Talk:Full breakfast/Archive 3

Merger proposal

I propose that the three pages, Full English breakfast, Irish breakfast, and Ulster fry be merged into this article. The reasons are relatively obvious. From Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages:

“ There are several good reasons to merge a page:

• There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject.
• There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
• ...

”

This proposal comes out of arguments against merging the pages under Breakfast fry-up (see the talk page there). Maybe a "Full Breakfast" is more of a common name. Is this not what it is called on menus? (Leaving aside Full English/Full Irish/etc. variations). --sony-youth^talk 21:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. --sony-youth^talk 21:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
2. The various variations are just that - variations. [1][2] (although the second guy doesn't know how to cook a sausage) For me they're all "a fry" with trimmings (which usually means the entire contents of the fridge) and are only known by the other names in restaurants anyway. I can't imagine a discussion at home saying "will be have a full - insert appropriate variation - breakfast?". In any case, I'd love to see anyone get a set of consistent recipes for them. Beans or no beans; black and white pudding or only black; bread, toast or soda bread; two or three sausages. They're all a fry and I've had the same meal in Ireland (north and south), Scotland, England and Wales...and a few other countries besides, where it was generally just called a Fried Breakfast. Put in a description with the note that the meal will be found under various names depending on where you are (which automatically covers the issues around "my population is bigger than yours"...) and that the recipe/list of ingredients will vary widely. Insert redirects from the appropriate pages and maybe also put in a redirect from the Fry disambiguation page. Hughsheehy 14:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Brendandh 12:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Shtove 22:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
5. This article is in effect redundant. An ulster fry, a full english, a full irish are all more or less the same thing and the main article covers them all wellMoethesleaze 14:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. An Ulster Fry isn't just a breakfast. Unlike the Irish Breakfast and the like the Ulster Fry is quite likely to be eaten as a lunch or dinner dish and therefore moving it completely into the Full Breakfast article isn't appropriate. Ben W Bell talk 22:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: "the Ulster Fry is quite likely to be eaten as a lunch or dinner dish" - all-day breakfasts are available anywhere in the British Isles. I had one a couple of hours ago. And it wasn't "Ulster".--MacRusgail 18:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. As Ben said, an Ulster fry isn't just a breakfast. In my family it's usually a lunch, putting it in a breakfast article would be inaccurate. I would also point out that the Ulster fry article seems well sourced and I don't think it is 'exactly the same' as either of the others. « Keith t·e » 22:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and neither are Crunchy Nut Cornflakes - or the "Irish breakfast" or the "English breakfast" - but as a idea for breakfast, you must agree, that in this part of the world people are known to eat half a pig, fried with some egg, and a dash of baked beans and call that normal. That is not normal elsewhere. That we also eat it for lunch and dinner (hardly just an Ulster thing, now really?), is not so notable, as others do so also. --sony-youth^talk 22:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that Crunchy Nut Cornflakes are made, sold, and primarily a breakfast item, the Ulster Fry isn't. The Ulster Fry is not just occassionally eaten at other times, but incredibly frequently and hasn't pretended to be a breakfast item. Yes many would have it for breakfast but huge numbers would eat it at another time instead. Anyway I don't see all the doubling of information, we have two very separate articles. Ben W Bell talk 22:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict>Yes, as everywhere else on our infighting little islands, where it is just called a "fry". Fine, leave it out. I'll change the merger to just between English and Irish breakfasts, but, in that case, the Ulster fry page should be merged with the Bacon and eggs article, unless you think that there is a substantive difference between the two subjects. --sony-youth^talk 23:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to propose the discussion, no problems there, but I'd think there is a substantial difference between something consisting of bacon and eggs, and something that includes bacon and eggs plus many other ingredients. Why the desire to get rid of the existing articles anyway? What's wrong with the current setup? It explains the differences and is linked through okay. Ben W Bell talk 23:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Bacon and Eggs is not the best name, but what is described on the Ulster fry page is exactly what is eaten elsewhere, just by a different name. My desire "to get rid of the existing articles" is because they all describe the same thing and should be merge simply as a matter of policy - but we've got to do it in a way that everyone is happy with, the name is the issue, not the content, and I can see the problem with "Bacon and eggs". --sony-youth^talk 23:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update Sony-youth, The new article looks very well. Sorry for the late reply, took a week off! . I think that it was correct to leave the Ulster Fry out of the new breakfast article. « Keith t·e » 18:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not think fry-up is used in the US,where the terms English Breakfast or full English Breakfast are used--but they both imply very much more than just bacon and eggs.I think the various patterns of use are such that the articles should all be kept separateDGG 23:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You could combine Irish whiskey and Scotch whisky, but it wouldn't be a good idea. Johnbod 03:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

They're combined in the article Whiskey. There are many technical differences between Irish and Scottish whiskeys which are respected and acknowledge by the alcohol industry and drinkers. These differences are such that if someone ordered a glass of Scottish whiskey and were served a glass of Irish whiskey (or bourbon) in its place, they would be offended. The differences between a Full English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh breakfast is not respected by the catering industry or breakfast eaters but are thrown together under the label of a "full breakfast". So, if someone ordered an Full English breakfast and received an Full Irish breakfast (or Scottish or Welsh) in its place, they would neither be able to tell the difference nor care, as they are essentially the same thing. --sony-youth^talk 10:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

They're combined incorrectly in the article Whisky which isn't even the correct spelling.83.70.238.150 16:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ulster fry? you must be joking, I've never even heard of it... Even the "Irish breakfast" page redirects to "full english breakfast". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.191.36 (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Why not take a leaf out of the Whisky situations book and a fried breakfast page and then articles on the national derivatives thereof also?--Vintagekits 11:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

• Merge Full English and Irish but leave Ulster Fry alone. Abtract 22:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No

The meal is called Full English Breakfast. Let's merge the Irish one into this, because it's exactly the same. TharkunColl 23:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh but wait, I've though of an even better argument that obviously trumps yours: The meal is called Full Irish Breakfast. Let's merge the English one into this, because it's exactly the same. Hurrah, now we can argue infinitely in circles. Whuppie! --sony-youth^talk 23:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't think so, mate. How many people are there in England? And how many in Ireland? TharkunColl 23:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Its a pretty poor agrument in my opinion just shows your ever present and rampant pro-British pov on all subjects!--Vintagekits 23:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What? I have never interacted with you before. As for the breakfast argument, England has 50 million people, Ireland less than a tenth of that. Which name is likely to be more common, do you think? TharkunColl 23:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've followed your edits! The population is a poor foundation of an argument (and too simplistic} to support a merger in my opinion.--Vintagekits 23:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

How may people aren't in either and really couldn't bring themselves to care about our pathetic little squabbles? Common name worldwide is Bacon and eggs. Yawn - tiresome. Common name then, so? Guess we both lose. Oh, well. --sony-youth^talk 23:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Not that I want to get into this really, but the term I know in the US is full English breakfast, because full Breakfast could be any sort of American breakfast, most of which I do not know by specific names, thought they might have regional names. But that's just me. DGG 21:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Depends where you are in the US I suppose - I used to live in NYC and the most frequent selection I used to see was Full Irish breakfast and the English version.--Vintagekits 11:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Cultural vandalism

Please stop trying to take things from the English. It won't work. TharkunColl

Hi Tark, what was taken? --sony-youth^talk 10:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, it doesn't matter. I think I may have misunderstood what was happening (a little too much sherry methinks). TharkunColl 18:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral name

I agree with where we are going but I feel it is important that we devise a neutral name to avoid this kind of silly bickering - I suggest theses possibilities: Full breakfast, fry-up, fried breakfast ... or my personal favourite Cooked breakfast which is neutral, descriptive and is in common usage.Abtract 18:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My perspective too. Full breakfast would be my preference as it is common use and mirrors the "national" names. Breakfast fry up was shot-down for WP:COMMONNAME - fair enough, I suppose. However, is it a cook breakfast or the cook breakfast, that is, are there other "cooked breakfasts"? --sony-youth^talk 20:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why this article is currently called Full Breakfast. It is always referred to as a Full English or a Full English Breakfast in my experience (extensively in Britain and occasionally on the continent). Is the term "Full Breakfast" an Americanism? --Tortoise74 14:00, 01 June 2007 (UTC)

See the first reference in the article. Name varies depending on the country in which it is served in. The neutral name stops the warring and petty squabbles about what makes an Irish breakfast, Ulster Fry, Scotch brakfast or English breakfast different from eachother. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

But no-one anywhere calls it a 'full breakfast', as far as I know. That's a nonsense name. You might as well call it a Bergman's Irregular. Why not 'Fry-Up', which is a legitimate neutral name? AndrewXyz 23:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Support Good bit of quality chat on this issue it seems! I think anybody after a Saturday night on the Ran-dan needs a bit of sustenance to see them through sunday wherever they're hailing fae. Maybe National speciality sections might be the thing in this article. Slan Brendandh 00:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete this article Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms

"Full breakfast" is a neoligism. Jooler 21:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The BBC would disagree. As would hotels and caterers both in the UK and Ireland. It is also called such colloquially, as can be evidienced on flickr[3][4]. Hardly a neologism, then.

From WP:NEO:

"Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is original research — we don't do that here at Wikipedia."

Thankfully this is not the case with "Full breakfast" as we have photographs, hotels, caterers and major media outlets telling us exactly what it is. --sony-youth^talk 07:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Context is everything - many of the hits are using the words "full breakfast" in a different context eg "full breakfast menu" - "full breakfast selection" "full breakfast range" etc. Is this a "Full Irish/English breakfast?" or this this or this etc. One example from your list for the UK says "A full breakfast, either cooked or continental, is included in your stay". I would say the the majority of links found on Google for "full breakfast" do not specifically refer to the type of breakfast mentioned here, but just a large breakfast, or a large choice of breakfast. Jooler 23:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Great work, Jooler! You linked to three pages and asked if I would call what's described on them as a "full breakfast"? On one of them, they say, "A generous full breakfast is served each day in the dining room" and accompany this with a photograph of a plate full of fried bacon, fried eggs and toast served with potato wedges. To answer your question, yes, that is exactly the kind of breakfast we are talking about here. On the next page, they have a description of what they call a "Typical Full Breakfast:", which, leaving out choice of drinks (coffee, juice, etc.), is fried bacon, sausages and scrambled eggs accompanied by toast or (since this is an American B&B) muffins. Wow, yeah! That too is the kind of breakfast we are discussing here. On the final page you link to, they describe a "full breakfast" as containing bacon, sausages, eggs and bread, with which they also serve Belgian waffles and pancakes - mmm ... yummy! And - yes! That is just the kind of breakfast we are talking about here.

Thank you for all of these great links! Along with the BBC description of a "full breakfast", they should serve to put to rest any argument that the term is a neologism or uncommon. Cheers! --sony-youth^talk 16:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the Google results, what we are discussing here is a "full breakfast", not a "full breakfast buffet", "full breakfast selection", "full breakfast range" etc. But, just glancing through the top results for these, I notice the these results also describe a "full breakfast" as being the kind of breakfast we are describing here. For example, the top hit for "full breakfast selection" describes this breakfast as being in the "full breakfast selection" and contrasts this to a continental breakfast. For "full breakfast buffet", the results describe also a breakfast made-up of eggs, bacon, sausages and toast (served with varying local additions, of course), as do the search results for "full breakfast range." Wow! Thanks. I'm sure these results will bring up even more great sources to evidence "full breakfast" being what we are talking about. Once, again - cheers! --sony-youth^talk 17:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Another good place to look is Google books. For example from Lonely Planet's "Britain":

"If you stay in B&Bs or vitis café during your visit to Britain, as your surely will, you'll just as surely come across the phenomenon known as the 'full breakfast'. This usually consissts of bacon, sausages, egg, tomatoes, mushrooms, baked beans and fried bread. In B&Bs its preceded by cereals, served with tea or coffee, and followed by toast, butter, jam and marmalade. In northern Britain (if you're really lucky) you might be served with black pudding - a mixture of meat, blood and fat, served in slices.

"If you don't feel like eating half a farmyard, it's quiet OK to ask for just the egg and tomatoes. In Scotland you might get oatcakes instead of fried bread. Some B&Bs and hotels offer other alternatives such as kippers (smoked fish) or a 'continental breakfast' - which completely omits the cooked stuff, and may add something really exotic like croissants or fresh fruit."

Well, that's pretty unequivocal, eh? --sony-youth^talk 18:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The specific mention of Scotland proably precluded the use of the term "Full English" for politically correct reasons. Jooler 20:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Potato wedges do not appear in an English breakfast. But they are sauteed potatoes anyway. (called Skillet potatoes on that page). The picture (more clearly seen here) doesn't have bacon on it, it is the 'Ham and Egg Baskets' described on the page. Secondly the other pages describe all of the foods that make up their "full breakfast buffet" which includes some foods found in an English breakfast just as I described above. Jooler 20:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

So that's ham not bacon? Reminds me of an episode from the Simpsons:

Homer Simpson: Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. Lisa, honey, are you saying you're never going to eat any animal again? What about bacon?

Lisa Simpson: No.

Homer Simpson: Ham?

Lisa Simpson: No.

Homer Simpson: Pork chops?

Lisa Simpson: Dad! Those all come from the same animal!

Homer Simpson: [Chuckles] Yeah, right Lisa. A wonderful, magical animal.

This is truly tedious, Jooler. I have provided amble evidence to prove that the neither the culinary, catering or hospitality industries nor their customers nor the breakfast-eating public see any difference between Full English and Full Irish breakfasts etc. and that "Full Breakfast" is a common and well-understood name that covers both. Do you have any sources to prove otherwise? --sony-youth^talk 22:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Ham isn't bacon. Ham is from the leg of a pig. Bacon is from the belly (streaky bacon [pretty much ubiquitous for bacon found in the US]), side (middle bacon) or back (back bacon [called Canadian bacon in the US] ). The curing process is different for thr two cuts. Ham and eggs is well-known breakfast dish in the US but hardly ever encountered as a breakfast meal on this side of the pond. You haven't provided any such evidence, only that 'full breakfast' can mean whatever you like to mean. Jooler 19:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW I mentioned this before - In Mark Kurlansky's book on Cod (which is brilliant BTW) says "Until recently, cod roe was the central feature of an Irish breakfast. Most Irish today do not eat cod roe for breakfast because, though they do not seem to realise it, what is called an Irish breakfast is increasingly similar to English breakfast. In the old Irish breakfast, the roe was sliced in half and fried in bacon fat or simply boiled." Jooler 19:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The ham/bacon reference was because the definition of a Full XXX Breakfast that we have is a cooked breakfast consisting mainly of pork and eggs and accompanied by various local delicacies - thus ham/bacon really wouldn't matter. The Kurlansky ref is interesting although I have NEVER heard of anyone eating fish for breakfast, even the idea of kippers I had always thought of as quintessentially English. Also the Irish variety is one of the earliest references we have for, and that was of a person eating pork and eggs for breakfast - not fish - in 1904.

The evidence I provided was for the the BBC, Lonely Planet, etc. using the term Full Breakfast to describe what we are talking about here. I also directed you to menus describing the kind of breakfast we are talking about here as a "Full Breakfast", usually in contrast to continental breakfasts - as would be expected. You also pointed to breakfasts described as "Full Breakfasts." I looked at these and they in fact turned out to be just that what we are talking about here.

Anyway, I'm sorry, but from my count 7 contributer to this page favor the merge, while 3 disagree. I'm going to go ahead with it, I don't see the harm, I think it will only benefit everyone. Full English/Full Irish/etc. are still acknowledge as the "normal" name depending on where it is served, but in fairness, as you know, asking for a "full breakfast" would also produce the same result in any hotel or cafe. --sony-youth^talk 20:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• One of the things your BBC article failed to point out was that was that the tattooist was Welsh. Once again political correctness might explain the absence of the word 'English' from the article, unlike the Guardian's article on the same story Jooler 23:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Where are these menus?
• See above regarding "mainly of pork"
• While we have [5]- no one seems to have thought it necessary to create [6]
• Breakfasts in Ireland tend to be fairly substantial and may include such Irish specialities as kippers
• Real Irish Cookery : Such classic recipes included ... Buttered Kippers

Well Irish cuisine seems to be a bit like Irish Stew, you can put what you like in it and still call it "traditional". Of course Kippers originate from the North-East of England but have found most favour (or commercial success) in the Isle of Man and coastal Scotland and the above references are of course spurious. It just goes to show that you can prove whatever you like if you find a reference on Google. In any case your mention of Kippers is off the point. Kurlansky was referring to Cod Roe. I have to say though that although I'm sure that Kurlansky's book was well-researched, I've never managed to Google up anything that supports the above statement. Jooler 23:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Because we can always create redirects for all the other names to here, and mention the different names in the article. It seems a bit daft to have several different articles for more-or-less the same thing. But that's just my opinion:)Merkinsmum 15:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This has always been my position - but I am of the opinion that we should use the most common name which has been establish for a long time to be English breakfast. It just seems that political correctness and national pride of some others seems to get in the way of choosing the most appropriate title. When I have stated this before I have been accused of being xenophobic and anti-Irish. As it happens both of my parents and my sister were born in Ireland. So please - no more of that. Jooler 23:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has accused you of any such thing here, so please don't drag that brush behind you for fear you may be tempted to unfairly paint contributors here with it. --sony-youth^talk 07:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

See ][Talk:Irish_breakfast#The_Term_."Irish_Breakfast."]] Jooler 09:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That was 2 years ago by one anonymous IP that has not been contributed from since last July. If you were hurt, I don't blame you, but please, be careful where you swing that brush. --sony-youth^talk 09:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Merging

Ok, in light of what appears to be 8-3 in favour of merging. I'm going to go ahead with it. --sony-youth^talk 16:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... I see a count of 3 in support of merging on the list above, and 3 for not merging. Jooler 22:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The opinions are spread out across the page but easily visible:

For:

sony-youth

Hughsheehy

Brendandh

Ben W Bell - so long as Ulster Fry was not merged also

Keith - so long as Uslter Fry was not merged also

Abtract

TharkunColl - initially opposed, but, if I understand correctly, now supportive

Merkinsmum

Against:

DGG

Johnbod

Jooler

--sony-youth^talk 08:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it looked to me like you called for a vote and normally people put votes in the support oppose section. Opinions are not votes. I think you characterisation of Tharkuncoll's view is a little presumptive. Jooler 09:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: TarkunColl - possibly. --sony-youth^talk 09:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Objection to merge

Just registering my objection to this article having been merged. It is now too broad and messy. zoney ♣ talk 00:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I object to the merge. I looked up full Irish Breakfast expecting to see all the items listed for a full Irish Breakfast and now I see the merged article. Way too complex. It could have been kept very simple as an encyclopedic reference could be. Now one has to wade through a lot of unnecessary b.s. to find out what a full Irish Breakfast is. In the end there was a link to off Wikipedia that explained it. So now Wikipedia is served beteer by linking to other websites? Mfields1 01:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Merger = mistake. 69.116.168.77 (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC) wepesq

Gap

Whats the point in the big gap at the top of the article???????

fixed - a template was at fault. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I also object to any merger - The list of ingredients for English Breakfasts and Ulster Frys are different enough to warrant separate entries —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dionysus99 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ulster Fry - comment re merger proposal

One perfectly valid point made about the Ulster fry in opposition to its inclusion in the "Full Breakfast" page also applies to the "full breakfast"s in the rest of Ireland and IIRC in Britain too, i.e. these "breakfasts" are also widely eaten throughout the day. AFAIK, it's really only restricted to breakfast service in hotels or guesthouses and is quite likely to be a lunch/dinner in normal households. Perhaps the Ulster Fry could be merged into the main article, but it would certainly require some re-write to stress the fact that the "Full x Breakfast" title is generally restricted to use in catering contexts and that at home it's "a fry", or an "Ulster Fry, or a "fry up" or whatever. Hughsheehy 10:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Very good point. I concur with your conclusions...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 08:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, heres an idea, call it "Breakfast", make the article ridiculously long, then I'll delete everything, and you can all shut the fuck up. Bismark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.115.233 (talk) 16:42, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a whole lot of nonsense trying to merge all these variations of the fried/full/heart-attack breakfast onto one page. It just results in a messy hodge-podge article trying to cover all the quirks and idiosyncracies. Far better to detail under each commonly used title what usually passes for a breakfast under that title. We should re-instate Irish breakfast rather than now merge Ulster fry too. I mean kippers should not be mentioned in the same article as an Irish breakfast. Ugh. zoney ♣ talk 15:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A hotel I worked in (in Mayo) used to serve kippers as standard with an Irish breakfast. See the post by Jooler above about Mark Kurlansky writing that cod was "central" to an Irish breakfast until "recently," too. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It has to be one or the other - you can't merge them all but one, logic should tell us to either merge all cooked breakfasts, or we seperate them all. Gazh 07:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say it perfectly reasonably to refer to the variations in a parent article like this, but not to attempt to cover them all in a single article - instead the text here and brief references should link to relevant sub-articles that permit extended discourse in a more organised way on what is meant by each title. zoney ♣ talk 11:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Regional Variations

Is it not time to insert a section on regional variations of the 'Full English' having had a Irish breakfast or two, it is evident that there are differences. Scotch breakfasts have similar local trends. North/South English have variations. There may be others (London Grill etc).

Where did baked beans come from on a Full English anyway - it always feels like they are an add on due to lack of imagination.

A history of the evolution of the fry up might be an important section too.