Talk:oats

We already have oat. At the time I wondered if it was plural-only but I checked and it appeared not to be. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep this article also. But they should reference each-other. &mdash; Hippietrail

oats
"Seeds of an oat plant", redundant to "plural form of oat". Or am I missing something? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's used as singular (as in one usex provided). Probably deserves its own sense therefore. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, is it? Is it anything more than just nonstandard English? It's not so uncommon to here is with plural nouns anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Can't definitions #1 and #2 of oat be in the plural too? Also, keep in mind that "oats" is one of those words that's used more in the plural than singular, and people would look for the definition at oats rather than oat (Keep)  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that "oats" isn't really a plural, but the same category as you would use for a noun like water or wheat. I can't envision reaching into a bowl of oats and picking up a single oat, and I would would say "less oats" rather than "fewer oats". Chuck Entz 01:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 21:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)