Talk:bacon and eggs

bacon and eggs
SOP. --WikiTiki89 20:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Does it pass the fried-egg test? If you have bacon together with scrambled eggs or poached eggs or soft-boiled eggs, is it still ? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, since I've never eaten it. --WikiTiki89 20:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It usually means fried eggs. Donnanz (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: I don't think the possibilities of this entry have been fully explored by the nominator. Pur ple back pack 89  20:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The more possibilities, the more SOP it is. --WikiTiki89 20:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. A delicious combination, by the way. I had bacon, eggs and fried tomatoes for brunch today. Donnanz (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't eat bacon (and from what people tell me heard, turkey bacon is a poor substitute). --WikiTiki89 20:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm withdrawing the nomination, since it will likely pass and I think I have changed my mind about it. --WikiTiki89 21:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * One normally specifies the way one likes one's eggs, but the presumption is that they are fried, sunnyside up or over easy, or scrambled. DCDuring TALK 22:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * RFD withdrawn, two lines above. Other than that, there is an emerging consensu for keeping. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I know this RFD has been withdrawn, but I have to say - a Google Image for "bacon and eggs" gets, on the first three pages, 40 images of bacon and fried eggs, 6 of bacon and scrambled eggs, 7 of bacon and poached eggs, one of a bacon and egg sandwich, two of eggs wrapped in bacon, and three of eggs fried with chopped bacon. I don't think this phrase actually implies fried eggs - fried eggs are the most common, but certainly not the only meal described as "bacon and eggs". I think this RFD should be reopened, in which case my vote would be delete. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Reopened. It is mere two days after this RFD started. Even if the nominator no longer wishes to delete the entry, other editors may. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's simply useless. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Donnanz (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Deboldfaced and striken out: you've already voted above. Above, you left a comment that is not a rationale; may I ask what is your rationale for keeping this entry? Is the rationale based in WT:CFI? Oops, you already said "It usually means fried eggs.", so this would be as per WT:FRIED. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've had bacon and eggs at many a diner. The first question they ask is, "how would you like your eggs". However, if it is asserted that "fried" is understood, I would request that this be RfV'd for that proposition. bd2412 T 14:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Cultural context only; not really a lexical issue. Same applies to ham and eggs, sausage and egg, and anything with chips (are they crisps or fries?). Equinox ◑ 15:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I've become convinced that this does not pass the fried-egg test, so it's just sum of parts. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Some commercial operations may limit your choice, eg, to scrambled eggs, which are easier to prepare on a large scale, but in general one has a choice of mode of egg preparation and even such possibilities as egg-whites. Bacon preparation is not really restricted either as microwaving is possible and turkey bacon could be specified or Canadian bacon, a misnomer. That there is a "typical" configuration hardly seems to merit an entry in this or most other cases. DCDuring TALK 16:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would actually keep this since it refers to fried bacon and fried eggs. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't "He had bacon for breakfast." also imply that the bacon was fried? --WikiTiki89 16:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Renard Migrant, does it refer to "fried eggs"? Can we prove that? bd2412 T 16:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Wikitiki89 yes you're right, @BD2412 it depends how high you set the burden of proof. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, do we have any evidence whatsoever that eggs, as used in this expression, by default refers to "fried eggs"? Is this any different than saying that one is having "eggs" without reference to the bacon? bd2412 T 17:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Eggs" may not always refer to fried eggs, but it always refers to cooked/prepared eggs. Pur ple back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  20:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That is the case whether we are talking about "bacon and eggs" or "eggs" alone, isn't it? Or whether we are talking about, say, "eggs and toast" or "steak and eggs" or "french toast and eggs"? <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 21:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * When "eggs" is paired with another breakfast dish, it always refers to cooked eggs. Just "eggs" can refer to either cooked or uncooked eggs. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   21:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not only when it is paired with a breakfast dish, but anytime the context is breakfast (e.g. "He had eggs for breakfast"). However, the question at hand is whether or not it is implied that the yolk is intact. For me there is no such implication even in the phrase "fried eggs", but for other speakers there is. --WikiTiki89 22:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC) --WikiTiki89 22:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "I had eggs for breakfast" virtually always means cooked eggs. The rarity of people eating raw eggs for breakfast makes it hard to say anything about that, but someone who would say they had eggs for breakfast instead of "raw eggs" would probably say "eggs and bacon" instead of "raw eggs and raw bacon".--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Any argument about eggs and bacon applies equally to eggs and toast or eggs and English muffins.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as SOP. The suggestion that the term implies the eggs are cooked is mistaken — it is rather the context that implies the eggs are cooked; one does not normally eat raw eggs, neither as "bacon and eggs" nor as "some pancakes and a couple of eggs". The suggestion that the term implies the eggs are fried is dubious per Smurrayinchester's Google Image data, and if this passes on the basis that it implies frying, I'd suggest RFVing it and then re-RFDing it if the limitation to "fried" eggs is found on RFV to be unwarranted . I also agree with bd's comment of 14:47, 18 August 2014. - -sche (discuss) 22:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as a translation target (at least). Known outside Anglosphere as a common English dish (also translated into e.g. Japanese and Korean phonetically). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there any language for which the translation of bacon and eggs would differ from the translation for bacon and eggs? <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 01:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please clarify, I don't know what you mean. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In Japanese and in Korean, they are different from bacon and eggs. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So are French, Russian and German where "and" is not translated literally. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Would "bacon and pancakes" or "lox and eggs" also have a different form, reached through the same construction? What I'm getting at is the question of whether there is something unique about the phrase "bacon and eggs" that would make it translate differently then similar combinations of bacon with another food or eggs with another food. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 03:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. There may be scrambled eggs instead of fried eggs, but never boiled eggs. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not true; "Bacon. And eggs. Maybe poached eggs. Or boiled. Boiled is nice.". Here's "bacon and eggs any way you want". Or "Pancakes with Bacon & Eggs Serves 4 To prepare hard-boiled eggs that are easy to peel,..." I'm also seeing "Fried bacon and eggs" and "bacon and eggs over easy" and "bacon and eggs, or ham or sausage and eggs". --Prosfilaes (talk) 06:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that this one is right on the edge of consensus to delete. Having myself voted to delete, I don't want to be the one to make that call, but my sense is that the discussion has petered out, and we should count Wikitiki's statement of withdrawing the nomination and having changed his mind as a "keep" vote and close this as no consensus. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 02:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you should not count my withdrawal as a keep. --WikiTiki89 02:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you say, then, that you are neutral on the question at this point? If so, what would you read as the outcome of the discussion? <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 02:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm still for deletion. I'm not sure if I can actually vote delete though, if I am the one who nominated it and thus I am already implicitly accounted for. --WikiTiki89 11:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

To reiterate the count at this point:
 * For deletion (9): User:Wikitiki89, User:Smurrayinchester, User:Hekaheka, User:BD2412, User:Equinox, User:Angr, User:DCDuring, User:Prosfilaes, User:-sche
 * For keeping (5): Donnanz, User:Purplebackpack89, User:Renard Migrant, Anatoli T. (as a translation target), User:TAKASUGI Shinji
 * Not voting (1): User:Dan Polansky

Is there anything else? <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 17:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, erring on the side of. This is nowhere near clear-cut. Bacon and eggs can tend toward fried eggs, but does it really? As for translation target, there are some curious translations (Japanese: ベーコンエッグ (bēkon eggu), Korean: 베이컨에그 (beikeonegeu), notice the transliterations), but are they really common? Anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Kept for lack of consensus to delete. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 16:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

bacon and eggs
This just got archived after a heated debate. I'm sorry to re-open a once-buried topic, but I just noticed that eggs and bacon gets 1,380,000 hits in a simple Google search but bacon and eggs only gets 198,000. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * AFAIC, delete for the same reasons I gave before. (Was it an RFV before? Everyone seems to have made a keep or delete vote.) Equinox ◑ 11:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * One can't rely on raw Google counts. Either Google N-grams or the BYU corpora and much, much more reliable. In this case the Google raw counts seem directionally wrong. Both COCA and BNC show bacon and eggs to be about 2.5 times more common than eggs and bacon, 152:62 at COCA, 59:23 at BNC. Eggs and ham is twice as common as ham and eggs at COCA. This N-gram indicates increasing relative frequency for the bacon-first version. I don't see that this kind of difference is nearly enough to count as supporting inclusion. If someone wants to argue for including quantitative criteria on this order of magnitude in CFI it would be a BP/VOTE matter.
 * Delete DCDuring TALK 12:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Kept: There was no consensus to delete in the last one, and the fact that eggs and bacon gets more hits than bacon and eggs is not reason enough to revisit an RfD, particularly one that was closed just a few days ago. What it is a reason to do is create eggs and bacon, which I'm going to do right after closing this. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   13:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am curious, are you then going to create ham and eggs? steak and eggs? bacon, eggs, and toast? <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 13:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the last discussion was an RFV, not an RFD; if so, you should not have closed this. Equinox ◑ 13:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it was an RfD. See this diff if you don't believe it.  It was mislabeled as an RfV when archived, but I have fixed that. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   13:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The last discussion was an RfD (in which I voted to delete), and was closed as no consensus with a 9/6 split. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 13:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The previous RFD discussion is at Talk:bacon_and_eggs. As for frequencies from a tool designed to show frequencies: . --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Uncountable
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/bacon-and-eggs JMGN (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)