Universal Basic Income NA‑class (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universal Basic Income, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Universal Basic IncomeWikipedia:WikiProject Universal Basic IncomeTemplate:WikiProject Basic IncomeUniversal Basic Income articles NA This article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

So I made some of the changes suggested below (4 years ago!) and changed the Green Party and Pirate Party links to their international pages. I also renamed the 'regional programs' to 'related programs'. I still think the template isn't great though. Here are some issues:

• There are a lot of political parties, mostly small, who support Basic Income. These should really have their own section, seperate from NGOs.
• Since political parties are advocates, shouldn't they be under the 'advocates' section, but then that would lead to their being 4 advocate sub-sections, 'living individuals', 'dead individuals('historic')', NGOs and political parties. This seemed unwieldy to me, what do others think?
• Since a lot of political parties are advocates, should we really include all of them? Fianna Fáil in Ireland are not known for their support of BI, in fact, most people probably wouldn't even know they support it, is it appropriate to list them in the BI template?
• The 'current advocates' section is preety big and presumably could be a lot bigger. Should we really include everyone who is an advocate or who has expressed support before? I don't think so, but then, where do we draw the line?
• Shouldn't BIEN be at the very top, since they are the world body advocating for BI?

37.165.74.233 (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 'organisations' row is preety arbitrary, Green and Pirate parties worldwide support BI so why mention just a few of them and there's just a few, seemingly arbitrary political parties. It would make more sense to create another column saying 'supportive political parties' and list all the parties, or if there's too many, all the ones with representation in parliament. I might make this edit later on. - 109.78.68.250 (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In fact, the whole template is fairly random and cobbled-together. The first row is arbitrary as well, it would make more sense to have one called something like 'Possible Implementations', then list NIT, Dividend programs, Crypto-UBI and any other proposed implementations, if there's an article for it. 'Real Freedom' should be in an 'other related topics' section, which would include GiveDirectly. The 'by country' row is scant as well, it's unnecessary to have every country, but you could just link to a list of 'basic income articles by country' or similar. The Bolsa Familia and Alaska Permanent Fund and related programs should be in a 'related programs' column and should include Oportunidades and other conditioned cash transfer programs like Guaranteed Minimum Income and Social Welfare. The 'works' column is arbitrary as well, it would be impossible to include every work so I'm not sure the benefit of listing a few random ones, but I guess it's better to list them than not. - 109.78.68.250 (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]