Talk:List of almshouses in the United Kingdom

Unclear scope

Is this list supposed to include only currently occupied almshouses, or any historic building that was once an almshouse? Rodparkes (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It would seem to include some buildings that were once almshouses, but are no longer. This page does need a lot of work, and one useful thing would be to indicate whether a building is still in use as an almshouse or not. BabelStone (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the list could usefully be divided into two sections? Headhitter (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The scope is still rather unclear, so I am unsure which almshouses to add. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 13:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a very long list. It could be considerably shortened – and would be easier to maintain – by restricting inclusion to only those almshouses with Wikipedia entries. What do others think? Headhitter (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Support. That would remove the swathes of unsourced entries. Wire723 (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The issue in this question is the scope for the list – what defines which items could belong in this list? Should it include buildings that were an almshouse at some point? Should it be specific to buildings that are currently almshouses? Some other aspect of the building? The presence or absence of a WP article is not an attribute of a building.
If the chosen scope is liable to result in an unmanageably long list, then a way forward would be to split this article into list articles covering only individual countries or even individual counties.
If an item is unsourced then add a source or at least add a {{Citation needed}} tag — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 23:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The scope should be current almshouses that are notable - i.e. they have a Wikipedia entry. Buildings that were formerly almshouses could go into a separate article. Headhitter (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

So, I'm proposing that we move former almshouses to a separate article and that we remove altogether those almshouses (current or former) that don't have a Wikipedia entry. Does this proposal have other Wikipedians' support? Headhitter (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Not really. The list could be split into former vs. current but the list is not really too long, so such a split would not help much. Define the scope clearly and then quote a good source that defines which entries match the scope. Having a WP article is not itself a test of notability and not having an article is not itself a reason to remove an entry from the list. Having a well-defined list will instead encourage the creation of articles for the entries — which is a much more valid objective — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we could turn it into a tabular format, and then an active or inactive box could be concluded? It's a lot of work and I don't know how to make tables, but it would bring it in line with similar articles, too. EPEAviator (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I've edited the lede to define the scope: "This is a list of British almshouses. It includes historial almshouses (some of which are no longer in use as charitable housing) and new-build almshouses." It's a wide definition, but it's a starting point and I think it accurately reflects the article's current content. We can go from here to decide whether to divide the existng list into sections, or to jettison some of the content or to move that content to a separate article. Headhitter (talk) 07:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

What do other editors think? Headhitter (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Re Delinking

@Martin of Sheffield: Re your WP:ANI post, the relevant guideline is WP:ELLIST, which suggests that the links should go below rather than directly in the list (as an alternative, the site could be used as a citation). Cheers, ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The delinking had a side-effect of making many link to disambiguation pages rather than the target article. Which is a bad thing. Also these were not EXTERNAL links for the most part (the EL in ELLIST) but internal wikilinks to other articles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Only in Death, if any external links were reinstated they were very few, most were internal links to the articles concerned, as with most lists. I think there is also a single red link, but this was a bulk action to sort out a larger mess.

@Hydronium Hydroxide: lists would become fairly useless if the entries didn't link to actual pages. Consider "Bond's Hospital (founded 1506 ... ), Hill Street, Coventry" compared to "Bond's Hospital, Hill street, Coventry (founded 1506)". The former leads you to more information on the almshouse itself, the latter merely sends you to Coventry! :-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: Ah sorry. Saw the external links and didn't clock that it was internal links that were being removed. To Coventry for me! ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)