Jump to content

Talk:McDonald's/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Mc-cafe

Somebody please figure out when mc cafe was actually introduced... It says 1993 in melbourne on this page but on this page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_menu_items (around half-way) it says Sydney in 1991... LightningEdge 07:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Too Much Time On Your Hands

  Good gravy, why all the hubub about defaming and defacing and pissing on this and supporting that? Its a resteraunt, Americans today have too much time on their hands. In Soviet Russia (hahaha.) you went into a diner, and it was a miserable little dungeon where the waitress would take your order, scurry off to the back and you'd recieve some (typically) deplorable food. McDonalds opened up there and it was fantastic. They had standardised service and food, the young folk at the counter would serve you food wit h a smile, and at a good if not slightly expensive price.

  Lay of McDonalds, focus on your own life, you don't know how good you've got it, quit finding things to piss about and just enjoy life.

=

Useless Utah picture should be removed

Why is the useless picture of the Utah McDonalds there? Is there any reason why, is that McDonalds special or a landmark or something? There are enough pictures in this article as it is, could someone please remove it? 65.30.45.235 06:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  • It serves to illustrate the "typical" McDonald's. What's wrong with that? Or do you have some beef with Utah? Wahkeenah 09:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Wahkeenah. There's the unique Japan McDonald's, there's the immediately recognizable Times Square McDonald's, then there is what most McDonald's resturants actually look like.--Attitude2000 14:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Rodent removed

There was a picture of a fluffy rodent (not sure what it was) and a caption "One of the commonly used meats in the sandwiches". I removed it. Since there seems to be so much vandalism of this page, maybe it should be locked.Crimson Shadow 19:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

edited out spam

someone put some very trash about the grilled veggie melt sandwich into the article and I deleted it, Im posting this so that the article can be locked if it happens again - Konulu

The "Supersize Me" copycats

In the section describing Spurlock's month of eating only McDonalds, the editor wrote that other people did this without any bad effects via frequently exercising. This is not believable... I'd think the constant barrage of fat and starch would be very poor fuel for working out and would most likely tire a person to where exercise would be very uncomfortable. Where is the source for this statement? -Usernamefortonyd

No, you misread. They ate at McDonald's but simply chose their food more wisely ([1]), such as eating more muffins, salads, etc, rather than the constant diet of Supersize meals with sugared soft drinks that Spurlock eats in the film. ProhibitOnions 12:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
They also exersised more off camera. Spurlock did no exersise and tried to limit himself to 5,000 steps a day.--michael180 17:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This entire article reads like a corporate handout. Among many omissions, the article relegates any criticism of McDonald's to the end of the article, with no mention at all in the opening paragraph, and further, this section of criticism is preceded by a "challenges" section that, I think it is fair to say, is very sympathetic to McDonald's "plight." For instance, I just added that McDonald's was sued for marketing fries with beef in them to vegetarians, and no longer is able to market _any_ of its products as vegetarian, whereas previously the section claimed that McDonald's has "cater[ed] for local tastes" with "vegetarian burgers," which is a strictly false statement. I'm not sure if my edit is entirely satisfactory... but a more fair article is deserved at any rate. (Please note that I'm not necessarily requesting a NPOV title at top, as this tag is, I think, overused on wikipedia.) --12.210.202.50 10:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes i agree:

-"Although McDonald's did not invent the hamburger or french fries, its name has become nearly synonymous with both."

Is this statement really correct? If not then someone should remove it because in Europe people DONT have that high thaughts conserning McDonalds.

Please sign your entries with four tildes ~~~~. I think you misread this statement; it's not praise.
As far as the anonymous user's comments go, I don't think the article is particularly pro-McDonald's. McD's has vegetarian burgers that cater for local tastes in places like India; the article does not imply they have them everywhere. The edit about "no longer is able to market _any_ of its products as vegetarian" was removed because it is, at best, ambiguous. The beef-fat-in-fries scandal was already mentioned in the article, as well as McDonald's Urban legends. There is also far more space devoted to criticism of McDonald's than there is to its arguable benefits. (For the record, I'm a strict vegetarian and never eat there.) ProhibitOnions 12:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't see where it would be fit to reinsert it, but no McDonald's food is marketed as strictly vegetarian. See http://www.mcdonalds.com/usa/eat/nutrition_info/nutrition_faq/vegetarian.html 12.222.158.49 10:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
In the United States, at least, the site you are looking at. This is mentioned in the text already. ProhibitOnions 10:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Page one

It has been repeatedly pointed out to me that Ray Kroc was not ever in the business of making hamburgers, he was in the business to sell as many hamburgers as possible, and that later he was in the business of training others to use the same system in return for a share of their profits. Should this information be in it's own entry for Ray?

The words "notoriety" and "inflated" appear without justification in this article. If they are true, could somebody please justify them? -- Heron

Moved out statement

I moved this out of the article until somebody can flesh it out:

Mc Donalds was also recently (2002-2003) sued by this man that "blames Mc Donalds because he's obese" because "nobody" has told him McDonald's food gets you fat. Which the court said that he has no real case into this because "Nobody obligates him to eat at McDonalds.
More info on this soon.

Dachshund 16:11 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)


Parenthetical insertion

Removed the parenthetical insertion from the following sentence, because it's not accurate:

The first restaurant named McDonald's (unrelated to the current McDonald's chain until Ray Kroc entered the scene later)

By any definition of "related" that I can think of, the first McDonald's has a very strong relation to the current McDonald's chain. It was the prototype. Dachshund 23:55 25 May 2003 (UTC)


MacDonald's is the wrong spelling

Removed "MacDonald's" spelling from intro. Is this a non-english spelling, or a typo? Dachshund 12:48 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I see it occasionally on various websites, don't know why. Pizza Puzzle

This spelling is common in Asian countries (not officially, of course) to aid in pronunciation. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 21:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The family name is more commonly spelled MacDonald, particularly in Scotland where it originates, which is proably where the confusion comes from. I'd treat it as a typo. 86.0.203.120 00:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Pret A Manger

"In addition, the Company operates other restaurant brands, such as ........... Pret A Manger. "

AFAIAA McDonalds doesn't have a controlling interest in Pret A Manger, they have a 33% stake which was sold to McDonalds so that Macdonalds could help Pret break into the US market through their first New york store. I'm not sure it's really justifiable to say that McDonalds operates Pret stores. Mintguy 02:29 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Apostrophie

Why the apostrophe?2toise 17:18, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

McDonald's (with the apostrophe) seems to be the correct spelling. It's used everywhere, including the company's website. Dachshund

McDonald's in shopping malls

The discussion of restaurant types seems to overlook outlets within shopping malls and larger stores (unless this is what it meant by "select urban locations"?). Before I fix the article I want to see if there are any additional store types we're overlooking. -- stewacide 21:40, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, yes, good. Walmart should be singled out somewhere in that. Frankly I don't know what the original section was saying, it was so jumbled. I think that's all, stewacide. Theme restaurants might also fit in, but I doubt it. - user:zanimum

This is a bad statement

"Tastes like shit"??? Is this really necessary? I vote to rewrite this line more professionally. - user:Pacific1982

I've decided to be bold and revert that anonymous edit. Anthony DiPierro 01:20, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

McDonald's Slang

Is it useful to list slang terms for McDonald's in languages like Filipino, Japanese, and German, given that this is the English Wikipedia? I don't doubt that these terms are popular but I don't think we give slang in other languages for other articles. The names may be relevant to the article but I'm not sure that they should be in listed in bold along with other common names. Wmahan. 22:51, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)

Coca-Cola

Does McD's really sell COCA-cola? I thought they sold their own brand of cola. But I'll leave that to a McD's lover to investigate. .... Well actually, lol yeah Mcdonalds is partners with the coca-cola company. Just to add something on to this, they are also partners with Disney Land. All along the food booths at the theme park in Florida, U.S. are McD fries. :)

-Yeah, Coke, that's what I clean up at the condiment counter every time I'm on lobby duty !!!  :-P Haha.

Unsupported Info

I removed the following line which was tacked on to the "External links" section of the article:

A deadly shooting spree happend at Mc Donald's when James Huberty gunned down 21 people at the San Ysidro McDonald's on Matao Herrera's last day on earth.

I removed it because (1) it was in the wrong place and (2) it was irrelevant and (3) it wasn't clear:

  1. It should be in the proper section of the article. Don't just tack information onto the very end of an article.
  2. A shooting that took place in a McDonald's doesn't really relate to McDonalds as a corporation, but just as a gathering place and is really more about shooting sprees than the restaurant itself.
  3. Who is Matao Herrera and what does s/he have to do with James Huberty? For that matter, who's James Huberty? This statement needs a lot more information to be useful at all.

If someone cares to, they can put it in the correct article, but only do so if you add a lot more supporting information. —Frecklefoot 13:48, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

In answer to number 3, this does happen to be a comprehensive encyclopedia. Of course, considering I'm writing this nearly 2 years after the comment in question, the McDonald's Massacre article may not have been there. But Matao Herrera was an 11-year old victim in the shooting, and James Huberty was the killer.


Probably because it's irrelevant and poorly written. Linked, maybe, to McDonald's massacre or something similar.


  • The problem is that you are deleteing large portions of text when placing your info. You are also not placing the info int he appropriate place. Do you have a year for the incident and perhaps a google news article to back up the shootings? There is a history section that is ideal for anachronistically placing Mcdonalds related incedents.
  • The massacre happend on July 18, 1984.

Leading Fast Food Franchise?

Actually Subway (sandwich) has the most fast food sites in the United States. Goodralph 08:31, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure which part of text you think is wrong. We only ever says it's the world's largest fast food chain (which is true, I believe) and do not restrict attention to just the US. Pcb21| Pete 10:04, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Coffee scandal

I'm afraid I'm not convinced about the coffee scandal in the article. Yes, the situation was misrepresented (both as far as the cause and the damages). And yes, it was a thoroughly unfortunate situation. But despite a pretty slanted writeup, I still get the basic message: McDonalds was somehow wrong for serving coffee which was too hot to spill on one's crotch. Yes, maybe it was too hot for one's mouth, but the bottom line is that this nice old lady poured hot coffee on herself and then blamed the vendor. This is the moral equivalent of hitting one's thumb with a hammer and suing the hammer company because the hammer wasn't properly designed for hitting thumbs with. I think the reason there was such outrage about the case is because it forced Americans to realize that there's no such thing as personal responsibility anymore. Yes, McDonalds may make $1.3 million from coffee per day (though I expect that's gross, not net, which would be a nice little misrepresentation in itself), but that doesn't mean that everyone else is somehow entitled to that money. So, I remain unconvinced that this was somehow a triumph of justice, and not a gross miscarriage (is there any other kind?) -b

Not wanting to start a big argument over this (and this isn't the place, anyway), I'll just say there's a world of difference between a bit of pain from hot coffee, and third-degree burns from scalding coffee. sjorford (?!) 14:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I read a book by Greta Van Sustern (My turn from the bully pulpit) in which she goes into detail about this coffe burn business and, to me, McD's was in the wrongdoing more than most people know. They had 700+ complaints about coffee being too hot and people getting burned before this lady filed suit. All she asked for initially was for medical bills to be paid. She did not get all the money the media said she did. I was one of those that said she was at fault but now I think her fault was smaller and McD fault was more.

Should also point out that McDonald's serve or served their coffee c. 20 degrees Celsius hotter than other vendors or what you would make at home. As pointed out, McDonald's had received hundreds of complaints about this. If you serve something that can seriously injure people (and make no mistake, the lady in question was badly injured), particularly to a greater degree than competitors' similar products, repetedly ignore victims' complaints, and make no effort to address the product's faults or even warn people of the dangers, it's not really on to bleat about 'personal responsibility' when the inevitable happens. The suit was entirely justified, IMO. It's more the equivalent of hitting one's thumb with a hammer the manufacturer has, say, needly coated in a poisonous substance. FrFintonStack 03:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

How about a million dollars for everyone who has ever gotten sick from smoking? The idea is inherent risk, not just with this but anything. And how is hot coffee the equivalent of a maliciously poisoned hammer? --Ccosta 06:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The point is that it would make it more dangerous than one would reasonably expect a hammer to be, and more dangerous than competators' rival products, making it impossible to accurately assess the danger level it presents and thus to take responsibility for knowingly exposing oneself to it. I'm not inclined to support cases against the tobacco industry but if a particular cigarette manufacturer's products were more dangerous than that of their competators and they knew this but failed to inform their customers, I believe that that would provide good (legal and moral) ground for a suit. People ought to be responsible for the risks they expose themselves to, but only if they are equipped with the information necessary to accurately gauge those risk. FrFintonStack 01:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Despite the "brew-ha-ha", as I recall, she had tucked the coffee container between her legs to position it while paying for it, and it popped open. She bore some responsibility for this incident. Wahkeenah 08:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Mc Pizzas

Does anyone know about the personal pizzas Mc Donald's used to serve? barely anyone online (wich leads me to belive it might have just been a canadian thing) knows about them, I used to love them before they stopped serving...

They still sell them in Ohio by the Port Columbus Airport. 24.95.67.193

I wish someone had more information on the McPizza - googling on it didn't bring me anything more than vague references and urban legends.

I do know that the McPizza was not brought out in all North American or American restaurants, as the current entry claims. From what I remember, it was just brought out in certain test markets. I remember (and I could be wrong) seeing the McPizza at the rock-and-roll McDonald's in Chicago, right by the Hard Rock Cafe, and at the restaurant in Anaheim, right across the street from Disneyland.

I don't think the failure of the McPizza had to do with competition, as the current entry states, although I could be wrong. I always heard that the main problem was something to do with the prep time being too long, the holding time being too short, or both, or some other preparation problem that basically made the McPizza unmarketable within the constraints of the McDonald's system.

I'd really like to hear from someone with first-hand experience in this, though. --Jkonrath 14:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I remember that pizzas were on sale at selected locations in the UK when I was there on a trip in Spring 1993. If I remember well four varietes where available, but I do not remember which ones exactly. -- JK, 26 sep 2005

I do not remember much either about them, but I CAN say that McDonalds sold pizza in at least one location in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. I remember going there as a child. The pizzas were also available as a Happy Meal. You could get the Hamburger Happy Meal or the Pizza Happy Meal (don't remember if there were any other choices). Sorry I couldn't provide much, but the fact that they were available in Happy Meals could be added if it's not already? --SnakeSoldier 11:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

They sold the pizzas in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick (I remember them) and Ontario (my wife remembers them). I don't know about the "official" reasons for failure, but I do know I wasn't too happy with them: I found them to be *extremely* salty, and you could generally get better pizzas not very far away from most McDonald's restaurants in places I've lived. -- Kraigus 00:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I remeber McPizza in Canada. I worked for a smaller pizza chain and we were concerned that the McPizza was going to completely chain the industry. They even had a "Pizza Blimp" fly over Toronto. Their pizza was made on a par-cooked (partly cooked) pizza crust, then dressed and baked-off. Three major problems: 1. Operators had to spend money on new ovens and other equipment in order to sell it; 2. When the first box went through the drive-thru...they found out the drive-thru windows were too narrow (you had to turn the box on an angle to get it through the window). Rebuilding a drive-thru window runs between $10K and $30K brand new. McDonald's usually has more than 1 drive-thru...so that adds up; 3. Nobody bought them. My company was all worried about nothing.

Mc Job ref

I added the reference to McJob here simply because of the knee-jerk styled reaction the corp took to the word's addition to the M-W's dictionary. That is fleshed out in McWords, yes, but surely any event that causes a corporation to threaten legal action should at least have a "see also" mention in their article.

sorry... forgot to sign that Arcuras 03:10, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Does McD's really sell COCA-cola, as the article suggests? I thought it sold its own brand of cola. I'll leave this to a McD's lover to investigate.--Publunch 14:41, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While not being a "McD's Lover" (having not eaten there in 5+ years), I can tell you that McD's does indeed sell coca-cola, and all it's other pop-style beverages are made/owned by the Coke company Arcuras 22:02, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

'McF*ck' and 'F*ckDonalds' are Polish slang for McDonalds?

I'm not Polish, but that doesn't sound like Polish to me... rmbh

...I'm going to go ahead and remove them. rmbh 22:27, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Criticism section

I read in the criticism section the unsupported statement that many of the claims in the controversial Greenpeace leaflet turned out to be true. Which claims, and who decided that they were true? My impression of the trial verdict is that the judge concluded that most of the leaflet was libelous, and that only a few of its claims were true. He didn't make the defendants seem honest at all. So I struck this clause from the article. I would like to see credible references in support of it. --Greg Kuperberg 19:33, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The information you're seeking is found on McLibel case. Arcuras 22:49, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Now wait just a minute here! The other Wikipedia page is no better than this one. This claim that "many of the criticisms were found to be fair" is not remotely fair pool. I'm looking at the pamphlet right now [2]. It's a grab bag of irresponsible, politically radical accusations. It is plainly mendacious, and I can see why McDonald's lost its case. I don't even like McDonalds restaurants or their parent company, but still the case is plain as day. The fact that deep in the middle of this grab bag there actually are a few damaging truths about McDonald's doesn't change it. The first point that the judge acknowledged, that McDonald's gets children to beg their parents to take them there, is halfway down the pamphlet. That does not mean that "many of the criticisms were found to be fair".

As written, this section is partisan flak. Sure, it may have been a Pyrrhic victory for McDonald's, but not because the pamphlet had merit. The side with truth behind it, especially if it is as unsympathetic as the McDonald's corporation, loses in the court of public opinion all the time. Again, I have nothing against criticism of McDonald's -- I could write a few myself -- but this stab at it is dishonest.

--Greg Kuperberg 02:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alright... if you look at the media page here, you can see what appears to be archives of every media article about the event. Quite a few of the ones dated around June of 1997 (the time of the verdict) all make mention of the fact that the findings of the court were damaging to MikkieDs. Many of them also note that the reason why the pair lost the case was because the judge found that while three of their points on the pamphlet had merit and were true (low wages, cruelty to animals, and exploitation of children), the rest were false... and thus they were found guilty of Libel. That is what the phrase many of the criticisms were found to be fair is trying to say. Granted, the wording isn't the best, but it does carry the right intention. Switching it about to say many of the original claims were found to be accurate by the judge might be better and cut down on the confusion.
Unfortunitly, these articles are all quite old, and don't appear upon the original media websites. However, through the wonders of google, I have found duplicates and references to these original articles on other websites. Besides which, if these articles (attributed to fairly well known news-sources) were comepletely fabricated, the supposed authors and papers would be up in arms over the misrepresentation of their business.
These prove that the articles exist, at the very least. What's important is that the judge found the pair guilty of libel, but also ruled that the three above mentioned claims directed at MikkieD's had some basis in fact. Honestly, I could have told the judge that... I watched a friend of mine work there for two years. He never made more then 50 cents over minimum wage, and all he gained was about 150 lbs from eating lunch there every time he worked. But I digress... anyway, I'm more interested in getting this right then anything else.
(EDIT) I found another, much more recent, article about the McLibel case, which mentions the previous verdict. It can be found here. Reference is specifically in paragraphs 13/14.
Arcuras 03:54, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

No, you still aren't getting my point. First, at a technical level many is wrong, and accurate is also an overstatement. What the judge actually meant is that a small portion of the pamphlet was true. I can see that the popular press said that the case was David vs. Goliath, that many articles said that much of what was in the pamphlet was proven true, and that the press self-referentially declared the case a Pyrrhic victory. But Wikipedia should be held to a higher standard than the popular press.

Which brings me to the real point. The judge not only concluded that the defendants and the authors of the pamphlet were partly wrong, but that they were liars. That is what it means to be convicted of libel. Again, the popular press --- in every country, not just Britain --- is more interested in the reputation of famous people and large corporations than in the reputations of their accusers. The Wikipedia article, as written, associates public victory with intellectual and moral victory. It says that Morris and Steel may have been overpowered in court, but their pamphlet is still morally valuable. That is not how the judge saw it, and not how I see it either.

--Greg Kuperberg 14:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What about a Arguments in defense of McDonald's section to balance the criticism section?

No, I think that the problem is that a number of comments in this article, especially in the criticism section, jump to conclusions. Some of it also has a sophomoric tone. It should be cut back to something more neutral, not answered with rebuttals. --Greg Kuperberg 15:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Clearly the article as it stands is factually incorrect. What is wrong with just stating that out of such-and-such many claims, three were found correct and the others were found libelous? We can even write what the correct claims were and give examples of the libelous ones. But as the article currently stands, saying "many" claims were found "fair" or whatever is clearly wrong as Arcuras has demonstrated by his/her comments, despite finding that wording accurate for some reason. --C S 02:50, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

McDonald's and its founding

Contrary to what the article states, the first McDonald's store opening under Ray Kroc and his "Speedee" system occurred on April 15th, 1955 in Des Plaines, IL. Not March 2.

McDonalds and war

i,I removed the edit that claimed that the bombing of Serbia did not count as a contradiction of Thomas Friedman's idea that no two countries with a McDonalds have gone to war. While NATO isn't a country, the general idea that he espoused that countries with McDonalds don't want war turned out to be false in Yugoslavia. Even Friedman himself had to list Yugoslavia as an exception to his rule in a Barnes and Noble interview. --Beirne 12:25, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Pork Nuggets/McNuggets

I know they serve "Pork Nuggets" in Chinese McDonalds, but does anyone know if they are called "McNuggets" and whether they supplement or replace the Chicken McNuggets? Without knowing this, I feel I don't have enough information to add this fact to the "International Variation" chapter. --Feitclub 21:11, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I work at a Mcdonalds resturant, and about two years ago, the chicken inside the nuggets were not all white meat, but they werent various parts either. Then they changed them to all white meat and even worte it on the nugget box. I dont think the name ever changed, just that a sub title was added.

Dont see number of employees

Is it just me, because I don't seem to see the number of employees in the infobox. The code "num_employees" is there but why doesnt it show up in the article?

I didnt see it mentioned either. (64.12.117.10 04:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC))Ann

The first McDonald's in Italy

The first McDonald's restaurant in Italy were opened in Bolzano-Bozen and not in the Spanish Steps district of Rome (it was the second one). It's really that now the Bolzano McDonald's is closed (I hope it will be soon re-opened), but it was the first in Italy... On 8th november of 2005 a new Big McDonalds opend in Bolzano, it is the biggest and newest Restaurant of all Italy.

Sorry, but the Rome McDonald's has a plaque in it that says unequivocally that it is the first in Italy. I can upload a picture of this if need be. I have changed the text to indicate this. ProhibitOnions 22:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Plaque in Rome McDonald's stating that it is the first in Italy
Since the text has once again been changed to claim that Bolzano was first, would any potential reverter please take a look at the image of the plaque I mentioned, mounted on the wall of the Rome McDonald's. It reads: "The First McDonald's Restaurant in ITALY - Opened 20 March 1986 in Rome - McDonald's System of Europe." I hope this settles the issue. ProhibitOnions 23:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The first Mcdonald's in Italy was opened in Bolzano this according to the McDonald's Italia website Quote:"1985, McDonald's arriva in Italia e a fine anno inaugura il primo ristorante a Bolzano. Pochi mesi dopo apre anche il ristorante in Piazza di Spagna a Roma" It says something like this: 1985, McDonald's entered Italy and at the end of 1985 it opened it's first restaurant in Bolzano. A couple of months later McDonald's opened it's second restaurant in Rome --> Piazza di Spagna.

So the plaque is wrong in some way.

Please provide a link to this text. I have not found anything on the McDonald's Italia site to support the claim that Bolzano was the first. ProhibitOnions 09:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McDonald%27s/Archive_1&oldid=1137000258"