Talk:List of vegetable oils

Drying agent

Dammar oil is a drying agent, not a dessicant. A dessicant works by removing moisture, while a drying oil like dammar oil works by pulling oxygen out of the air and using it in autoxidation.

The problem was a link to an ill-considered redirect, which was quite reasonably replaced with direct link. I've replaced the Drying agent redirection with a disambiguation page. ClairSamoht 04:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for that. I started the article drying agent not long ago, as a basic list of laboratory drying agents. I found a similar article, desiccant, and decided to merge the info there to prevent duplication, even though I very much prefer the term "drying agent". I didn't know the context for dammar oil was different. --Rifleman 82 06:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no reason for apologies. I should be thanking you instead. Thanks. "Many hands make for light work." Or, in this case, better work. I'm sure there are many people who think the reason you would use a drying oil instead of, say, alcohol, as a drying agent in paint is that alcohols tend to evaporate and oils don't. The result is that we got the Drying agent page, which otherwise I never would have thought to create. ClairSamoht 14:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Essential oils

I would have thought that essential oils would rate a subsection in this article.--Peta 00:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

List of essential oils started as a subsection of this article. I moved it to its own article for three reasons:

• The article was already getting very long
• Essential oils and vegetable fat oils are different enough that it made sense to give each their own article
• There were a lot of essential oils that don't have an article, and I didn't want to have to write all of them to apply for featured list status

Nothing against them at all! --Waitak 00:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Now I see, I missed the mention in the lead. It might be a good idea to include the link to the list again in the see also section.--Peta

mergefrom Saturated fat (section) to List of vegetable oils

The folks over at Saturated fat have come up with a table listing fat composition of (mostly) vegetable oils. This isn't well placed right at Saturated fat because this is more general information about oils, with mono- and poly-unsaturated values as well. However the information is useful and would complement this list, particularly if the list were to be reformatted as a table. -- cmh^TC 14:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of us! I'm wondering if this wouldn't be a better fit in Vegetable fats and oils, though. It doesn't seem that it fits in a list article as well as it would in a general article on the subject. Maybe it could even be an article on its own? Or perhaps a template so that it can be reused in more than one place? Thoughts, anybody? Waitak 15:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I will agree that it doesn't fit in this list article, but a third of the list consists of animal fats, and it doesn't belong in the Vegetable fats and oils article, either.

You know, the problem is that all this stuff doesn't fit neatly. It makes sense to discuss mineral oils, organic oils, and triglycerides separately, because the chemistry is different. It makes sense to discuss macerated oils separately, too, because it's not the oil that matters so much as the chemicals that are "polluting" the oil.

But from the standpoint of a chemist/chemical_engineer, animal/vegetable and fat/oil are distinctions that are pretty artificial. You've got three fatty acids clinging to glycerine, and it doesn't really matter where the fatty acids came from, just which fatty acids they are, and in what order they are connected. Now, when you saturate an oil, you tend to preferentially saturate the fatty acids on the end of the chain, because the middle one is "protected" by the other two, but still, you can find molecules that *accidently* have that arrangement in nature, and you can fractionate the oil to get *only* those molecules....

And then you get adjectives like "edible", "industrial", "drying", "salad", "cooking", etc., that are also essentially meaningless. I mean, if you want to buy a rail car of margarine oil, that's a useful distinction, as is telling the guy at the car dealership that you want a "muscle car" or an "econobox", but the folks down at the bureau of motor vehicles don't recognize those distinctions.

And if we were starting from scratch, and didn't have all these hours of manpower invested in the existing articles, it'd surely make sense to organize the articles differently.

Oops. Did it again. I gotta get more sleep, so I don't pop off so much. As Emily Litella would say, "Excuse me." The rest of you will find an suitable solution, and I'll live with it. ClairSamoht 16:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so what we usually do in situations like this is:

• Somebody (hopefully you) makes some concrete suggestions about what would be a better structure for all of these articles.
• Somebody else (maybe me, who the heck knows?) fleshes it out into something that could actually be built.
• Anybody who's interested takes a crack at it, including the person who made the suggestion in the first place, until we're all pretty much convinced that it's (a) better and (b) worth the trouble.
• We get to work and start writing the darned thing.

As a person who's probably invested more than the average editor in the whole shebang, I'll state for the record that I feel pretty unproprietary about what's said where. I'd hate to see List of vegetable oils eviscerated, but I'm up for pretty much anything else.

As for spouting off... we eventually ended up with a featured list one of the last times you did that, so I wouldn't be too hard on m'self, were I you.

Your volley. Go on, you know you want to. :-) Waitak 10:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Back to the {{mergesection}} question: I've put a different version of the table into Fatty acid. It doesn't have quite as many fats, but it has more information on each (includes vitamin E composition). It's also scaled in g/100g, rather than g/Tbsp. Would this be a satisfactory solution to the nice people from Saturated fat who moved the table here in the first place? cmh? AndreasJS? If you don't like it -- or don't like it there -- please feel free to, y'know, be bold.... Waitak 11:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I just found the table on Saturated fat and felt it didn't quite fit the article. My thought was that this list could do more than just enumerate and describe the oils, it could provide some technical data like this as well. However, I'm not wedded to that idea. -- cmh^TC 17:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Algal oil

The article credits Isaac Berzin as having invented algal oils for biofuels. I am fairly sure this is inaccurate. The idea of using oil from Algae for fuel has been around at least since the 1970's US Government "Aquatic Species Program", if not before. Please fix. —preceding unsigned comment by Bobkeyes (talk • contribs)

Citations

Rmvd the bulkoil.com citations per WP:RS and Links normally to be avoided. The small write ups on those pages seem to be coppied from, 3rd parties including wikipedia. Site also contains extensive ad lists "for sale" which clearly are classified solicitations. from the site;

Search for bulk edible oils listed for sale or wanted. Click on the company for company detail. Click on the listing for listing detail. Add your posting to the list. Contact the vendor directly

Also over citing is an issue, since each listed item has its own article to reference, there hardly seems to be a need to cite an external source (nine times) that is infact content found on or from wikipedia. It seems even stranger to need to cite the statements;

• "Corn oil, a common cooking oil with little odor or taste"
• "Soybean oil, produced as a byproduct of processing soy meal."

--Hu12 08:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, they're actually not. Please let's not get into a revert war here. As I said, this article has undergone a very extensive review process. The "over citing" was done because it's required to have all facts cited for the list to achieve featured list status. It took weeks of hard work to find references for everything that passed muster with the many reviewers. I'm not inclined to watch a major portion of them removed - and the list subsequently be disqualified for featured list status - because a single editor doesn't like them.

Could you please be a little less assertive here? If you have better sources for something, feel free to replace any of the citations. The fact that bulkoil pages include lists of places that you can buy the oils does not in any way detract from the value of the writeups on the oils. There is no Wikipedia policy that I'm aware of that precludes the use of such references. Waitak 08:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, how's this sound? I'm willing to try to replace the Bulk Oil citations over time with other, better ones. I agree that they're minimal, even if I disagree with you regarding whether they fall under WP:RS or not. If you'd agree not to force the issue by continuing to remove them, I'd be grateful. Deal? Waitak 08:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ojon oil

Benefits of Essential Oils: http://www.talksofindia.com/benefits-essential-oils-hair-body/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.242.62.121 (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

What's "Ojon" oil? From which plant is this oil? Sei Shonagon 02:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added an entry for it. Thanks for mentioning it. Waitak 16:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Biofuels : Fantasies for the U S

These are in the long run apparently fantasies. Corn (maize) is one of the most efficient of all plants in capturing solar radiation (sunfall) and yet, in the U S "Cornbelt", averaged on an annual basis, corn captures only 0.7% (7/10ths of 1 percent) of the available sunfall. Furthermore, even this poor performance is available only in the presence of huge amounts of irrigation/rainfall water and very large amounts of petrofertilizer.

Undoubtedly, in the tropics, some better results are possible -- but not in the continental U S.

This observation is made on the basis of information obtained privately from one of the leading agricultural laboratories in the Cornbelt.

So, folks, dust off your solar cells !! . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.178.230 (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Organization

First I would like to apologize for starting a conversation I didn't finish. I also hope that no disrespect was felt, as I do think the article if well-written, I just had (and still have) issues with the way the article is laid-out. While the issues aren't necessarily overwhelming, they are fundamental to the article, and not what i would hope to see in a Featured list. I am not an expert in the subject by any means, but would interested parties please take note of Wikipedia:Lists#Organization, as well as the conversation I just mentioned. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the gracious follow-up. As I hope was clear from the response to your FLRC nomination, I certainly took you seriously, and did seek not to respond out of being offended or taking things personally. Hope I succeeded.

The organization of the list as it exists happened roughly as follows:

• I made an exhaustive list of all of the oils I could find
• I read about them all, and noted what categories the sources said they belonged to
• After compiling a list of the main categories that I was seeing over and over, I tried to categorize the whole list using what seemed to be a reasonable compromise, in terms of not having too many categories, while still having enough to cover the ground

No claim that what we've got now is the best categorization, but it is the best that I was able to come up with, so... how about you taking a shot at it (in concrete, not abstract terms) here in the talk page, and we'll see how it looks? As an aside, although it seems pretty easy to make a categorization that's strictly usage/source or source/usage, you could easily end up with some categories with a bazillion entries, and others with one or two - and still not capture what's important about a significant number of oils. That wouldn't help make the list most usable. So... have at it! Waitak (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Vernonia oil

I am not sure where to list Vernonia oil. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be a drying oil, from the writeup. The other reasonable place might be in the "Other oils" section. Would you like to take a shot at it? I'd be happy to look it over after you're done and tweak a bit if required. In particular, it would be great if you could supply a reference that describes the oil, its main properties, and uses. Thanks! Waitak (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. You asked, and I didn't check carefully enough, but there already was an entry for Vernonia oil. Apparently I even wrote an article on it so that I'd have something to point to. Completely forgot. Sorry, and thank you for helping! Waitak (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Rubber seed oil

Please find the right place to list Rubber seed oil. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying lead section

The Lead section begins by proposing 3 methods of extraction and then confuses them by mentioning more than 3 processes and some muddled chemistry. The following is my attempt, so far, to sort it out – which isn't yet complete. Anyone like to respond or contribute some clarity?

I went in there first to sort out what were the 3 processes that were being proposed.

Expressed oils is clear enough. But do centrifugally pressed oils – also usually pressed from a slurry that could be considered a leaching process – count here? Centrifugally pressed olive oil has virtually replaced true "pressed" oil, including virgin organic, in areas I am familiar with.

The section then goes on to describe dissolving the oils in solvents such as water. Sorry, that's not chemically correct: oils are immiscible with water! They can form emulsions or, loosely speaking, suspensions (which primarily refer only to solids in liquids).

I began phrasing a dummy run like this (hampered by the <onlyinclude> section which clearly needs to be self contained):

"There are several methods for extracting vegetable oils from plants. The relevant part of the plant may be placed under pressure to "extract" the oil, giving an expressed oil.</onlyinclude> Alternatively the part of the plant may be dispersed in a liquid to dissolve or leach out the oils.

The immiscible mixture, if water is used, can be separated by centrifuging. The resulting solution (if chemical solvation is used) is seperated by liquid-liquid seperation."

Firstly, Leaching (chemical science), the link from leaching, is a stub that refers to metals and ores, not oils, only soluble food stuffs, such as sugar into water, even though I can see the process being alluded to. Is solvent extraction what the original writers were getting at here?

Secondly, I've left the link brackets off of liquid-liquid seperation because that chemistry page, which also doesn't mention oils either, is what the link for maceration points at! Otherwise also known as solvent extraction.

"Thirdly(?), the mixture can be separated by distilling the oil away from the plant material. Oils extracted by distillation are called essential oils and often have different properties and uses than pressed or leached vegetable oils....."

I think that one is clear.

Maceration

Now this:

"//List of macerated oils|Macerated oils// are made by infusing parts of plants in a base oil a process known as //liquid-liquid extraction | maceration//."

The sentence needs to be a separate paragraph to avoid confusion as a method of extraction - that's if it should be there at all. Do such a rarefied breed of oils need to be refered to up front together with ways of extracting all the major commercial oils? I suspect its there by confusion with the process of extraction of the bulk oil, and that the list of delightful flavoured macerated oils the link brings up are a red herring.

Also Maceration (food) is what I think is being got at here, not maceration (chemistry) which is basically solvent extraction again – according to the article the wikilink pulls up. Ok, it is solvent extracting the added herb etc into the oil, but then it is not extracting the herb back out again, as in the commercial process of the solvent extraction of oils from the plant, (extraction the oil back from the solvent) as I refered to earlier.

I'll leave this here for a few days, rather than edit in in, see what settles out: if nothing, I'll pull it together in a way I see fit and put it up. Trev M  ~  00:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added a "Maceration" subheader, as there is a related thread at Talk:List of macerated oils currently. Your thoughts might be helpful over there. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Fats vs oils

Some of the "oils" on this page may be solid at room temperature, e.g. cocoa butter, shea butter, coconut butter, making them technically fats not oils. And of course a lot more can be hydrogenated to become solid. I think this should be mentioned in the article somewhere and maybe you could list them... I was wondering if there are any more. Fugyoo (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this user. Not so much as having a list of butters or fats, but mentioning the difference somehwere would be helpful.Beefcake6412 (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added a mention. See if you think this does it. Waitak (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Best Fat for us: Extra Virgin Oil, Benefits of extra virgin oil: http://www.talksofindia.com/benefits-extra-virgin-olive-oil/

References

Verifying sources

<Update> I just wanted to note why this section is here. We're in the process of going over all of the sources and citations in the article, in the hope of having a much stronger article. The other motivation is that a significant number of sources are stale, and are now pointed to by archived URLs. As one editor noted, the references are "derelict", and that needs to be fixed. The goal of this exercise is to have all sources be reliable, current, and verify that the source says what we're citing them for. The thought is to replace sources that are clearly questionable, and to ask the people over at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to have a look at what's left, i.e. that we think are okay, but would like somebody to have a second (neutral) look at. This section is for notes on the process. Please feel free to help. Waitak (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC) </Update>

• Verified corn oil source, p. 27 "Salad and cooking oils are prepared from vegetable oils that are refined, bleached, deodorized, and sometimes dewaxed or lightly hydrogenated and winterized. Soybean and corn oil are the principal oils sold in this form, although cottonseed, peanut, safflower, sunflower, canola and olive oil also are used."
• Verified cottonseed oil source, "Cottonseed oil is primarily used in the U.S. as a salad or cooking oil.", "As a salad oil, it is used in mayonnaise, salad dressings, sauces, and marinades. As a cooking oil, it is used for frying in both commercial and home cooking."
• Re-sourced olive oil, verified source, "Olive oil is used in cosmetics, cooking, pharmaceuticals and soaps. It is often also used as fuel in traditional oil lamps."
• Re-source palm oil popularity ref, "In 2006, palm oil accounted for 52% or 26.3 mil MT of the total world oils and fats exports."
• Re-source palm oil food ref, "has a distinctive flavor that is popular in West African and Brazilian cooking."
• Verified palm oil biodiesel ref, "Palm oil is not only one of the main feedstocks for biodiesel, it’s also the primary substitute for rapeseed oil, which is in short supply in Europe because of its conversion into biodiesel." Waitak (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Remember that the "Verify source" tagsare more that the source is probably alright, but might be best to run by the RS noticeboard. I'm using for things that need checked.

As for the content, I started double checking all content half-way through. I'll go back to the start and do that at the end, so don't worry about needing to do thaty part - just concentrate on things labelled , , or =) 86.** IP (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, will do. I'd been going back to the source and verifying that it actually says what the article does. Waitak (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Verified Painter's Handbook as not self-published.
• Verified Plant Resources of Tropical Africa (this is actually a fairly major resource).
• Re-sourced and rewrote coriander seed oil entry
• Re-sourced burdock oil entry
• Marked Oils of Aloha as commercial. The information there (on candlenut oil) is comprehensive and hard to find elsewhere. Not sure what to do with this one. Waitak (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I suppose we could discuss removing candlenut oil as being of low notability, but I agree that comprehensiveness is a good thing, and if we can find an alternative to that, it'd be preferred. 86.** IP (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Yup, low notability doesn't work so well for a comprehensive list. I'll keep my eyes open for a better source. Waitak (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Re-sourced and rewrote pistachio nut oil entry
• Added the same source to walnut oil re flavor Waitak (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Re-sourced grape seed oil and rewrote entry.
• Re-sourced and rewrote rice bran oil entry.
• Re-sourced snowball seed oil entry. Waitak (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Re-sourced and rewrote tonka bean oil entry. Waitak (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Re-sourced and rewrote macadamia nut entry.
• Rewrote cohune oil entry.
• Reviewed and added to wheat germ ref.
• Re-sourced and rewrote pine nut oil entry Waitak (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Re-sourced and rewrote marula oil entry Waitak (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go through from where I got to last time, and resume checking sources. Sorry for the day off. =) 86.** IP (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Replaced about.com shea butter source, re-wrote entry
• Re-sourced and rewrote cottonseed oil in fuel section
• Replaced all of the dead links I could find Waitak (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Re-sourced and rewrote thistle seed oil entry Waitak (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Fixed smoke point ref for safflower oil.
• Re-sourced illipe butter ref. I'd love to run this one past WP:RS/N. If it's okay, it's got a large number of small entries for uncommon oils. It'd make a great fallback for oils that we have trouble sourcing. Waitak (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Added another ref as well to illipe butter.
• Re-sourced and edited peanut oil as edible oil entry. Waitak (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Replaced safflower oil as biofuel source Waitak (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Re-sourced tall oil Waitak (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Re-source and tweaked prune kernel oil entry Waitak (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Re-sourced and rewrote linseed oil
• Added a separate entry for flaxseed oil, which is what linseed oil is called when used in food or medicine.
• Replaced smoke point reference for safflower with a better one.
• Re-sourced and rewrote tung oil entry. Waitak (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Deleted pracaxi oil (which is the same as sacha inchi oil), added a ref for sacha oil Waitak (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Replacing dead links

• Replaced ramtil oil source with two sources
• Repaired dead link to peanut oil as diesel ref
• Repaired sunflower biodiesel ref link
• Repaired tung oil as biodiesel ref link
• Re-sourced and rewrote lemon oil Waitak (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Re-sourced orange oil ref. Waitak (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Additional notes

Doing this in a new section to avoid conflict with Waitak.

• Essential oil - http://www.talksofindia.com/benefits-essential-oils-hair-body/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.242.62.121 (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• Açaí oil - Does this exist? It's not actually mentioned in the abstract of the source given (obviously, Açaí exists, but I mean the oil). It might be that it's in the full text, but I'm a little dubious on this one. 86.** IP (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Good point. I've added a reference to a journal paper that specifically talks about the oil. I haven't read it, but all we're attempting to do here is verify that the oil exists, and even just the title does that. Waitak (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Can't check the material is in the source for Amaranth oil, but think we can presume it good. (peer-reviewed journal).
• On that note, is it possible to say a little more about some of these? Amaranth oil's description doesn't really say much about uses, for example.
• http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/a/apric050.html IS a commercial site, but the book it hosts is previously published and not written for the site, so the link is more one of convenience, I presume? 86.** IP (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• The site hosts the complete text of (a former edition of) the book, so this allows folks to read it themselves, which wouldn't otherwise be possible. Waitak (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Some of these oils appear to only be produced experimentally, e.g. apple seed oil. Should these be removed? 86.** IP (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well, because this list is meant to be comprehensive, I'd say that we need to have entries for anything that exists, even if only produced experimentally. It'd be fine, though, to mention that the oil does not appear to have been produced commercially. It's a bit tricky. To find out if an oil is produced commercially, the best thing is to see if there are commercial site that mention it, but then you can't cite them in the article without running afoul of WP:RS - even if the point you're making is that those very links exist. Not sure what the answer is. Back in the day, there were a number of editors who were dubious about the article because of its claim to be comprehensive. At this point, I think we're on pretty solid ground, particularly because this has become the single place on the Internet where people go to ask about weird oils, and we always add them if they're asked about. Waitak (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's it for the moment. The section was going rather slowly, as there's a lot of references in it. I'll come back. 86.** IP (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting close to finishing, I think. Another day or two (by the middle of next week, say) and I think I'll have exhausted replacing questionable sources (not to mention exhausting me, but that's a separate question...), and rewriting entries. Waitak (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll probably take a little longer to go through, but suspect that your work so far will limit the amount of additional stuff I find. 86.** IP (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to call this pass done. I would like to fill in a few stubs sometime next week, but I think that's about it for references. I would, of course, be happy to have at anything that you find that I've missed. The next step, I suppose, it to collect the references that we're not sure of and post a list to WP:RS/N for them to comment on. Thereafter, it's over to Neelix for his TFL nomination, if he still wants to do that. Waitak (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Finishing up

I've submitted an initial RFC at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and removed the tags (since a review of the sources in now publicly in process). I'm pretty much done replacing references, I think, but am happy to bring anything that any editors find questionable to public scrutiny. You might find this to be entertaining... it's the composite edits that have happened in the last week. The article has gone from 63,696 and 159 citations to 76,846 bytes and 179 citations in less than a week. I think that well over 60% of the sources have been replaced, and dozens of entries rewritten. It's a much stronger article now.

Let me know when you're done, and we'll do whatever cleanup's left to do and get this thing put to bed. Thanks again for the help. Waitak (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we're done. Anything left before we remove the under construction tag, ask to close the FLRC discussion and move on? Waitak (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we ought to poke Judith again first. She had concerns, we should make sure they cleared. 86.** IP (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. Would you mind taking lead on that? Waitak (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

She says she'll look soon. =) 86.** IP (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Commercial links

I posted a request to Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources asking about how to indicate that an oil is used commercially without running afoul of WP:RS.[1] Waitak (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, for some, it's obvious - the source already says they are. 86.** IP (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Targanine

The reason for the Targanine reference under argan oil is that Targanine is the project that IDRI has used to help women in Africa via producing argan oil. The organization itself is relevant to the story of the oil, and is fairly extensively discussed in the reference just before this one. (I also know French, and was able to look through the site before including it as a reference.) Waitak (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Understood, just marking it to be run by RSN. 86.** IP (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but we ought to include a brief explanation of why it's there as well when we do. Waitak (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Mainly because simply being a charity isn't, in itself, sufficient reason to be considered a reliable source. There's charities that promote all sorts of crazy stuff. This one seems a quite good one, with respectable goals and aims, but it should probably be run by RSN for checking, nonetheless. 86.** IP (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this one, and I think I may change strategies. I've turned Targanine into an external link, and added a ref to a source (in French, sorry!) that discusses it. Waitak (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Medicinally

Since this was brought up on the RSN...

I suppose a little disambiguation would help here. In at least some cases, it might well be better to say "as a nutritional supplement" - which is more precise. I think a couple more are used in the manufacture of medicinal goods, which is worth noting, but should be stated explicitly as such - being used to lubricate a pill is, after all, different than being used for actual treatement. Probably a couple other categories, but if we deal with those two categories, we can then look at what's left. 86.** IP (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess we can research how each oil is used medicinally. I suspect (because I've read the descriptions in the process of sourcing the entries) that we're going to find specific medical claims behind almost all of the oils that have "used medicinally" in their entries. I've intentionally kept it extremely general to not invite a firefight like we've seen elsewhere. It seems to me that, by being more specific - even if well attested and cited - we're going to end up with a mess. That said, I don't mind giving it a shot, but we're going to have to go with what we actually find, not with what we hope we'll find. Waitak (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, some are going to have non-controversial uses. If we note those first, we can then look at what's left. Some of this is going to be alt med or experimental; we should probably leave out the really experimental claims, in all honesty. But let's see what we actually have to work with before we get too worried.

In the end, this list isn't about medicine, so, you know, if things get too bad, we can look at whether the claims are significant and widespread enough that the article needs to deal with them. So we're probably going to end up on safe ground.

There's only 17 mentions of medicinal uses, that's small enough to discuss them all, if need be. Over to Judith 86.** IP (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've gone through and either removed or justified all of the mentions that I could find of medicinal use. I've got over pine nut, perilla, black currant, borage seed, evening primrose, Borneo tallow oil, flaxseed oil, Royle oil, amur cork tree and burdock oil, and they're all solid at this point. There's a vague mention in the coconut oil entry that I haven't looked at yet. There is a strong medical claim for Brucea javanica oil that's backed up with two refereed journal papers. I think that's about it. Waitak (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Semi-final thoughts

I didn't make it through every entry (I'll try to do so, but I'm a little low on time at the moment), but Waitak did; I found a few minor cases where oil was confused with some other part of the plant, and some sourcing issues, which the radical overhaul will have checked. While there was a little sloppiness in some of the early fixes - failure to update material referenced to a questionable source to the material in the new source - once I pointed out that was happening, that stopped, and I believe we got all of it. I certainly don't think that it needs to be delisted anymore, the sourcing was the only major problem, and that's fixed.

Now, of course, there may be some minor issues left. It has, after all, just gone through a major reworking, so some polishing of language and such may well happen. There's also a few things it might be nice to have in an ideal world, but which would require substantial original research to find out; for example, it'd be nice to know which oils are commercialised, and which are experimental, but while we can show ones that are commercialised fairly trivially (and do), we can never prove that an oil had solely experimental use, since there's no way to check every company, on and off web, in every language to see if they sell it after all.

So, yes, while there may be minor room for improvement (and it's always possible that someone could find an oil we missed, given the list strives for absolute completeness, which one can never prove), I think this is definitely amongst Wikipedia's best work, and deserves FL. This is extremely good work by Waitak.

That said, we may as well ask the FL regulars to look over it. It'll happen either now or at whatever they call the put-it-on-the-main-page discussion. 86.** IP (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Red links

Oh, one more thing: Do we need to make stub articles for the red links? 86.** IP (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've now forgotten where I read it, but this list is in the style manual and in a number of discussions about other lists, as an example. In at least one of them, it was noted that a smattering of red links is actually a good thing, because it invites editors to contribute. That said, the number of them is a bit more than I'm comfortable with, so I've started on some stubs (Sapote oil was the first), and will likely do a few more, albeit as a lot more leisurely pace than the last week has seen. Waitak (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've changed a few of the remaining red links to point to sections within articles. I think the number of them is now low enough that it shouldn't raise any concerns. Waitak (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Merging seed oils

Seed oils is a small list of links to pressed oil pages, all of which are also here. I don't see any value in having the separate list. Waitak (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Neelix (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If no-one has any objections, I'm going to go ahead and replace seed oils with a redirect tomorrow. Waitak (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Waitak (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Article name

I am thorougly impressed by how much this article has improved. I have a question about the title. Why is this article called List of vegetable oils while the parent article is called Vegetable fats and oils? Are vegetable fats listed on List of vegetable oils or could they be listed on a separate article? Are vegetable fats ever called "vegetable oils," or do the words "fat" and "oil" most commonly distinguish between two distinct categories of substances (ie. solids and liquids)? As far as I can tell, one of three things should happen: 1) List of vegetable oils should be renamed List of vegetable fats and oils, 2) Vegetable fats and oils should be renamed Vegetable oil, or 3) a List of vegetable fats should be created. Neelix (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on the lede of List of vegetable oils, the term "vegetable oil" is semi-specific to those substances that are liquid at room temperature, but the term "vegetable fat" applies broadly whether the substance is liquid or solid at room temperature. Given that "vegetable fat" is the more inclusive term, should this article be renamed List of vegetable fats and the parent article be renamed Vegetable fat? Neelix (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind comments. You raise an important question, and some intriguing options. Would you mind if we move the above to the article talk page so that a wider audience can participate? I'd love to retain this thread once the FLRC discussion has closed. Waitak (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Neelix (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

(Copied from Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of vegetable oils/archive1 Waitak (talk) 04:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC))

I'd say list of vegetable oils and vegetable fats, to make sure that the more well-known term is included. List of vegetable fats is wrong from the other side - the generic term is lipid; fats are specifically the solids at room temperature. 86.** IP (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't say that I've looked into vegetable fats to any degree. My sense from what I've bumped into, in the process of researching oils, is that the number of vegetable lipids that are solid at room temperature is relatively small, compared to those that are liquids. If that impression is true (is it?) then it seems to me like it wouldn't be much of a burden to add the relatively few vegetable fats into the list, and modify the list name accordingly. I have a personal preference for retaining "vegetable oil" in some form in the title, because it's what people seem most likely to look for, and the bulk of the list is and likely will remain devoted to oils. Other than that, I can't say that I've got much of a preference, one way or the other. Waitak (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The lede of the Fat article gives an account of the use of the terms lipid, oil, and fat. It says that the term lipid "is used to refer to both liquid and solid fats, along with other related substances." Are there such things as vegetable lipids that are not fats or oils? If so, should these be added to the list? If List of vegetable lipids is a valid title for this article, that is the title preferred by Wikipedia's naming convention policy. The specific guideline relating to the use of "and" in article titles states that when "two or more closely related or complementary concepts are most sensibly covered by a single article... where possible, use a title covering all cases." It is only "permissible to construct an article title using 'and'... where no reasonable overarching title is available." At this point, the current title (List of vegetable oils) does not appear appropriate because it does not cover the fats (and possibly the non-fat, non-oil vegetable lipids if they exist). If this article is renamed List of vegetable lipids, that shouldn't cause any problems with people searching with the term "vegetable oils" instead of "vegetable lipids"; List of vegetable oils will naturally redirect here and the lede should be explicit about the fact that most vegetable lipids are oils at room temperature and many of these are commonly called vegetable oils. My understanding is that only the edible oils on this list are commonly referred to as vegetable oils anyway, so it would appear more appropriate to include this term in the lede rather than in the title. Neelix (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of the policy. Originally, the intention of the article was to just cover vegetable oils. A small number of vegetable fats have crept in over the years. If we were to move the article to List of vegetable lipids (and retain List of vegetable oils as a redirect), my concern would be that the article might no longer be comprehensive. It is as comprehensive as it could reasonably be in terms of oils, but I haven't even begun to look into vegetable fats. The two outcomes I'd like to avoid are:

1. If the article loses its comprehensive status, it might be seen as no longer qualified for FL.
2. This is already a long article. If there are a lot of vegetable fats, we risk making that worse.

If either or both of these ends up being true, then it might make more sense to hive off a separate article covering List of vegetable fats, and link to it from here.

On the other hand, if the number of vegetable fats is manageable, and we can find decent sources for all of them, then I'm game. Are there any oleochemists following the discussion who could chime in with some expert feedback? Waitak (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an oleochemist, but I agree with Waitak's statements above; the amount of non-oil vegetable lipids that exists is what should determine the fate of this article. If there is a limited, manageable number of non-oil vegetable lipids, they should be added to the list and the article's title should be changed to List of vegetable lipids. If there is a large, unmanageable number of non-oil vegetable lipids, the current list should remain at the List of vegetable oils title, the non-oil vegetable lipids currently listed there should be removed, and another article or articles should be created to list the non-oil vegetable lipids. Neelix (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say "List of vegetable lipids" is a terrible article name - it's a term created for Wikipedia, which anyone reading will be in doubt as to the meaning of. Quite simply, lipid refers to chemicals, it does NOT refer to the mix of oils and trace contaminants that are implied by vegetable oils and fats. Squalene is a lipid. Olive oil is a culinary oil, made of a mixture of lipids and various trace substances which give it its unique flavour. 86.** IP (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"Vegetable lipids" gets 857 hits on Google Books ([2]) and many of these books use the term in the sense of being the overarching category of vegetable oils, fats, etc. This is not a Wikipedia neologism, nor is it a new definition for the term created for Wikipedia. Neelix (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's even a majority of the references using it in this sense; in any case, that's opposed to over 2 million hits for vegetable oil, and 130,000 for vegetable fat. The guidelines say to use the combined term if it's reasonable to do so, a combined term 3-4 orders of magnitude less used than the main term is not a reasonable solution. (By the way, the page I'm looking at has different text; what's your source for your quote?) 86.** IP (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The source I'm using is the link you used; what in my citation isn't matching up with what you're seeing in the guidelines? While it is clear that the terms "vegetable oil" and "vegetable fat" are more common than the term "vegetable lipid," the term "vegetable lipid" appears to include substances other than oils and fats. I have contacted a nutrition professor to see if they know what these non-oil, non-fat vegetable lipids might be. If there are such things, they need to be included in the title somehow, and the simplest way to do that is to rename the article List of vegetable lipids. Neelix (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Phospholipids, probably, and other things not relevant to a culinary article. Oil and Fat are (more-or-less) culinary terms; lipid is a chemical one, so will include a few substances made from modified lipids. The only culinarily relevant one is Transfatty acids; chemically modified oils, but they're not found in nature. Also, your text seems slightly different to that in the link, which is why I asked; the exact wording seems relevant. 86.** IP (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

On reflection, it seems to me that separate articles might be stronger than a single, combined article, for several reasons:

1. List of vegetable oils is pretty well established, and changing not just its title but broadening its focus as well seems to risk diluting the value of the article.
2. I haven't researched this, but my impression is that fats and oils tend to be used pretty differently. Being able to organize a separate article on fats in whatever way seems to fit them seems like a good thing.
3. Having a List of vegetable fats seems like it could be useful separate from list of vegetable oils, i.e. I could see people looking just for that under cases where they might not care about oils.

No strong opinions yet, but I thought I'd contribute to the discussion.

Waitak (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

86.** IP: I have not misquoted the guidelines in question.

Waitak: If there is a sufficient difference between vegetable fats and oils to justify two separate lists, I would think that the parent article (Vegetable fats and oils) should be split as well. That would also mean that the vegetable fats currently included on this list would have to be removed. Neelix (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It would indeed, and that would be fine. I've actually been a little uncomfortable with having a small set of vegetable fats in the list, even with the disclaimer at the top. I'm not sure that we'd need to split the main article, though. The reason that the organization is important in this list is that readers need help finding the oils that they're interested in. In a general article, that's not important, so there's a stronger case for having a single article covering fats and oils. Again, no strong opinions, though. Waitak (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Neelix: Sorry, I didn't carefully check, and your paraphrases threw me. Double checking, yes, the text you quote is there, but your summary changes the emphasis a bit - you say "It's only permissible", whereas the guideline says it's permissible where no reasonable combined version exists (which allows a bit more leeway for discussion of whether something is reasonable - but since we're not going down that route, no point discussing it.

I'm currently busy on another WP page, but once I finish that, I might see if I can put together List of vegetable fats, starting with the handful of fats that are in List of vegetable oils. I'd find it really helpful if someone could start listing candidate vegetable fats (aside from the ones already there), in case anyone want to lend a hand. I'm not sure whether to include nut butters in such an article, since they include solids other than triglycerides. I'm leaning toward not. Waitak (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You could include them in their own section, noting the issue, but, on the whole, I agree. 86.** IP (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

New featured list candidate

I've nominated List of culinary nuts as a featured list candidate. This is part of an effort to increase the number of food and drink-related featured lists. Currently there's just List of vegetable oils. This is an invitation to participate in the discussion. It's unlikely that the candidacy will be successful if no interest is shown in the article nomination. If the application is successful, I plan to bring a number of other food and drink-related lists up to featured list quality, and go through the nomination process. Waitak (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it is considered a culinary nut, but tung oil production was a major industry in the Mississippi Gulf Coast region prior to Hurricane Camille in 1969. It is produced from the seed of the tung nut. Shocking Blue (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources

link for article for use of peanut oil as a biofuel does not work, google search reveals the only place that this article exists is in fact on wikipedia on this page - can someone independently verify and then delete if necessary?

using a site like "journey to forever" as a reference is pretty bloody dodgy Shuggyg (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Mastic oil

I should like to add mastic oil, a by-product of Mastic (plant resin), but I am not sure which header should it be placed under. It is primarily used for medicinal purposes (particularly dental care and as an anti-oxidant), but it is also edible, at least in minor quantities in pastry and the like. I'm afraid I don't have access to any references, so if anyone feels like having a go I think it would make a great addition to this -otherwise impressive (!)- article. Thank you --Chrysalifourfour (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

A quick Google search turns up a journal article, a drugs.com reference, this presentation by an Italian professor, and a Plants For a Future entry that includes some references that you might check. I'd put it (in alphabetical order) in the "Other oils" section. Go for it! Waitak (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of vegetable oils. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151017083204/http://www.cottonseed.com/publications/facts.asp to http://www.cottonseed.com/publications/facts.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of vegetable oils. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071113072004/http://www.aocs.org/archives/am2004/session.asp?session=PRO+4%2FSOA+4%3A+Processing+of+Specialty+Oils to http://www.aocs.org/archives/am2004/session.asp?session=PRO+4%2FSOA+4%3A+Processing+of+Specialty+Oils

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of vegetable oils. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141114051824/http://thepaintershandbook.com/ to http://thepaintershandbook.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111122113313/http://cottonseed.com/Whatsnew/TTU%20BIODIESEL%20pp1-4.pdf to http://www.cottonseed.com/whatsnew/TTU%20BIODIESEL%20pp1-4.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304062815/http://www.durangotelegraph.com/index.cfm/archives/2006/january-05-2006/safflower-in-your-tank/ to http://www.durangotelegraph.com/index.cfm/archives/2006/january-05-2006/safflower-in-your-tank/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150113182433/http://www.agronomysociety.org.nz/uploads/94803/files/14._Initial_studies_on_seed_oil_composition.pdf to http://www.agronomysociety.org.nz/uploads/94803/files/14._Initial_studies_on_seed_oil_composition.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://web.idrc.ca/en/ev-83060-201_921003-1-IDRC_ADM_INFO.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of vegetable oils. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111016191917/http://www.soyatech.com/Palm_Oil_Facts.htm to http://www.soyatech.com/Palm_Oil_Facts.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of vegetable oils. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403134029/http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=713388 to http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=713388

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

---

List of vegetable oils → List of plant oils – Not all of the oils in this list are vegetable oils. Many of the oils in this list are seed oils (such as mustard), and some are fruit oils (such as olive) It would be best use a broader term as article title which can be true reflective of the article content and List of plant oils perfectly fits the bill. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 08:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support: As per own nomination! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 08:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. There seems to be a misunderstanding of the meaning of "vegetable oils". The first sentence of Vegetable oil defines them as "fats extracted from seeds, or less often, from other parts of fruits." Also, "plant oil" is a broader term that also encompasses other kinds of oils (with their own separate list articles) that are not vegetable oils, see Types of plant oils. – Uanfala (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Uanfala. Most of the best-known vegetable oils are from seeds and fruit. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.