Talk:bacon and eggs

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Dan Polansky in topic bacon and eggs
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Deletion discussion 1[edit]

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.


bacon and eggs[edit]

SOP. --WikiTiki89 20:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

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 bacon and eggs? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
I have no idea, since I've never eaten it. --WikiTiki89 20:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
It usually means fried eggs. Donnanz (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
@Angr 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)Reply
  • RFD withdrawn, two lines above. Other than that, there is an emerging consensu for keeping. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • I know this RFD has been withdrawn, but I have to say - a Google Image for "bacon and eggs" gets, on the first three pages, 40 images of bacon and fried eggs, 6 of bacon and scrambled eggs, 7 of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)Reply
    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)Reply
Delete, it's simply useless. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
"Eggs" may not always refer to fried eggs, but it always refers to cooked/prepared eggs. Purplebackpack89 20:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
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"? bd2412 T 21:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
When "eggs" is paired with another breakfast dish, it always refers to cooked eggs. Just "eggs" can refer to either cooked or uncooked eggs. Purplebackpack89 21:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
"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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
In Japanese and in Korean, they are different from bacon and eggs. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
So are French, Russian and German where "and" is not translated literally. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
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. bd2412 T 03:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Keep. There may be scrambled eggs instead of fried eggs, but never boiled eggs. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply

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. bd2412 T 02:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

No, you should not count my withdrawal as a keep. --WikiTiki89 02:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
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? bd2412 T 02:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply

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? bd2412 T 17:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

  • 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)Reply

Kept for lack of consensus to delete. bd2412 T 16:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Deletion discussion 2[edit]

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.


bacon and eggs[edit]

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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. Purplebackpack89 13:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
The previous RFD discussion is at Talk:bacon_and_eggs. As for frequencies from a tool designed to show frequencies: eggs and bacon,bacon and eggs at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply