Support and self-nominate -- I've worked on this list over the last while, and think that it may be qualified to be a featured list at this point. I've made a serious attempt to make it comprehensive, by checking against many lists of culinary basil varieties, and am reasonably confident that it's at least very close to comprehensive. If there are any varieties I've missed, I'll be happy to add them. All entries are sourced, there's adequate use of images, and the list is inherently stable (people just don't make new varieties of basil very often!). Waitak 16:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: per nomination hike395 17:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - lead is too short. And what is "External references"? Renata 09:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anything else? Waitak 11:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to support. Now that was quick :) Renata 13:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dėkui! :-) Waitak 14:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport.
Make the name of the list at the first sentence appear in bold, and change it properly to reflect the lists actual name.
Done.
Per WP:WIAFL, the list must be composed of a large majority of links to existing articles. Seeing as the articles for the most of the plants in the list don't exist, I suggest creating an at least 2-sentence long stub for each.
Okay, I've started on it. I'll work on more over the next few days.
"Descriptions" are still sentences, add capitals and periods for each. Michaelas10(Talk) 20:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Support. I tried to fix the missing bolding of the title in the lead. It didn't quite work out though. -- User:Docu
Thanks for having a go at it. I've done a bit more. Waitak 03:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the moment, I'm afraid. It's an excellent link as far as it goes, but if all of the cultivars were actually links, there'd be 13 red as opposed to 11 blue. I see you say above that you'll work on creating stubs, so I'll keep an eye on it and change my vote if articles are created for some of the missing ones. Alternatively, I would be open to arguments that some of the cultivars are so minor as to not require their own articles (as with, for example, some of the minor characters in the List of Metal Gear Solid characters). However, in that case I would want this list to contain a bit more info about them. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that there is such thing as species "too minor to deserve an article", Wikipedia should have an article on each single animal or plant by definiton. Adding a description on each, even if it's complete, doesn't help the list pass criteria 1a of WP:WIAFL. Michaelas10(Talk) 17:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The blue link Holy basil points to a diambig, the actual Holy Basil page hasn't been created yet. CheekyMonkey 18:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've resolved the disambig. The actual page for Holy basil was the first of the two in the list. Waitak 04:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Not sure if you noted the history, but I added seven of those eleven since User:Michaelas10's comment above, and will keep at it. As you suggest, some of the less popular cultivars might not merit their own articles, but I'll make sure that the list is within the spirit of WP:WIAFL. Waitak 01:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've written stubs for 19 of the 25 varieties. The rest are a little harder, but I'll try for half of them. Waitak 04:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question If there are an estimated 50 to 150 species of basil then why are only 5 or 6 (and their associated cultivars) culinary? What makes a species of basil suitable to be used for culinary purposes? CheekyMonkey 11:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good question! The list actually contains all cultivated basils, all of which happened to be used as culinary herbs. I've clarified it in the article. Waitak 11:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A useful and well-done list. KP Botany 20:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extremely well-presented and well-soruced. This definitely shows off Wikipedia's best work. -- Kicking222 22:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
