Talk:Sausage sizzle

Comments
you're kidding me, right? this is clearly a description of a hot dog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.86.120.204 (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As strange as it may be, the term sausage sizzle is commonly used in New Zealand (not sure about Aussie) for fund raising by sports and social clubs whereby barbequed sausages and sliced onion, enclosed in a slice of bread, coated with tomato or mustard sauce are sold. Usually for $NZ1-2. Whether this is notable enough for Wiki is another question and the article is pretty useless at the moment. NealeFamily (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The term is definitely used in Australia in a similar form. (see for example: http://www.electionsausagesizzle.com.au ) ...however, I would suggest that "sausage sizzle" is less an item of food, and more of an event (where sausages and BBQ'd and served in bread - a dish I'd not considered to have a special name for!). Any other thoughts on this? --.../Nemo (talk • Contributions) 06:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What kind of sausage? Hot dog, breakfast sausage? or a fancy bratwurst or kielbasa? Don't you have hot dog buns there? Or is this a super cheap anonymous tube-shaped meat product on something more air than flour? Rmhermen (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sausage? ...pretty much the most generic/cheapest available (I'd never even heard of "Breakfast sausage" as a type till your comment :) Bread... pretty much the most generic/cheapest available... (loaf of sliced white bread). Yes, Australia has hot dog buns, but this is not the page about hot dogs. Sausage sizzles are a simpler dish. :) --.../Nemo (talk • Contributions) 02:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Australian sausage, not a hot dog. completely different type of meat in a tube — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.226.60 (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Democracy sausage
Is it worth adding a section about the election day "democracy sausage"? Over 3,500 mentions by reliable news sources. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The article already has "and are especially popular at supermarkets, schools, sports clubs, and political events such as elections" with cites. Feel free to be bold and expand on that! :) .../NemoThorx (talk • Contributions) 02:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the addition of mentions about the "democracy sausage" phenomenon is warranted because of the recent popularity and presence of the sausage sizzle in media, including twitter and major news outlets. 106.69.76.199 (talk) 02:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge
There seem to be more articles about election-day sausage sizzles every year, but are they really notable enough for their own article? It seems like merging the contents of the "democracy sausage" article into this one would be an improvement.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  16:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * No objections here. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I've advocated being bold with regard to a 'Democracy Sausage' section within this page previously. It's only today that I see that democracy sausage has it's own page too! I support the merge. --.../ NemoThorx (talk • Contributions) 00:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge: With 'Democracy Sausage' as 2016 'Word of the Year', I am changing vote. Democracy Sausage is sufficiently notable in my view, and should continue as it's own page. --.../NemoThorx (talk • Contributions) 01:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I support a merge. &lt;Karlww(contribs&#124;talk) 19:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I support a merge in principal, but I would like to see a large section on "Sausage sizzle" titled "Democracy sausage", and I would like to see it include most of the information currently included in the article "Democracy Sausage". Doonagatha (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge. I think Democracy Sausage is notable enough on its own. The Democracy Sausage article also covers cake stalls and electoral facts that don't really fit here. -- 120.18.154.184 (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge: the term "Democracy Sausage" is Australia's Word of the Year for 2016, as determined by the Australian National Dictionary Centre based at the Australian National University.


 * Support merge: I agree with Doonagatha's comments above - create a section on the Democracy Sausage within the Sausage Sizzle article. They're basically the same thing. The opening sentence of the Democracy Sausage article even defines it as "a fundraising sausage sizzle". Meticulo (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge The democracy sausage, as others have said, is a separate, though related, phenomenon which has received significant coverage in its own right. A large section about election-day traditions in this article would probably end up becoming tangential and given undue weight. Triptothecottage 23:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support merge: Rmacfarl (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge As others have said, it's a phrase referring to a unique modern cultural tradition that certainly has plenty of independent references (and being named Word of the Year in 2016 certainly underlines this point). While it certainly is a type of sausage sizzle, it's quite different in nature and cultural significance from a general private sausage sizzle or regular fundraising. -- Rob.au (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Dubious about the terminology
I'm from Melbourne and I have never heard the term "sausage sizzle" applied to the food item itself, only to an event where sausages in bread are being cooked and served on a large scale – usually as a fundraiser, possibly just to feed a lot of people at once, but not on a smaller or informal scale. (A family meal of barbecued sausages would be a barbecue, not a sausage sizzle.)

Is this state-specific phrasing? Changing usage over time? Limited anecdotal reference, either by me or by the article author? 2001:8004:1203:20EB:C462:B3C2:F5B6:7ABD (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * My experience is the same as yours, but I noticed that the claim is sourced, followed that source, and it seems it's true for some parts of Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Citations (and is another really needed?).
On 21 May 2022 while reading this article I noticed that a "citation needed" template was tagged against the following text in the section 'Prevalence/Bunnings Warehouse': "...considerable media coverage was devoted to the question of whether Bunnings would export the tradition.."

Being a good little editor, I citing two relevant references to supporting articles, one by the popular social media outlet Buzzfeed and one by the UK newspaper The Sun. At the time of publishing I was propmoted with the warning message that an unreliable source was cited, which I believed was a reference to Buzzfeed and thius deleted this, leaving - what I believe - just a single reference to the article by The Sun, and which did NOT result in a similar warning message appearing when I saved it. However, the following day my edit was reverted stating that an unreliable source.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with this. While this publisher (i.e. The Sun) is tabloid press it IS a major media outlet in the UK and should therefore IMO be considered a reliable source. If I somehow left the reference to Buzzfeed in the amended text I apologise, but if not, then quite frankly I believe it is an overreaction to reverse the amendment. Personally I may not read The Sun but if we exclude this publisher then IMO it is no different than if we exclude other publishers such as The Guardian, which is renowned for its leftist views.

However, do we even need a citation against this part of the sentence? After all, at the end of this sentence there are already three existing citations to articles relating to this subject. I therefore propose that the tag to the stated template is removed, as IMO any further citations are unnecessary. Blammy1 (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * See Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The Sun is deprecated, which basically means it shouldn't be used as a source. Wikipedia editors have come to a consensus that the Sun is unreliable and prone to making stuff up. BuzzFeed actually might be ok, depending on what the article is. The reason you didn't get that message the second time you pressed publish changes is because that message only appears once. I've reworded the article anyway to avoid the need for a citation needed. Steelkamp (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)