Talk:breakfast in bed

breakfast in bed
User:Muke claimed this is slightly more than SoP upon creating the entry. I disagree. I've had breakfast in bed which I made myself before (Coke and yesterday's pizza which I left on my bedside). --Jackofclubs 14:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. It's commoner than "lunch in bed", but IMO no more deserving. Equinox ◑ 14:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Move to RfV. It's evocative. Perhaps someone can come up with a non-SoP definition and matching quotes that show why the other OneLook dictionaries are wrong to omit it. DCDuring TALK 15:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep since the term is understood to mean that breakfast is prepared specially by someone else. I'm sure I could make breakfast for myself and eat it in bed, but that would be a literal reading, not the default assumption that makes the term somewhat idiomatic. DAVilla 05:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's more than the sum of its parts. DAVilla's comment says it well.--Dmol 06:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has the specific connotation of being a sort of a treat. Contrary, if you think about it, to sending someone to bed, which is a punishment. bd2412 T 06:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. In a good hotel one might order a "breakfast in bed", so it is just breakfast+in+bed. We don't have an entry for a box of chocolates just because somebody might give one to a loved one. --Hekaheka 12:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. That's becauase you can have a box of cornflakes too (but breakfast in chair doesn't quite work).
 * A good hotel? I've never stayed at a hotel where I didn't at least have to get up and open the door for them to give me breakfast. bd2412 T 14:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You obviously haven't stayed at the right hotels. —msh210  ℠  16:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Full disclosure: I am just dying to add an entry for breakfast in chair. Equinox ◑ 22:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep When I make breakfast in bed for someone, I'm actually doing it in the kitchen. —Michael Z. 2009-03-20 15:28 z 
 * Keep per DAVilla.—msh210 ℠  16:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe a good definition would be [edited]


 * 1) Breakfast for someone still in bed.

—Michael Z. 2009-03-20 21:58 z 


 * Weak keep --EncycloPetey 05:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - A widely used idiom that deserves its own article here. Razorflame 14:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Kept. 63.95.64.254 02:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

RFV discussion: February 2017
Both the noun and the verb seem SoP to me and also to all the lexicographers who failed to provided entries (even redirects) at. DCDuring TALK 00:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to bring this to RFD? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. Thanks. DCDuring TALK 01:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * See WT:RFD. DCDuring TALK 01:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to RFD. — SMUconlaw (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

RFD discussion: February–August 2017
Both the noun and the verb seem SoP to me and also to all the lexicographers who failed to provided entries (even redirects) at. DCDuring TALK 00:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, per your and DAVilla's comments in the last RFD discussion. If one said "I was served breakfast in bed," it would be an SOP expression, but it's usually used with "have": "I had breakfast in bed," which makes it at least somewhat non-SOP. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as SoP. — SMUconlaw (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Try as I might, I cannot perceive any meaning of "breakfast in bed" that is different from "breakfast" + "in bed". Mihia (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's mostly the fact that it heavily implies that one was served breakfast in bed rather than simply eating it there. I'm not strongly opposed to deleting it, but it feels like it's more than SOP. Now, if we had a collocations section, I would be fine with relegating it to there... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Andrew, being served is not inherent to any component term. bd2412 T 04:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete; having it served is not a necessary part of the definition. Here's a case of someone saying "I had breakfast in bed" when they were alone and had to get it themselves. There are other similar cases. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Along the same lines many of the instances in this Google Books search are examples in which the server/preparer of breakfast and the one served are the same. The logistics of the situation (How often would I want to get out of bed, make breakfast, then return to bed to eat it?), not the meaning of the words seems to be what makes breakfast in bed normally involve a situation in which someone else is preparing and serving it. DCDuring TALK 18:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Grabbing a bagel and eating it in bed in the morning would not be referred to as "breakfast in bed" (except perhaps humorously). Even if someone brings you a bagel while you're lying in bed, that probably wouldn't count. It implies some sort of fanciness; whether someone is serving you, or you're serving yourself, there is still the idea of service and luxury. --WikiTiki89 20:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe in your idiolect, but other people's usage seems different, eg:
 * I have this feeling that there may be other entries, including for true idioms, that need work more than we need to cover every collocation, especially those not covered by any other OneLook reference. DCDuring TALK 22:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I may be misunderstanding you, but it looks to me like these support WikiTiki and my position. They all seem to support idiomaticity, especially the third one. It's clear that she didn't actually make her aunt breakfast while in a bed, but rather prepared her aunt's breakfast to be eaten in bed. In the first quote, "Megan" isn't taking breakfast while in bed, but rather taking breakfast in bed to her parents and for herself. Between those three quotes, I'd say there's an even stronger case for idiomaticity than I had thought. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikitiki made the point that point that there was some connotation of fanciness and being served (though he backed away from both elements, in the end merely claiming that the term implied luxury even when the service was by oneself and the food was simple).
 * There is some kind of connotation, but only because of the pragmatics, the situations in which one is likely to have breakfast in bed. But many collocations have some kind of connotations, often, as here, simply because of the situations in which they are used.
 * Should romantic dinner have an entry? For that matter, should oyster have a separate definition because of its connotational association with sex (It's a supposed afrodisiac.). DCDuring TALK 15:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand what you're trying to say. What I was trying to say is that it has a specific connotation of luxury and/or service or something like that. When in reality there is no luxury or service, the use of this phrase is ironic. Oysters may sometimes have an association with sex, but when they don't there is no irony. --WikiTiki89 20:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it should! If you look up romance and dinner you find "An intimate relationship between two people; a love affair." and "The main meal of the day, often eaten in the evening.". This doesn't even come close to explaining dimmed lights, rose petals, candle lights, fine wine and smooth music. As for the oyster, that still refers to a mollusc. It's aphrodisiac (it's aphrodisiac right? I'm not a native speaker and you are so now I'm confused) properties belong on Wikipedia in that case. I would have voted keep if this hadn't been decided yet. W3ird N3rd (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Should romantic dinner have an entry? For that matter, should oyster have a separate definition because of its connotational association with sex (It's a supposed afrodisiac.). DCDuring TALK 15:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand what you're trying to say. What I was trying to say is that it has a specific connotation of luxury and/or service or something like that. When in reality there is no luxury or service, the use of this phrase is ironic. Oysters may sometimes have an association with sex, but when they don't there is no irony. --WikiTiki89 20:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it should! If you look up romance and dinner you find "An intimate relationship between two people; a love affair." and "The main meal of the day, often eaten in the evening.". This doesn't even come close to explaining dimmed lights, rose petals, candle lights, fine wine and smooth music. As for the oyster, that still refers to a mollusc. It's aphrodisiac (it's aphrodisiac right? I'm not a native speaker and you are so now I'm confused) properties belong on Wikipedia in that case. I would have voted keep if this hadn't been decided yet. W3ird N3rd (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that cases like these would be easier to resolve if a "set phrases" exemption to the SoP rule could somehow be framed. Mihia (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: per Andrew, BD and Wikitiki <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  04:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * RFD kept: no consensus for deletion: 4:3 (keep:delete). --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

the usage-example
I couldnt find any information about this supposed custom of small children delivering breakfast to their mother's bedside each morning in NZ and the Netherlands. This isnt Wikipedia, so a use-example doesnt need to contain factual information, but I still think it's misleading if it's false but worded in such a formal way. If we're making up a fictional custom, maybe we should put it in a fictional nation too? Something like Bedlandia that presumably nobody would mistake for a real place. Either that, or change the sentence out completely for something that actually is true. Best regards, — Soap — 15:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)