Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/September 2007

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Keep, clearly no consensus for removal. Circeus 20:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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 -

• 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.

better -

• 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.

~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

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:

• 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.

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)

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)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Delisted. Circeus 16:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This article has been practically left to rot since its promotion, and needs to undergo a review, which shows that it fails the following criteria:

• Presence of cleanup-type templates, which is a big concern no matter the criteria concerned.
• 1(c): Needs more thorough referencing. Books need ISBN, CDs need catalog numbers, links need review (no such thing as a "rado edition" section in 'Final Fantasy Tactics Advance anymore)...
  • There might be extra concerns with the inclusion of material for which no release date is known, which have been removed from later FLs (mainly discographies).
• 1(b): The lack of such data as ISBN for listed books cast doubt over comprehensiveness.
• 2(a): The topic is not properly outlined in the lead. It might never have been.
• 2 in general: Shoddy mix of referencing styles, and use of fansites as sources.

Circeus 02:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Referencing styles have been generalized, and fansite sources have been removed. I find it ridiculous to remove a product because a release date is not known, that doesn't make any sense.--Teggles 22:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL: it's assuming it will be released, but we have no guarantee of that. Such titles should probably not be included in lists meant for already released material. Circeus 03:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL is a deletion debate reason and the Featured Article machinery is specifically not a vehicle for AFD. Also, the FL criteria say nothing about not being allowed to include unreleased material. This list covers all Final Fantasy media, released and unreleased, so long as there are reliable sources suggesting that they exist and are being developed. Axem Titanium 05:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In any case, it's a wake-up call for the FF Wikiproject. — Blue。 14:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Happens all the time. Stuff gets promoted, and then people just forget about it and cleanup or {{fact}} tags pops up without anybody actually checking if they are warranted or dealing with the issues. Circeus 14:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• The list is currently incomplete according to the talk page, as information about "Final Fantasy: Unlimited with U" and "Choco-Mate" are missing. Details about the FF:Unlimited products need to be found too (missing dates, etc.). Also I've just found and added some stuff about the FF:Unlimited PC game which was missing. Kariteh 09:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I've also added information about the Kingdom Hearts novels and fixed the part about the Kingdom Hearts manga, which was totally off with the dates and volume numbers. Kariteh 09:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't really think the KH material is necessary. I mean, the games are not listed (nor did anyone believe they should when the list was promoted), so why should the novels be? Circeus 17:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry but the KH games are listed, and they were listed when the list was promoted (I think? it's hard to tell; some templates are broken in the reviewed version). Kariteh 17:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Also Choco-Mate is still missing apparently. Hard to find information about that game... Kariteh 09:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• It appears that most/all of the ISBNs have been added. Also, I'm supposed to rewrite the lead section soon and I'll get on that when I'm less busy... Axem Titanium 01:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• The central issue with this list is that its main sources are fansites (Eyes on FF, FFCompendium) and a user-submitted site (Mobygames). The other sources may or may not be considered "reliable" either (Japanese or commercial sites, etc.). Kariteh 11:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• The nomination has been up for two weeks now. I guess it's time to start voting "Keep" or "Delist". Kariteh 17:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delist per nom. Particularly the lead is awful (it does not tell the reader what is included in the list, and thus fails WP:LS), and the concerns over ISBN numbers are valid as well. Good? Yes. Featured? No. User:Krator (t c) 14:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per User:Krator.--Crzycheetah 06:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: It seems that this discussion could probably end prematurely, however, if these are addressed, we can resubmit it for Featured List if it is delisted. Oh, well. Greg Jones II 00:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.