Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of vegetable oils

List of vegetable oils
Per WP:WIAFL, not well-constructed.

I'm sorry but this categorization doesn't really make sense. While there are currently no guidelines about categorical lists, I feel common sense would lend itself. There is no coherency between topics. "Edible oils" is defined by a property of the oil, whereas "Oils used for biofuel" is defined by a usage. Much better to stick to one, and make "Oils used in food" or maybe "Culinary oils" or somesuch (much better than an "Inedible oils" section). Also, in almost every section it is unclear what the criteria for inclusion are.


 * Major oils - What constitutes a "major oil"? What use is a section separating oils by popularity, unless other oils are separated in a similar manner? Would a "Highly unpopular oils" section be useful?
 * Nut oils - what kind of nuts, botanical or culinary? Cashew is not a botanical nut but it is on the list, peanut is a culinary nut, but it isn't. Separation by source (probably the best way to go with all culinary oils)
 * Oils from melon and gourd seeds - clearly defined, separation by source
 * Food supplements - separation by usage, which is unnecessary as the annotations already handle usage
 * Other edible oils - separation by lack of effort. This is a categorical list. That means things in the list should belong to a category based on the criteria of the list. A categorical list should not have an unsorted section, as any information can be sorted.

The list would be a lot more usable if it were consistent in it's criteria. Suggested format -
 * Separation by usage
 * Separation by source
 * Separation by usage
 * Separation by source

etc.

Again, the "Other oils" section doesn't belong. Just glancing I can see separations by usage in cosmetics, medicine, and insecticides.

As a sidenote, the repetition within titles is unnecessary. All items on the list should be "oils", all items in "biofuels" should be biofuels, etc. ~ JohnnyMrNinja  06:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, the annotations are inconsistent, and a universal format would be more useful. I suggest, Name of oil, from "part" of "specific plant". Used as ...

So instead of - better - ~ JohnnyMrNinja  06:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Crambe oil, extracted from the seeds of the Crambe abyssinica, is used as an industrial lubricant, a corrosion inhibitor, and as an ingredient in the manufacture of synthetic rubber.
 * Crambe oil, from seeds of Crambe abyssinica. Used as an industrial lubricant, a corrosion inhibitor, and as an ingredient in the manufacture of synthetic rubber.

Comment Can I suggest you withdraw this nom for now? Make these comments on the article talk-page and drop a friendly note to the major contributor(s) to the list. Using FLRC to criticise (constructively, I hope) and suggest improvements, is not likely to lead to harmonious editing. It takes a lot of effort to create a featured list. That shouldn't be discarded lightly—for example, because you have some ideas on how it might be better constructed. FLRC should be used as a last resort, when other means of fixing or improving an existing FL have failed. Colin°Talk 18:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment The idea of trying to hash this out on the talk page does sound good to me. As for the merits of the suggestions: Summary: hope we keep our eye on the ball of how to improve this article. There's not much point in getting into a battle about complaining about the list or defending it, but there is every reason to list problems if there is some chance this will lead to fixing them. Kingdon 02:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I do see the main categorization as being by usage, with "food", "medicine", "biofuel", "drying oil" (including Oil paint), "cosmetics", "fragrance", "insecticide", and probably a few smaller categories like "other industrial" or something. This is largely true already, but if we agree this is the right organization, we could clean up to make it more consistently true. Also see List of essential oils.
 * If renaming "edible oils" to "Oils used in food" makes this clearer, let's do it.
 * Within "food", we could trying to figure out whether categories like "major oils", "nut oils", etc, make sense or not.
 * "the annotations are inconsistent, and a universal format would be more useful". The big advantage to this, as I see it, is that it would encourage us to supply all the suggested information (species, part of the plant, and uses).  Unless that ends up being awkward ("walnut oil, from the nut of the walnut tree" could be seen as redundant), I suppose that's a noble enough goal.

Comment Disclaimer: I'm the person who wrote the article, nominated it for FL, and have maintained it since. A few responses:


 * FLRC is for articles that have changed since they were named as featured lists, if I understand it correctly. The objections being raised here are for aspects of the list (the categorization and lack of consistency of wording) that were exactly as they are now at the point at which the list became featured. I have to agree that the changes suggested are better discussed on the talk page. FLRC seems a bit harsh.


 * Regarding major oils, we could probably add some stats (although there's some discussion there already), but the usage of oils is highly skewed. There really are a few major oils, and they really do account for almost all market share. I can't see removing this distinction, since it so clearly describes the reality of oil usage.


 * The list isn't meant to be a categorization. The categories were intended to make the list easier to use than a long alphabetical list of all known seed oils would have been. I think that the categories do reflect the major categories of contemporary use - witness the fact that it's not hard to figure out which category most oils belong in. That said, though, I have no objection to modifying the categories if something else works better.


 * The variety in wording was intentional, with the goal of making the article read better. IMHO, a hundred entries with almost identical syntax is pretty boring. If the consensus (talk page, please!) is that the benefit of making them all the same (as stated very well above, thank you!) outweighs the cost, then again, no objection. Waitak 21:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)