Template talk:Fats and oils

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Template This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Food and Drink task list:
To edit this page, select here
Nuvola apps package editors.png

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Choice of oils[edit]

Since the List of vegetable oils is larger than the template, what is the logic for including and excluding particular oils? Badagnani 05:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've included the "major oils", plus grapeseed oil, which should probably be moved to "major oils" on that list. Really, I'd like to include all of the oils on the template, but I'm concerned about how large it would make the template. Peter G Werner 05:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went through the list and I think your selection is good. The design of the template is nice and the olive green color gives it some nice punch. I think almond and walnut (as nut oils), and maybe also pumpkin seed, might be added but otherwise it's a good list. Some templates, such as Template:Nationalanthemsoftheworld, can be very large! Badagnani 05:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with your additions – go ahead and add them if I don't do so first. At some point soon, I'll even experiment with adding everything on the list and see how large it makes things. Peter G Werner 06:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

maybe fats shouldnt link to the disambiguation page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Almond oil[edit]

Almond oil is certainly used as much as any of the more expensive nut oils, particularly for cold dishes, salad dressings, etc. See http://ranchmarketsnapavalley.com/index.php?cPath=11_38&osCsid=b67a99f7b1c2af695529aceb449f09cb Badagnani 23:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Shouldn't dripping be included? DuncanHill (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good call! It seems like it should. Is bacon grease a subset of drippings? Badagnani (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't say so - dripping is got from a roast, bacon fat (UK usage) from frying bacon. DuncanHill (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why don't you add both of them. I can't think of any others. Badagnani (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the article should be at Drippings. I've never heard it called "dripping" in the singular. Badagnani (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've only ever heard it in the singular! Maybe different usages in different countries? DuncanHill (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm in the U.S. I think one molecule would be "dripping" but anything more than one drop would be "drippings." Badagnani (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're from Cornwall? Did you ever listen to John Surman's music? He's a jazz baritone saxist from England, and did a whole album based on places in Cornwall. Badagnani (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarified butter[edit]

I've added Clarified butter. If the Clarified butter is ever merged with ghee then that merge should be reflected here at that point. Until then, both articles need to be listed. Widefox (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whale I'll be![edit]

This is the encyclopedia for everyone. The Japanese, the Inuit, the people of Scandinavia and Greenland, Russians, and many other people routinely use whale oil. Just because you don't see it at Wal-Mart, you can't say it's not a major oil. Blubber is the same way. A high-energy and vital foodstuff. These fats and oils were also prominently used historically in the West, if you insist. The US and England both consumed literally tons of it yearly just a hundred years ago. In the West, it was more useful industrially of course, but it would have fit into a 19th century encyclopedia from the US. Oh, and in that weird place known as Europe, margarine was made from whale oil until the middle of the 20th century. I like to saw logs! (talk) 05:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then edit those articles so that they have a larger content about foodstuffs; right now they are mainly about whale products non-food usage. The food-related information is only one or two sentences in both articles and will really need to be expanded if you wish to include them in the template. The links in this template are items that have a primary usage as food stuffs with other uses secondary, that is why I removed them. Your assertion that I have some Western-centric belief that the template is for foods only consumed in the Western World is faulty, read my summary in the template's edit history as I stated this when I removed your addition. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 05:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article says its not an oil or a fat but a wax - thus it should not be included. However I can't edit the template. Riveira2 (talk)


Three editors have now expressed that this is not an appropriate item to include in this template. There appears to be consensus building against its inclusion in this template, so again I ask that you not add it without working towards building a consensus for its inclusion.

Since our last conversation on the subject, any and all food stuff related information has been reduced to a single phrase in a compound sentence in the article as well, making this even more questionable for inclusion. Secondly, your edit summary, It sure looks like an oil, scientific classification makes no difference if it collapses to semantics confirms that the article states Whale oil is chemically a liquid wax and not a true oil. So with a consensus forming that states it should not be included and the fact that the article is not about an edible fat or oil, why should it be included in this template? You need to prove why it should be included instead of consistently adding it back in. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 16:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cardoon oil[edit]

Apparently, Cardoon oil is also used. Badagnani (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Classifying Oils[edit]

I happened to view the reference table for the types of oil as I read the grape seed oil article.

What is the rationale for classifying some of the oils? Are some oils classified botanically? Are some oils classified based on culinary use and how they're marketed? Also, are the oils classified according to composition if the oils are mixed in any way?

I'm asking this question, since I find it interesting to see these classifications in the template:

Oils > Vegetable oils > Major oils
Oils > Vegetable oils > Nut oils
Oils > Vegetable oils > Fruit and seed oils

Why are fruit oils classified as vegetable oils? Fruits and vegetables have their own botanical classifications -- not to mention both are botanically different from each other. The way these oils are classified suggest that fruits are derived from vegetables, which does not make sense. From a botanical standpoint, seeds naturally occur in fruits, which are the ovaries of flowering plants. Vegetables are usually the stems, leaves, roots, tubers, bulbs, among other parts of the plant. Think vegetation.

Since there's a classification for nut oils, why classify peanut oil as a "Major oil" and not a "Nut oil"? What about this reference -- "Palm oil (palm kernel oil)" that suggests palm oil and palm kernel oil are synonymous? Palm oil and palm kernel oil are distinct oils that are derived from the oil palm tree.

Also, why is "toxic oil syndrome" classified as a major oil? This one appears out of place in this section. I understand that toxic oil syndrome can be traced to ingesting colza oil intended for industrial use. Therefore, toxic oil syndrome needs to be classified under something else ("Medical issues related to oils") or removed from the template.

Speaking of the "Major oils" category: what makes an oil "major"? Would it be better to use "Popular oils" or something similar as a classification? "Major oils" suggest that oils under this classification are in wide use for cooking or culinary (or even medicinal use in cases), which by definition makes them popular. Lwalt ♦ talk 04:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I largely agree, although I can tell you that the reason fruit oils are included under "vegetable oils" is that we are using a scientific definition of "vegetable oil" here: that is to say, oil derived from plants. Lockesdonkey (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shortening and culinary fats[edit]

Should the term "shortening" (other than "vegetable shortening") be included in this template? What about the use of tern "culinary fat" in the place of "edible fat"? --kupirijo (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]