Talk:List of sandwiches/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Scope

I added all the burgers from the sandwich category. There are also subcategories for hamburgers and hotdogs. I'm thinking of adding everything. But, only hamburgers may be best. Also, we could zap all burgers. Thoughts? Hungry? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting idea for a list. I'd suggest dumping the brand name items (ie "Big Mac", etc.) and just list the generic names (hamburger). What are you thinking about putting in the "type" and "notes" columns? Zeng8r (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I figure it goes well with List of pies, List of cakes, List of breads, etc.

I'm happy with dumping Mac... Generics is a good plan.

Types and notes: Not sure. Type could be "burger", "submarine", or something. Maybe changing Notes to Description or Main ingredients would be best. I started this hoping the community would help steer it the right way.

Thank you for commenting. Your input is most welcome. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the scope is a little out of place here. You have so many menu items from fast food that it makes the list unwieldy to read. The fast food burgers can be eliminated altogether. I am putting just Hamburger on there, and in the description I will be linking to Hamburger#Variations. Another thing, how is Bierock considered a sandwich. It clearly does not fall under that category. - - - Acid 1 (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Breakfast sandwich and Egg McMuffin are on there twice. Pick one (picking Breakfast Sandwich). That open face sandwich is Smørbrød. That pocket sandwhich-- see Pizza Pops and Calzone. Will be editing on 11/30/11. Will be reverting to old page 11/21/11. - - - Acid 1 (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Good plan. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I finished that as of 11/21/11. A wee bit ahead of schedule. - - -Acid 1 (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Good work. But why America instead of United States? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Aesthetic reasons. - - - Acid 1 (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think precision trumps aesthetics. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well you can switch it back if you feel it necessary. However I don't hear peoples from Canada or Mexico being referred to as American. I think it is rather clear. Besides, there is an article in there that say South America is the origin of the sandwich. - - - Acid 1 (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually from Canada. We're generally not crazy about about United States' ownership of the word America. So, if not for reasons of ambiguity, (America goes to a dab page), I think it best to use "United States" out of consideration to the numerous other countries also in America. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings to a fellow Canuck. Well, maybe abbreviate it to US? - - - Acid 1 (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, eh. :) US is okay. But does that mean changing United Kingdom to UK? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think United States is preferable to America unless you're talking about the continent. I also replaced Great Britain with United Kingdom as GB is an island, not a political entity. Zarcadia (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactamundo! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

On a talk page it's always best to post under the last comment otherwise it becomes confusing as to the order of comments. Using US or UK is fine, they're both well understood abbreviations. Zarcadia (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I literally could not believe hamburgers were on this list. Hamburgers are totally different than sandwiches. You're not going to find a credible verification for the idea that hamburgers are sandwiches anywhere on planet earth. I'm not a regular contributor and you guys can run the site however you like, but I can't understand this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.59.102 (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well that depends on where you're from! Hamburgers are known as sandwiches and there are numerous references available to verify that. Zarcadia (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

And here are a couple: Merriam-Webster and Wordnik. Ibadibam (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sold! I think hambuger should be included. There's a fuzzy line between what a sandwich is an isn't. If it's something between two pieces of bread, not fully enclosed, I think that's pretty much a sandwich. I also just added:

Name	Image	Origin	Description
Falafel		Middle East	Deep-fried balls of ground, seasoned chickpeas with tahini and vegetables, wrapped or added to a split open taboon bread (pita).

The falafel article calls it a sandwich. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Now, what about hot dog? There are already lots of sausage-on-long-bun items in the list. A generic hot dog, as disgusting as it is, is pretty much a sausage sandwich. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason why hot dog shouldn't be on this list. Ibadibam (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Banana sandwich

I think that we should add banana sandwich to this list. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, so it might not have an article now, it is a red link, but maybe it will in the future. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I think peanut butter and banana is a legitimate sandwich. But just banana isn't because it would be far too disgusting. The peanut better is there to buffer the vile banana smell. The pictured sandwich is peanut butter and banana and bacon, which should be illegal. That's just not fair to the bread, the peanut butter, or the bacon. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Let us not get into talks about personal opinions here - as the old saying goes, "One person's meat is another person's poison". You might find a banana sandwich disgusting yourself, but in my country, the United Kingdom, I know that there are people who do like banana sandwiches.

While I am here, thank you for your comments at List of pies, List of cakes and List of breads. of these lists, I have most concern about List of cakes, as some of the entries there are articles which are only a sentence or two long. I have contacted Wikipedia: WikiProject Food and Drink about this list. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I added the image to the Elvis sandwich. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Al pastor

...is now redirected to Doner kebab. It was done in this edit.

I have removed it from this list because I have no idea what it is. This was the entry just before I removed it:

Name	Image	Origin	Description
Al pastor	120px	Mexico	This is not a wrap nor sandwich, It is a Taco serve on a corn tortilla . It is a derivation of Lebanese Cuisine

And this is how it looked a couple of days ago:

Name	Image	Origin	Description
Al pastor	120px	Mexico	Similar to shawarma. Served in a pita bread.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Al pastor usually refers to the meat itself, which is typically served in tacos. But that begs the question: why shouldn't taco be on here? It's already part of Category:Sandwiches, anyway. Ibadibam (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

New redlinked entries

Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If they're not notable enough for an article, then they don't belong on the list unless somebody is actively writing an article. imo. Some seem to be very localized European items, likely making it difficult to find English-language references. In any case, they should be alphabetized. Zeng8r (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, more or less. I'll prune out the red if it remains too long and seems not to be notable. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, there no sandwich called schwarma in turkey, nowhere in turker. döner dürüm is turkish sandwich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.237.161 (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

7.9k hit spike

Why?[1] Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a lot of folks were ready for lunch?...

In all seriousness, spikes like that usually happen when a popular blog or media site shares a link to a Wikipedia article. Zeng8r (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

A different style

What do you think of getting rid of all those lines with a style like this: User:Anna Frodesiak/Red sandbox?

It could also apply to:

• List of breads
• List of cakes
• List of cookies
• List of pies, tarts and flans
• List of puddings

Just a thought. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wurstbrot

Nothing against it, though it could be pointed out that a Wurstbrot is nothing but a Butterbrot with Wurst as topping. The picture, however, shows neither Wurst nor Brot, but a Leberkäsebrötchen. If someone knows of a better picture (I don't), a change might be in order. Just a suggestion. --G-41614 (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Meatloaf? Yuk! Okay. Well, maybe the article itself: Wurstbrot shouldn't exist. Like you say, it's just a bun with some minced animal on it. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I swapped in another image. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now there's a wurstbrot in the picture. :) Dunno about the article - far as I'm concerned, there are less relevant articles about, and there could be all variations of Wurstbroten, and as of Butterbrot ... ok, to be brief, there could be a merger, but for me, a Wurst- and a Butterstulle are two different things, and perhaps an english (as in foreign from a german perspective) encyclopedia should reflect even finer distinctions. As you can see by my wording, I'm from northeastern Germany. Oh, and please: meatloaf and Leberkäse are two very different dishes - Leberkäse must never, ever be eaten with apple sauce. :) --G-41614 (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Döner Kebab as German

I'd be interested in knowing the justification behind this classification. As far as I know, Döner is turkish and always has been, that it was invented in Germany was just an urban legend. The Döner article makes no mention of its supposed German origins, so either this list or that article definitely need to be fixed. Jkomets (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I support changing the origin to Turkey. Ibadibam (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections, I have made the requested edit. Ibadibam (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not an urban legend. While Döner-style dishes are around in turkey since forever the sandwich preperation is invented by Turks in Germany.93.104.138.228 (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this information? Ibadibam (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Turkey#Origin_of_D.C3.B6ner_Kebab Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Marmite sandwich

Now, now, somebody must have a jar of the goop, two slices of bread, and a camera. But after the photo don't eat it all in one sitting or you'll end up in hospital. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

School Sandwich

This new addition to the list is redlinked, and I can't for the life of me find any mention on the Web at large. Neofrek or anyone else, can you provide any sources for this? Otherwise it's a Wikipedia:Verifiability issue, and should be removed. Ibadibam (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I asked at his talk. Maybe there's a common Mexican name that we don't know about. I suggest giving it a few days and then zapping it if no cite is found. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hamburger is German?

I noticed that Germany is given credit for the hamburger. If you read the wiki articles regarding the history of the hamburger, it allegedly became a sandwich in the USA. The exact origins are disputed, but what records are available suggest it was not a sandwich before Americans got a hold of the dish.72.78.19.241 (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Bacon, egg and cheese - picture

I don't know what that is in the picture, but it's not a kind of bacon I have ever seen. It's not a good picture of a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich if it does not clearly depict such a sandwich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.124.140 (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It looks more like sausage.Ibadibam (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You know this is wikipedia right? Get to it. Photograph your next BE&C sandwich and upload the pic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.111.39 (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Taco sandwich

Is it this: http://wwwrs.kraftrecipes.com/recipes/taco-sandwich-65996.aspx

Or maybe this: http://www.food.com/recipe/taco-sandwich-141546

Is it for real? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Barbecue sandwich and pulled pork sandwich

Should one go? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. But which? Barbecue adequately covers pulled pork, but pulled pork has its own article. Ibadibam (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Beats me. Maybe leave them both. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I prefer to leave both entries in place. Pulled pork sandwich specifically refers to a sandwich with pulled pork, whereas Barbecue sandwiches can include roast beef, beef brisket, chicken, etc. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Fine by me. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added a source for the Barbecue sandwich entry. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Being someone who lives down the street from a BBQ shop, I can tell you they definitely aren't the same thing. A barbecue sandwich could contain anything from pulled pork to whole brisket, de-boned ribs, rib tips, etc., while a pulled pork sandwich is quite specific. I'd recommend both stay. Steven Walling • talk 04:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Another suggestion

I suggest that this also includes a "paste sandwich" - a sandwich which uses fish paste or crab paste, and which often has cucumber added to it. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Good suggestion! Can you provide some sources that demonstrate that this is a notable sandwich? Per WP:SOURCES, these would ideally be from scholarly or journalistic sources, and not from cookbooks or recipe websites. Ibadibam (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Choripan's origin

The origin of the choripan (or choripán) is not South America but Argentina (and, at most, Uruguay). Check the spanish Wikipedia article on Choripán, for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.55.173.24 (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Notability of sandwiches

SQGibbon asserts with a recent edit that certain sandwiches in this list should be excluded due to lack of notability, but seems to have applied a subjective test to determine notability. I have undone this edit and request justification of the removal of this content under the list guidelines. Ibadibam (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It's common practice throughout Wikipedia with articles like this that we require the elements in the list to be notable. Otherwise it will fill up with every sandwich that anyone has ever had and thinks should be on Wikipedia. SQGibbon (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Which is not a problem, and quite a nice idea. There is no reason here to be deletionist minimalists here. =//= Johnny Squeaky 21:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Please don't revert to your last edit when doing so removes the contributions of other editors. Second, "Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." I agree with you that some of the items you removed may not belong in the list, but not in every case. Could you provide a rationale for each member of this list that you'd like to remove? Ibadibam (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I forgot we had a discussion here. The rationale is as I said before, if we do not use the Wikipedia definition of notability, like many, many, articles do throughout Wikipedia then this list is going to fill up with everyone's favorite sandwich they make at home or variation they've come up. Examples of things I removed were TLT -- tempeh, lettuce, and tomato. Have people made this sandwich before? Sure. Does it deserve a Wikipedia article? Doubtful and I say that as a vegan. If it ever gets widespread discussion and coverage in reliable sources then sure, someone can make an article for it and then it can be included. Or the Italiano which is not even a sandwich but just toppings. Or Hot Turkey. Really? Why not Hot ham? Or Hot PBJ? Or Cold Turkey? Or Room-Temperature Turkey? The point is that life is so much easier for any other editor who comes across this article if we follow a simple and objective standard for inclusion: make sure an article exists for the sandwich first. Otherwise there will never be an agreed upon standard for inclusion. Some people will say that it should be there if they saw it in a restaurant, some will say it belongs if their mom used to make it, others if there's a recipe for it, others if they just thought of it right now, and no one would have any objective or compelling way to argue against any of those criteria. Instead we can easily, and in a manner that's consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, sidestep all of those silly and pointless and undecidable arguments by just using WP:N. It's easy and any editor who is checking recent changes has an extremely easy time of deciding if a recent change should stay -- does the new entry have an article? SQGibbon (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with most. But we should decide on criteria for inclusion. Having an article? Verified? Verifiable? Tripleta, Pudgy Pie, and Hot turkey are probably notable, I think. Hot turkey is very well known. You've never heard of it, but it's on many, many menus in Canada. TLT is borderline. This is not one of those lists that is completely getting out of control. We're talking about a hanful of maybes.

So, please, can we restore those for now?

I suggest we really nail down criteria for inclusion here and now. I think WP:N is too harsh for this list. Sometimes items don't need to be blue-linkable to be present. The items at List of tartans are a good example. My opinion on this list article is that if it googles and google-images well, it's in. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's the thing, there is no need for any argument or discussion ever if we just use WP:N. Whether something is notable enough for its own article is for other people to deal with. And even if we somehow agree on some other standard for inclusion for now someone will come along in a month and want to include something that does not meet that standard and will start up a new discussion and we still won't have any way to ground the argument in some kind of objective criterion -- it'll just forever be at the whim of whoever takes an interest in the article at that moment. Which will also make it difficult for any future editor who is patrolling recent changes (how I got here in the first place) to figure out if a recent change belongs or not.

There are plenty of good list articles that have red-links, but they tend to be things that have finite membership (lists of objects to be found in a video game), lists of things with "inherent" notability (like high schools), lists of things that have a standard reference work that the article is based on (tartans), and so on. Whenever you have a completely open-ended list like this one (infinite membership, no inherent notability, and no standard reference guide) then it can go on forever. I've seen this happen so many, many times.

Look at List of emoticons for a different take. Almost none of the emoticons listed there will ever have articles so for that article it makes sense to just require reliable sources. Before that was settled on that article went crazy with everyone adding whatever silly emoticon they saw on 4-chan the day before and the article was worthless. A similar thing happened at List of free and open-source Android applications. It was overwhelmed with every little app that anyone had even just started somewhere and the list was completely susceptible to abuse. We cleaned it up and now it's useful.

Having a list of notable sandwiches is a good thing. Making sure they are actually notable (having articles) is what makes the list useful. If Hot Turkey, for example, is notable, then it's not helpful to just list it here unless it links to an article about it (for example, since I had never heard of it, it sounded silly. Had there been an article then I could have actually learned something, instead it just looked like a joke and made the entire article appear worthless). So again, using WP:N makes complete sense for this kind of list, makes everything easier, and sidesteps thorny and arbitrary discussions (e.g., I say "10,000 Google hits is sufficient", "No, I say 9,000 + 150 Google images", "What about 8,000 Google hits or 9,000 Bing hits + 100 Google images and 25 Youtube recipes or 35 blogs?" etc.). SQGibbon (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that the items must have an article, or are you saying that they are verifiable? There's a difference between having an article, and being notable enough to have an article. "Open face hot turkey sandwich" is a pretty precise string, and it googles nearly 200k hits, yet has no article. It's verifiable, right?

One way to avoid a ton of keystrokes on this would be for each of us to summarize our criterion in a single sentence other than just saying WP:N, as N is deliberably slippery. Then we ask others which one they agree with, or propose their own. Mine would be something like:

A: Any item that googles well, and thus has a reasonable potential to become an article.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Something that has an article -- it's the easiest solution and makes it so that there never ever needs to be a discussion here concerning a specific entry. If it's a blue link it stays, if it's a red link it goes. By the way, how do you determine if something Googles "well"? What number do you propose and what's your justification for that number? (You know people will get nit-picky lawyery about whatever number you chose like "It's within 10%, that's good enough!" or "500 is a lot!", etc.) SQGibbon (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I think redlinked items are perfectly acceptable. Again, we're talking about a few items coming and going. This is not a contentious article. Bluelinks only is too strict, and against what Wikipedia is about. You seek this to prevent a bunch of warring, but there hasn't been much of it in the past, and the article has settled down. Not too many new sandwiches will come along that haven't been discussed, and are debatable. If there are a few discussions over an item, that's what Wikipedia is about.

As for defining googling well, it's a coefficient of quantity and quality and case by case. That's something all Wikipedians are pretty used to. From WP:AfC to everyday content, these judgements part of what we do every day. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A couple of points (and trying not to repeat myself), the blue link criterion works very well on numerous articles throughout Wikipedia so it must not be that contrary to what Wikipedia is (WP:LSC even mentions it). And there have been discussions in the past and in the edit history, but just because it hasn't been on the level of "British Isles v. Ireland and the British Isles" doesn't mean it won't reach an annoying level in the future.

One final point, yes, we are all used to arguing over ill-defined terms on Wikipedia, but my god, does anyone actually enjoy doing that? The criteria for notability are pretty clear and yet the arguments can rage and rage and flame forever, so why bring even a hint of that over to this article? I would rather stub my toe repeatedly than get into an actual discussion over whether 1,000 Google hits is enough vs. 300 really good Google hits. So please, let's use blue/red link and if someone really does not think a sandwich belongs here let them make the case at AfD or if they think a sandwich really does belong then let them create the article and defend it at AfD (if necessary) and keep this place relatively free from all that drama. It makes maintaining the content here a no-brainer but leaves an avenue open for people who want to jump in deeper without dragging everyone else along. SQGibbon (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I just don't see drama coming from this. I'm also trying to see it from the point of view of usefulness to visitors rather than convenience to editors.

But anyway, I think we've both state our case pretty well. However, you stated before only bluelinks, but now say blue/red, so I'm not sure which you want.

Now what we need is input from others and hopefully we can get some sort of compromise or consensus. For the record, my position is stated below. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"Blue/red" as in blue stays and red goes (my position hasn't changed). SQGibbon (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that this article has been in existence since 9 November 2011‎ there have been 5 short discussions over inclusion, and that's with no consensus over inclusion criteria. I just don't think we need to prevent a flood of lawyering by going for only bluelinks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Per WP:NRVE, "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added sources to all of the non-blue link entries. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

Please support, oppose, comment, or suggest something else:

A: Any item that googles well, thus having reasonable potential of becoming an article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support – per WP:V and WP:REDLINK. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Preferably "Googles well" really meaning Google News and Books, but you know, what we're shooting for is likely articles. Steven Walling • talk 04:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support, with reservations  – "Googles well" seems pretty ambiguous. If we want to take the time to evaluate an entry on this talk page, we should probably use WP:GNG. But if we don't want to take the time, then unless it's very obviously non-notable, we should probably just accept a redlinked entry, contact the editor with a WTAF message, list it at Wikipedia:Requested articles, and remove it if it gets AfDed. Ibadibam (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

You're correct, "Googles well" is ambiguous and we should use WP:GNG, but instead of doing the work ourselves we need to realize that the burden is on the original editor. They need to supply the two citations from independent reliable sources covering the subject in detail or, better yet, create the article first (and let AfC and AfD deal with it). That approach is so much easier and clearer for everyone involved now and who might become involved later. If there's a sandwich which you think is notable but does not have an article then you can create a list on your user page and link to it from here and people can work on it there. There's absolutely no reason this article needs to have red links when there are so many good Wikipedia processes in place already. SQGibbon (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want to institute a new policy wherein bluelinks are used as the sole criterion for list inclusion, then this discussion really ought to be continued at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists, where the subject has been under debate off and on for several years. It may indeed prove to be a superior test than WP:GNG for list inclusion. I don't really want to dive into it; all I care about are sandwiches. So I'll suggest we follow policy as has already been set out, until such time as a better one is put in place. Ibadibam (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Fine, let's use WP:GNG! Whenever some adds a sandwich they need to supply reliable, secondary sources that cover the sandwich in significant detail. I'm 100% fine with that compromise. (And as an aside, many, many, many lists on Wikipedia use the blue link criteria which is supported by WP:LIST, there's absolutely no need to introduce anything new or change existing policy or guidelines to support that same process here. Nothing I've suggested here violates in letter or in spirit any existing guideline or policy but in fact is completely in line with existing policy and guidelines.)

In WP:LIST, are you referring to the sentence that says, "any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list that consists primarily of red links) should be in project or user space, not the main space."? That doesn't appear to apply to most stand-alone lists, including this one. If you're referring to some other passage, could you clarify? And could you give examples of discussions on other stand-alone lists' talk pages where consensus was reached to use blue links as the sole criterion for list inclusion? If would be useful to see how other groups arrived at that decision. Ibadibam (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

B: Item should have an article first ("blue link"). This criterion works well for other open-ended list articles on Wikipedia where most of the existing entries already have articles. Shifts the argument of whether something belongs over to AfD/AfC, keeping the drama away from here. SQGibbon (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – See WP:REDLINK: articles that are likely to have an article can be red-linked. It also states there, "Red links are frequently present in lists and sometimes in disambiguation pages or templates." This is a non-issue. Again, I've added sources to all of the non-blue linked entries in the article, and more sources are readily available. See also WP:V. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:REDLINK and my comment above. Steven Walling • talk 04:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comments 1) How do we determine if something is a "likely article"? The chickpea sandwich was (apparently) first inserted in July 2012. It's been 8 months, has that ship sailed or is "likely article" an open-ended statement that lasts forever even if it is never created? Italiano was first inserted in November 2011. Montadito, July 2012. 2) While I did not look at all of Northamerica1000's sources, some of them at least are just links to recipes. That a recipe exists does not establish notability, there needs to be an in-depth discussion of the topic in order to make an article. That something exists is not enough. So, for those items that they supplied only links to recipes, unless some other metric is used (like the proposed Googliness of the subject (which I still find a concept entirely contrary to everything that is Wikipedia)), they should not be listed here since it has not been established that an article could ever be made about them (much less that it is hypothetically likely that it will be made), correct? SQGibbon (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No time limit. It can be part of this article if it googles well. Elapsing time as a redlink should not measure its worth. Media sources determine that.

When present in this list article, it all the while serves visitors with an image and a (slowly expanding) description. The table primarily serves as a list of sandwiches with an image and description, not a holding pen for upcoming articles with a clock ticking. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

In reading WP:REDLINK it states specifically "It is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable." Notice the word "soon", surely that was not intended to mean "possibly never". And then "Although red links to notable topics are permitted in lists and other articles, do not create lists or other pages in the mainspace solely for use as an article creation guide. Instead, editors are encouraged either to write the article first or to use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles." 1) Googliness does not establish notability and there is no policy or guideline that exists that would support that claim. Notability has specific criteria that do not include how many "Google hits" something gets. 2) Editors are encouraged to write the article first, thereby establishing the notability of the topic. 3) And then it states "Create red links everywhere they are relevant to the context, and in which no topic already exists, yet it qualifies to exist for the encyclopedia. " Using Google hits does indicate that something qualifies to exist in this encyclopedia. At the very least each red-linked entry should have two citations for reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail (i.e., not just a recipe) in order for the subject to qualify as per WP:REDLINK. So either create the article first (best solution) or at least provide the two good citations that establish notability and that someone can expand into an article (not as good). SQGibbon (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Googliness or googles well refers to there being significant coverage per WP:GNG. Nobody's talking about just hits.

• That single word "soon" in that context is more of a hint than a guideline, and it's overwhelmed by plenty of other guideline statements.

• In response to your raising Wikipedia:Write the article first, that's neither here nor there. We can just blacklink them. Please understand what this list is, primarily, as I stated above. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:GNG "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I find nothing there about "Googles well" no matter how you define it (unless you are defining it as having at least two independent reliable sources that cover the subject in detail and not just list a recipe). We need specific citations that establish notability. And then you said "Please understand what this list is, primarily, as I stated above." I don't want to come across snippy, but what you are stating this list is is something that does not appear to conform to standard Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Also, black-linking, in this case, is just as bad as red-linking given that so many entries are notable enough for their own articles, why are those few entries immune to WP:N? It makes the article look bad. But again, I am repeating myself and I'm really trying hard not to do that, so I'll stop. SQGibbon (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You're not being snippy at all. I'm sorry for saying "please understand". That was snippy.

I was erring on exclusionist side with my "A". In fact, as I pointed out, there are many lists that contain items that will never have articles. United States presidential pets has Bo (dog), but most of the pets will never have an article, but they are verifiable. The list has great worth while being full of permanent black links.

You are asking for more than reasonable potential for becoming an article. You seek certainty and a timeline. I feel that's too much. And why all this fuss? As you said, to ward off wikilawyering and endless debates? Is your objective to better serve visitors by preventing them from seeing a not-so-notable sandwich in the list? I'm sorry. I just don't agree with your point of view. We're talking about a list of sandwiches. This is entering the dead horse stage. Let's let others decide. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to squeeze one more point in, different kinds of lists require different kinds of criteria. A list of presidential pets will most likely never have articles for all of the specific pets but that makes sense and is OK as there is a well-defined, well-sourced, and finite scope to the subject. Some lists require notability as I think this one does (infinite in scope). Also, I was being snippy but I deleted the part I wrote about Wikia so it didn't look as bad. SQGibbon (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:REDLINK and WP:CSC. Ibadibam (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

What exactly from WP:REDLINK and WP:CSC are you referring to? I paraphrased CSC in several of my messages above (in support of my position) and quoted from REDLINK (also in support of my position). SQGibbon (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:REDLINK:

• "... red links to notable topics are permitted in lists ... ."
• "Creating a red link also carries the responsibility to first ascertain ... that its foreseeable new subject matter will meet the WP:notability guidelines ... ." Which is to say that a redlink alone is not sufficient to indicate something is not notable, but instead the notability guidelines must be considered in full.

WP:CSC:

• "Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future."

Ibadibam (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice that the everything you've listed supports everything I've said. All I'm saying is that the editor who adds a sandwich to the list needs to be the one who supplies the evidence that the sandwich passes WP:N. This is very basic Wikipedia editing practice where the WP:BURDEN is on the editor making additions. SQGibbon (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. A member of this type of list must be notable, and should be demonstrated to be so. If the contributing editor doesn't provide this information, WP:BURDEN dictates the material be challenged. That policy also recommends a challenging editor either tag the offending content or attempt to verify it themselves, before removing it (as per WP:PRESERVE). Remember that our objective is to improve Wikipedia, not police it. Ibadibam (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Does that mean GNGable? I'd be fine with that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Portobello

Will someone who knows something about mushrooms please add the portobello sandwich? Usually the mushroom is the "bun," stuffed w/ vegetarian or vegan ingredients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.18.17 (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Also, keep in mind that in many places (possibly more or most?</opinion>), the same name means a large portobello cap served on a bun, similar to a burger. Just thought I'd add my two cents. :) 174.102.232.23 (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Leberkäse

Leberkäse is not commonly served on a Kaiser roll. It's commonly served with mustard or, then pan fried, with fried eggs. Occasionally, it might be served in a breadroll. I find it pretty hard to follow the definition of sandwich that's being followed here. - Kristian, 03.05.2014, Reykjavík — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.31.196 (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Bratwurst

Bratwurst is not a sandwich, therefore it shouldn't be listed as such. It's a grilled pork sausage served with hot mustard or ketchup. Sometimes a slice of white bread will be served with it, so that it's easier to grab the hot sausage so that you don't burn your fingers. It might also come with a breadroll slit open to the middle and the Bratwurst put in, so that you will finally bite off the sausage with the breadroll around it, but then still it's not a sandwich. I've never seen Bratwurst on a sandwich, and I'm both German and a Bratwurst lover. - Kristian, 03.05.2014, Reykjavík — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.31.196 (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Removed. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Sausage

A sausage in a breadroll is called a hot dog. Why are there food items on the list that might be used as ingredients? You should also list honey and chocolate-covered marzipan bars then; and where are the chocolate-coated marshmallow treats? - Kristian, 03.05.2014, Reykjavík — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.31.196 (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Fried Egg

The Egg sandwich entry does not really cover the breadth of egg sandwiches, even as it is reflected on the linked to egg sandwich page. The row also seems to suggest that an egg sandwich is a thing most commonly seen in Sweden. I grew up with fried egg sandwiches in Ireland and I now plenty of people who would say the same having grown up in the U.K. I think that one of two things should happen: (1) the row should be edited to reflect the internationality of the egg sandwich or (2) a row should be added being that an egg salad sandwich is a very different thing from a fried egg sandwich. Conjollins (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the current entry is unnecessarily biased toward the Scandinavian preparation: sliced boiled eggs, served cold. This shouldn't be presented as the archetypal egg sandwich. I also agree that there is a marked difference between boiled, fried, etc. From my North American perspective, egg salad sandwiches occupy a very different cultural space than fried egg sandwiches: one is a deli or picnic food, the other usually breakfast. At the same time, we should be wary of making this list too granular. Should there be separate entries for boiled egg, egg salad, fried egg, and breakfast sandwich? I'd be curious to hear from Anna Frodesiak, Northamerica1000, and other regular editors/watchers of this list. Ibadibam (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

As there is only one article for Egg sandwich, then there ought to be one entry in this list. That entry should lose the description "Generic..." and say something like "One of several..." and bullet list them or prose list them. The image should be replaced with one that does not have mayo obscuring the egg, nor should it show a product. If the description is long enough, consider multiple images one beneath the other. Just my two cents. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I second this above. Makes sense to only have one entry if there's only one article, and the entry can simply be expanded. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Eggsample

Name	Image	Origin	Description
Egg		Wordwide	Generic sandwich: This contains eggs, usually sliced hard boiled eggs or egg salad, but may be made with fried or (more rarely) scrambled egg, topped with the local roe spread, locally called kaviar. Egg salad sandwich: A chopped egg mixed with mayonaise. Eggs Benedict is an open-faced sandwich consisting of an English muffin topped with meat, eggs, and hollandaise sauce.

Okay, the above is a start. I cropped the egg salad sandwich pic for this table. Please modify the entry any way you like or add it to the article now or whatever. Is this what we have in mind? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Please feel free to modify it. I will try to replace the generic sandwich now. Somebody added Eggs Benedict as an open-faced sandwich. I put that into this group, even though it is not eggactly a sandwich. Maybe one must be able to pick it up and eat it for it to qualify as a sandwich. Eggs Benedict is really just a revolting blob of egg on a bit of bread to be eaten with a knife and fork, right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anna I'm sorry you feel this way about Eggs Benedict. I'm using the sandwich categories shown within Open_sandwich as my criteria. I think this is a fairly liberal interpretation of sandwich however it clearly qualifies as an open sandwich being a baked good with a topping. I'm also not the best qualified to know how sandwich is determined in the european or other western world so I'm trying my hard to get this as 'eggsact' as I can ! Food artisan (talk) 09:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, and welcome! :) I'm not sure about this whole EB thing. Let's see what others have to say. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

As long as the egg sandwich page exists, perhaps there be a reference to it in the egg row. I don't see any mention of omelette sandwich in that article or this; perhaps there should be. Mcljlm (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sailor sandwich

Wikipedia Editors, there is a discussion about Sailor sandwich article that may relate to this article's topic. Peace MPS (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Bunny Chow

IMHO, that's not a sandwich. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I've started a discussion for this purpose at Talk:Bunny chow#Is it a sandwich?, and would welcome input there! Ibadibam (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Ploughman's lunch

Is not a sandwich either, not by any stretch of the imagination. --212.62.26.100 (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Removed Ibadibam (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of sandwiches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160129235434/https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150220/little-italy/where-get-pepper-egg-sandwiches-chicago-lent-tradition-map to https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150220/little-italy/where-get-pepper-egg-sandwiches-chicago-lent-tradition-map
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105210646/http://www.haftamag.com/2006/10/16/deconstructing-the-pav-bhaji-2/ to http://www.haftamag.com/2006/10/16/deconstructing-the-pav-bhaji-2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Change the definition of a sandwich or remove nonconforming entries

I don't have a horse in the race when it comes to defining what constitutes a sandwich, English is often fundamentally imprecise. That said the second line of this articles states, "a sandwich is a dish consisting of two or more slices of bread with one or more fillings between them" followed by three citations. However, the article goes on to list numerous foods which plainly do not meet this definition. The main offenders are foods with a single piece of bread, such as butterbrot, montadito, and smørrebrød which are refered to as "open faced" which is to say they're a piece of bread with something on top, or items such as souvlaki, hotdog or shawarma which also only contain a single piece of bread.

It seems the definition at the start of the article should be removed or amended or it should be maintained and nonconforming foods should be removed from the list. 2602:306:CF32:13A0:9C44:6B42:8646:43CF (talk) 03:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

We must take care to respect differing definitions. In the UK, a sandwich follows the current definition. But restricting it to sliced bread rules out many foods that are called sandwich outside Britain. Ibadibam (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the definition should be amended. Food inside a bun or roll, such as a hot dog, is definitely a sandwich, and so is food inside a pita bread, for example a falafel sandwich. Then there are open-faced sandwiches, which I would say should also be listed in this article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The definition of sandwich is described in Sandwich article although current definition in the article may not respond to the concern raised above. The duplicated definition in this article should be removed.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we don't need a definition here. We do need some criteria for inclusion, though, and I suggest that it be no more than "foods that are described as sandwiches", which would push the responsibility back to the linked articles. I acknowledge that it would lead to the inclusion of ice-cream sandwiches, which are presently excluded, but (a) that's a bit arbitrary; and (b) having an unequivocally-consistent definition is worth the inclusion of a couple of edge cases. If a particular inclusion is challenged, we can just link to an appropriate reference describing that food as a sandwich. If none exists, it probably shouldn't be here anyway.―― Joe in Australia (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

See also: November 2011 discussion about this

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

"Sandwich" in name of sandwich

The article seems rather inconsistent with the usage of "sandwich" after a sandwich name.

Some sandwiches have "sandwich" in the name (e.g. "Bratwurst Sandwich"), whereas others do not (e.g. "Club" sandwich). Taking a look at other articles such as List of cakes, it seems as if there are a majority of cakes with the word "cake" included, but there are still others that do not have the word afterwards.

As a new editor, I was wondering, what should be the standard here?

Hickland (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hot dog

So... a hot dog is a sandwich, right? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This is quite a good point! Per the Sandwich article, "a sandwich includes at least two slices of bread". If we follow this definition, a hotdog is not a sandwich. Hickland (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, so I have been doing some more searching. Per the definition I copied above, a gyro would not be considered a sandwich. But, currently, a gyro is on the list of sandwiches and its English Wikipedia article states that it is a sandwich. In consideration of this, a hotdog, whose article states that it is a type of sandwich, should also be listed as a sandwich. Any thoughts from others? Hickland (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that it's better to use a broader definition of sandwich. That's more in line with common usage. A hot dog is inside a bun, not between two slices of bread, but I would consider it a type of sandwich and include it here. Along similar lines is a falafel sandwich, which is falafel inside a piece of pita. Note that in both cases, hot dog and falafel, the bread part is more or less in two halves, albeit connected to each other, with the main food item in between. Very sandwich-y. So I prefer a more inclusive approach. But we have to draw the line somewhere. So I would say that falafel in a wrap is not a sandwich, nor is a burrito, or a pasty. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Banana Sandwich?

This is pretty common in the US South, both with mayonnaise and sliced banana, or with peanut butter and mashed banana (but not both mayo and peanut butter). Should it be listed here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.118.80.172 (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Cream chipped beef sandwich.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no "Bratwurst Sandwich" in Germany

Noone in Germany would understand you if you'd ask for a Bratwurst Sandwich. It's called "Bratwurst im Brötchen". A sandwich is made with bread (German: Brot). As you can see in the picture, there is no bread, but a roll (German: Brötchen). So please fix a) this Wiki article and b) your language so that you use the word Sandwich right. PS: a hamburger is not a sandwich either, for the same reason: it's in a bun, not between two slices of bread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.41.61.66 (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I have edited this entry to remove the term "bratwurst sandwich", but be aware that the definition for sandwich currently used by Wikipedia includes most bread products, not only sliced bread. Ibadibam (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hoaxes?

Some of the UK entries I have never heard of. They could be regional (in which case that needs stating) but I think some may be hoaxes or 'jokes'. I think if you went to a British sandwich shop and asked for a Queen Alexandra sandwich they wouldn't know what you meant (we have no article on this sandwich but Google finds some recipes). I am sure toast sandwich is a joke. Ham and Pickle isn't that common - cheese and pickle for sure, and cheese and ham, but I don't think I've seen ham and pickle in a supermarket. Are jam and marmalade sandwiches different things? Is marmite on toast a sandwich? Is salt beef bagel really British? 90.252.190.223 (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistent list

This is a very inconsistent list. On the one hand, you have some very specific sandwiches on the list (Reuben, for one of the most obvious examples). On the other hand, you have bánh mì, which can be pretty much anything in a small baguette. The only thing that makes bánh mì what it is is that it's in a small baguette. That's not a specific sandwich at all and should not be on the list here as a single item. May as well just say "sliced bread sandwich" for a typical UK sandwich, which can mean any sort of ingredients between two pieces of sliced bread. You have "bacon" listed for one of the UK ones - why go so specific for some countries but as general as possible for others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raksi (talk • contribs) 18:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. You understand that this is a volunteer project, right? Raising general gripes like this, but not doing anything about them, especially as a new user who doesn't even know how to sign posts, is about as helpful as commenting on local newspaper articles about your disagreement with national political strategy. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Why isn't a hot dog considered a sandwich?

Consider that various sandwiches listed here describe items placed in a hot dog bun. But the moment you add a hot dog to a bun, it's not a sandwich? Fried spicy patty, onions and chutney? That's a sandwich. Lobster? That's a sandwich. Corn-roll tamale? Still a sandwich. Guac, cabbage, condiments and a sausage? You guessed it. Even fried noodles and pickles in a hot dog bun is a sandwich.

And it's certainly not a bias against the concept of the hot dog meat itself disqualifying something as sandwich. After all in Australia, one can wrap a hot dog in a beef patty, deep-fry it, then cover it with chili, a few french fries, and a fried egg - and it's a sandwich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.11.105.68 (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• British Rail sandwich 01.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Bad photo for bacon egg & cheese sandwich

The photograph for the bacon egg and cheese sandwich is unappealing. It appears to either have pickles or giardiniera, which is atypical for this style of sandwich. It uses scrambled eggs rather than a fried egg, which is an acceptable substitution but leads to a less appealing image. My primary grievance, though, is that it contains sausage links. There is no bacon in the image for the bacon egg and cheese sandwich. This must be rectified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christoauer (talk • contribs) 20:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)