Talk:Bacon mania/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Bacon mania. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

To do

This source seems worth including somehow [1] at least as an external link. Includes stuff on various bacon entities.

~~San Fran Bacon camp article and slide show [2] and article [3]~~.

~~Bacon ice cream [4]~~

~~Bacon Today online news source. VERY IMPORTANT. Also includes some kind of bacon obsessed restaurant in the Midwest that may be important enough to consider doing something with[5]~~

bacon camp website [6]

Meta discussion of bacon mania article and phenomenon in NYmag. [7]

Piggin' Out on Bacon at S.F.'s BaconCamp [8] BREAKING NEWS!!! :)

ANother bacon phenomenon story examiner.com/x-3337-NY-Changing-Culture-Examiner~y2009m3d30-Bacon-I-mean-BACON

ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Bacon Mania in History

[9]

[10]

[11]

ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Story on bacon mania [12]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

Top importance? Really? The main article, bacon, is only rated as high importance for the same project. Are you serious? Perhaps, being the article creator, you should let someone else make a stab at the assessment. Aleta ^Sing 01:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You might be right. I accept that I may have overestimated this topic's importance. Is there a VERY VERY HIGH rating? That might be better. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I relegate the rating to "low" for the Project Food because I don't think this "bacon" culture is that important.--Caspian blue 04:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

But I add the {{WikiProject United States}} with the default as "top" as you wish, since you are very assertive of the rating, top without any evidence though. (I'm not rating the degree of its importance as such)--Caspian blue 04:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm downgrading it to low for the US project as well. Aleta ^Sing 16:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It might be low importance, but bacon mania is a genuine phenomenon that deserves a place here71.188.32.198 (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"in popular culture"

For me the phrase "in popular culture" means references and uses on television, film, music, and in various other media outlets. The article doesn't seem to mention the portrayal or use of bacon in any of these, but seems to place more emphasis on different and unusual recipes and products that use bacon or bacon flavouring.

For me, an article about bacon in popular culture would detail notable uses of bacon in the media - such as a tv show where one of the characters has a bacon obsession, computer games about bacon (there actually was one back in the 1980s I believe!), etc. Even then, I wouldn't think it worthy of an entire article though, but just a mention on the main bacon page. Howie ☎ 01:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, I was coming here to comment that the name should be changed. This doesn't really seem like an "in popular culture" article. In fact, I don't see anything here that couldn't fit into the Bacon article, which would make it a step better than most food articles as it would actually contain how the article's subject is relevant in the real world. I think a full copy/paste merger should be considered. Them From Space 02:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. A merge would be a good idea, with a heading of just simply "popularity". I also feel the opening sentence currently appears to be slightly nonsensical - stating that "bacon in popular culture is a joyous and gluttonous food" doesn't make sense at all to me. Howie ☎ 02:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have retitled the article per your comments. Thanks for the input. I agree, "popular culture" usually has a movie, film, music, and book connotation on Wikipedia. This article is more about a phenomenon and a movement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Start

This article I'm sorry to say is really poor. Firstly, it doesn't actually discuss the subject of the article. Secondly, it contains phrases like "a joyous and gluttonous food, especially in the United States...". As someone mentioned above, there is simply nothing here that can't be said in the main article. Majorly talk 02:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I really think the content should be merged into Bacon. Aleta ^Sing 03:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the merge propsal after the article is renamed.--Caspian blue 07:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how the name change is supposed to mean it shouldn't be merged. The article is about usage of bacon. Aleta ^Sing 20:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding is not the same as mine. The article is not about "general usage of bacon", but about "enthusiastic attitudes of some people I think. The title correctly reflects such phenomenon--Caspian blue 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's people doing stuff with bacon - people cooking weird things, in some cases, but using bacon to do it. Aleta ^Sing 20:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You have not suggested any reason why the article should be merged into Bacon.--Caspian blue 20:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is an extension of the topic of that main article. It's more that I see no reason for a separate article. Aleta ^Sing 20:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

History of Chocolate, Chocolataire or Coffee culture are an extension of the topics of their main article. Ever articles on Wiki start with small amounts of content at first.--Caspian blue 20:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a particularly useful justification for an article. In any case, I've said what I have to say (at least for now :) ) and will wait for some others to chime in with their opinions. Aleta ^Sing 20:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for the merge from you yet. The example are fine ones to compare the situation. --Caspian blue 20:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The Merge tag

is bothering me and no actual discussion has been suggested on the talk age of Bacon since its initial tagging[13] on March 25. So I'm gonna to remove the ugly tag later today if the editor who put tagged it does not open a merge discussion.--Caspian blue 20:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not. I just started a section on that page. Aleta ^Sing 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You've been quite about the merger for 5 days. That is enough time.--Caspian blue 20:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've made request now, and am asking you not to remove the tag. I have started the section on the other page, and asked people to comment. Aleta ^Sing 20:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not gonna remove it since you're responding after I requested you to do so--Caspian blue 20:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Aleta ^Sing 20:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad the tag is gone: the article, I think, is substantial enough to stand on its own. The article is not about bacon: it's about an apparently very important fad in American culture. If I can exaggerate for rhetorical purposes, one wouldn't want to merge NASCAR into Internal combustion engine. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is the tag gone? Discussion of a possible merger is actively taking place at Talk:Bacon#Merge proposal. The tag should not have been removed while discussion was actively taking place. Aleta ^Sing 21:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

References

There are some tenuous, in some cases non-existent links between the in-line cites and what they purport to support. I'm doing some work on some of them. For example, The article was drafted to say that Devotees "have been called "bacon fanatics"". Actually, the two cites included people calling themselves that. (In any case, does it really matter?). Will look at a couple of other points in the refs. Incidentally, I support a merge. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Rename?

A good faith suggestion to rename this article to Bacon in American culture was made during the AfD. My personal opinion is that while I think that's a wonderful topic for an article, and that this subject might well be a candidate to merge into it if and when that article is created, the bacon mania subject matter is more focused and better titled with the present appelation given its sources and content. I am happy to abide by the consensus, however. So if wiser and less conflicted Wikipedians feel differently please feel free to weigh in. As a side note, I would just like to mention that the survival of this article is joy to behold. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm reserving judgement for the moment on the title of the entire article. In a related matter though, the section title "Bacon indoctrination" seems a little over the top. I've been trying to come up with an alternative, but have not been very successful so far. What do others think? LadyofShalott ^Weave 00:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. It appears as if a certain editor got carried away a little by the phonic qualities of the phrases that now appear as headings. It may well be that some bold person walks by and changes them, as soon as said bold person receives inspiration from the bacon muse. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Any "in popular culture" type article is bound to get bloated up by needless trivia. While this name might not be the best, its certainly better than Bacon in American culture. This article is well-written and encyclopedic, and a discriminatory topic will help keep it that way. Them From Space 01:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm very comfortable with the article title, as it seems to stem from the sources. However, I'm certainly open if others agree that something is more appropriate. ^Law_shoot! 04:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Streaky Bacon

Should it be mentioned that bacon mania applies only to streaky bacon and not those abomas that the Brits call bacon. See bacon.--Weetoddid (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No one really uses the terminology streaky bacon in the U.S. that I know of ,and I haven't seen it mentioned in any of the sources. That ham like substance they eat up North is considered Canadian bacon. I shudder to think what may pass for bacon over there in the UK. But this article is up front about the location of the mania, so I'm not sure a clarification is needed or how to go about it. Bacon in the U.S. is bacon. I guess we could add a note along the lines of: bacon, or what's referred to in less evolved bacon eating parts of the world as streaky bacon, is..." Would that help to globalize? I want to be as inclusive as possible of course. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That's funny. In the US bacon is just bacon. It's either thin or thick, but it's just bacon. I've never heard of streaky bacon but it sounds like something that may run nude during a football game. Law_{type! snype?} 00:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with y'all that in the U.S. "bacon is just bacon", ie. "streaky bacon". However, readers of this article can not be presumed to be all Americans. Ladyof Shalott 01:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we were just making commentary - not trying to be US-centric. Obviously there should be no real objection to calling it streaky bacon. (even though I don't believe it exits) Law_{type! snype?} 02:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Canada

I'm Canadian, and I'm pretty sure bacon mania exists in Canada too. And for the record, bacon for us means the same thing as for Americans; and we generally call "Canadian bacon" "back bacon" instead. -Oreo Priest ^talk 02:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

' No one cares about your backwards Canadian ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.65.79 (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

UK

I'm pretty sure BACONMANIA does not exist in the UK, we do like a good bacon sandwich, or with our yummy English breakfasts, but I think we perceive accompanying bacon with sweet foods disgusting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.213.150 (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources

This article has some interesting content. [14]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Bacon Mania"

A citation is needed that actually says "bacon mania" really. And PROOF that the USA likes bacon more than the rest of us, they only discovered it a few hundred years ago! The US doesn't even have half descent bacon anyway.DarkShroom (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

How is this a real page?

How is this page STILL up yet I have been flagged for flagging this page as fake?

This is really really confusing to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.47.121.35 (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, see [15] --Cirt (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Citation overkill

On the first sentence we have five different citations. Not sure this is desirable or necessary, per Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Vranak (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Stove Ownership

This cartoon is very appropriate: http://xkcd.com/418/

Is there some way that could be worked into this article?

Wadsworth (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)