklyon (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Source: "Major international organizations now produce and publish one or more indices (...) The most widely monitored and applied indices are the Ease of Doing Business Index (World Bank, 2003) and the Global Competitiveness Index (World Economic Forum, 2004)" . This is not a generic type of index, it's a specific index with a proper name.. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose very sympathetic to WP:CAPS, but not this time. While, yes, it started in WB publications as a generic (and therefore small-cap) index in 2001 onwards, in non WB publications from 2008 onwards it clearly is being seen as a non-generic index (and caps) specific to the methodology proposed by the WB. WB publications, in sticking to small caps, are now out-of-step with the way the majority of current sources view the WB index, and WP:RS guidelines also prefer 3rd party sources, wheras the WB ones are self-referencing and therefore to be discounted in favour of the other (caps) sources. Would those above who have supported please check this in Google Books and Google Scholar from 2009 onwards. You may want to revise your views if looking at 2009 onwards in 3rd party publications only. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We may need to clarify WP:CAPS if it's being seen to support renames of this nature. Modern linguists interpret proper noun (and every other term) as descriptive terms; Prescriptive grammar is old-fashioned. Capitalisation here is a helpful and common way to show that this is a specific index rather than a generic description of an index. Andrewa (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.

include non-nations
shouldn't palestinian territories be included here? and the cayman islands? palestinian territories article says ity ranks #135. 192.249.47.177 (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

American joke
This whole article is a big joke. Wikipedia is truly becoming the most successful device of the American propaganda department. Wikipedia will mean the end of European civilisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.117.249.20 (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)