Talk:Steel-cut oats

message: Big chunks of this article seem to be taken from, or at least based on, a health food vendor's web site:
http://www.netrition.com/mccanns_oats_page.html
:I don't see a copyvio; but I agree the source isn't reliable although it does make similar claims as the article.  However it is not clear that the issue is npov more than just unverified claims.  I am removing the npov tag, but added some fact tags.  --TeaDrinker 16:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

message: This article doesn't explain why it matters what material is used to cut the oats.  This would be useful information, if it is available.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.101.136.224 (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe steel-cut just sounds better than "cut" or "chopped. I don't think bronze or ceramic blades would be very likely. I'm not exactly sure about the process for making rolled-oats, but if it was done with a stone wheel or roller (mills used to use stone wheels for grinding grains...perhaps they also did for oat-rolling) maybe the "steel" adjective was added to further emphasis the difference from the rolled variety. It smells like marketing to me, but it would be interesting if anyone could dig up the history. --Ericjs (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I second the motion; I came here to ask "why is it steel-cut?"  Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why steel? 

message: : steel cut oats take about 13-14 minutes on the stove top.[citation needed]
That seems like a really silly thing to require a citation for.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.15.37 (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation? 

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: By Ruth Pretty.  Article link here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/capital-life/in-the-kitchen/7238115/Recipe-Steel-cut-Oat-Porridge  JNZ (talk) 09:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This term is in use in New Zealand 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Steel-cut oats. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.consumerreports.org/health/healthy-living/diet-nutrition/healthy-foods/cereals/oatmeal/overview/oatmeal-ov.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nasimahealth.com/steel-cut-oats-nutrition/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talkgore (talk • contribs) 04:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following is a copy of the conversation concerning the definition of the word groat"
Dear Mr. Lunker:
I am sorry to bother you, but the reason for my correspondence is, that I noticed that you reversed the contribution I made concerned the groat. The first time I placed it in the footnote, because it was the only part of the article which made a attempt to clearly explain what a groat is. You reversed it, because of attribution concerns, and I thought I adjusted accordingly, by putting the statement in the body of the article.
I was under the impression it was an introductory article, and unfortunately I ran across a word that I did not completely understood, & I was trying to make it easier for the next reader after me to understand some of the specialized words used in this subject matter. I believe its important to have a solid foundation, by having a succinct definition of certain words and phrases, before one can feel comfortable to delve deeper into the topic.
It is always easier to trivialize or mock those who are not familiar with the topic by saying that one "plonks" a definition arbitrarily into a sentence. Moreover, if you think it is in not an appropriate spot, then adjust the following statement's position accordingly:
"A groat is a hulled grain, or a grain with its outer coating or husk removed"
After all, I thought Wikipedia's mission was to accommodate people with varying level of expertise.
Please show some degree of empathy in the matter
Thank You
24.188.156.182 (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sake of clarity, as it has not been fully specified, the above is a copy and paste by @MrX2077 of dialogue here on my talkpage, instigated by an IP. I assume the IP and @MrX2077 are one and the same. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Where possible, a term should be explained by a wikilink, rather than within an article. This means that readers who already understand the term aren't inconvenienced, while those who want an explanation can easily find one. It also avoids the problem of the embedded definition and the definition at the other article diverging as subsequent edits are made, until they become inconsistent: any database designer will understand the importance of storing each data item in only one place. Maproom (talk) 08:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I am amazed at the high-end of the dispute resolution processes you attempted to engage in (the arbitration committee no less!) before bringing this discussion here, MrX2077, where it belonged in the first place, with time for others to respond.Anyway, I agree with the thrust of your attempted edit, if not with the exact form. There is always a balance to be struck between, on the one hand, going too far afield in explanation of terms included in an article rather than just linking them (which can interrupt the flow), and on the other, making an article accessible by containing all the information where linked terms included are technical and not likely to be known by many readers; making them go to a different article through a link to access the meaning likewise is an interruption in the flow.I think that balance depends on a number of factors, but the most important is how core to the basic definition of the topic is an understanding of the term. If very "core" it should receive more granular treatment – be defined in the article in addition to a link – and if not core, then let the link do its work. Secondary, is just how likely it is that most will have to use the link, given the relative obscurity of the term. Here, I think this could not be more "core". For a type of product like this (oatmeal), what it is made from and how its makeup is different from other types of oatmeal is so very basic to defining the topic that a link to just groat, with no granularity, is not enough.However, I think part of the "problem" here (and what others may be reacting to) is that what we are working with is a very bare stub. My imagined ideal for an article like this is for the first sentence, as part of a lead section, to provide a more spare definition, and to receive more detailed treatment in the body. Since there is no body of an article here, your sensibility of expansive definition in the one paragraph, "all lead" article we have right now, makes sense, but goes against what we would expect to see in an an article with an actual lead and body.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

text: As indicated above in the copy and paste taken from my talk page, I believe this to be over-explanation. This is certainly not a highly technical term. However, should it be accepted that the term be explained in the article text, it should not be done in a manner which distracts from what the article is attempting to convey and particularly not in the garbled, convoluted and incoherent manner of the edits which I reverted. As mentioned, I believe the edits to have been good faith but they fell far short of acceptably-expressed English. Please take a look at them before suggesting their re-insertion. At best, a wording could be posted here first for discussion but if similar substandard text is added straight into the article, that would not be desirable. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that groat is not "highly technical", but it is quite obscure and I think using the same guideline is reasonable.  I did not suggest that any of the previous edits be used, I was just expressing my opinion on the concept.  If you look at Oatmeal, that article includes "(i.e. grains)" after the first occurrence of groat.  That's enough for me to make the article understandable without chasing a link.  Another comment I have is that this article should really be merged into Oatmeal as was suggested in 2014; I don't see that there is or would ever be enough here for this to be a separate article.MB (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Note that the discussion on merging is over at Talk:Oatmeal#Merger proposal MB (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussion on groat 

message: with the hulled grain known as a groat
In more succinct terms, the groat is a hulled grain, or a grain with its outer coating or husk removed) is called
In more succinct terms, the groat is a hulled grain, or a grain with its outer coating or husk removed) is called  which have been chopped into two or three pieces.
(In more succinct terms, the groat is a hulled grain, or a grain with its outer coating or husk removed) is called  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX2077 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  groat definition II 

message: Should be merged, also because this has no other language references while groats do, and it is the more common term.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.217.142.15 (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, really, why is this a separate article from groats? 

message: These cannot be bought in the uk under the name coarse oatmeal, pinhead oats, no supermarkets have them. Is there another name?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nibinaear (talk • contribs) 13:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Terminology

message: I removed a paragraph because it was a straight advertisement for a particular product. The so-called reference was to the manufacturer's web page. The text I removed was:  Irish oatmeal is not necessarily the same as pinhead oatmeal. For example, Irish firm Flavahan's produces both "Irish Porridge Oats", said to use a "unique way of milling", and a different "Pinhead Oatmeal", a "chopped wholegrain oat". 
Nick Beeson (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flavahan's