Talk:Fast food in the United States and Canada

Fast food or restaurant

When does a fast food chain become a restaurant chain? At first I though this would be an easy question to answer. Generally I would regard a fast food establishment as one I have to queue (line-up) to order and get my food before sitting down or taking away. However most Pizza chains are waitress service or with burgers how do you define companies like Red Robin, fast food or restaurant? --Traveler100 (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't think of a good pizzeria as fast food, exactly, but Pizza Hut is. Fast food to me usually contains a value judgment that it's fast but probably not good, though there are exceptions. I frankly don't frequent fast food places (I don't consider my local Xian Famous Foods noodle shop fast food, even though it's a small chain and doesn't have full table service, and I definitely don't consider the local Polish lunch counter where pierogies are boiled to order fast food), and I think Red Robin isn't in New York, so I haven't seen it in a while, but it sure looks like fast food to me.

The question is, for this article is the definition the type (rather than quality) of food, i.e. burgers and pizza, or the method of serving, i.e counter service or also table service? --Traveler100 (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, I just realized something: I've been posting information about food from street carts. That's street food, not fast food. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

We should definitely link to street food, though. Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, because there's overlap. In New York, among other places, it's very common to get a hotdog from a street vendor. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Geographical "range"

While it seems obvious, to note if a chain is limited to a certain part of the US or even a single state (if that state is big enough and/or the restaurant well known enough, that is) should we mention that e.g. Wendy's exists in Costa Rica as well? Or would it be beyond the scope of this article to mention any place that has a franchise of an otherwise uncommon American fast food brand? (of course US army bases have many chains that don't exist in the rest of the country, but they are off limits to almost everybody but American soldiers and their immediate families and thus of little to no interest for travelers) Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Mexico is definitely part of North America. Whether Costa Rica is depends on whether we're considering Central America part of North America or a separate region. The Caribbean also can be regarded either as a separate island region or part of North America.

I think your larger question is whether it can be mentioned that x, y and z chains also have locations outside of North America, to which I would say, sure. And by the way, McDonald's really is not the same the world over. In France, they have a wine list; in Malaysia and India, you can get spicy items there, and in India, veggie burgers. Etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, McDonald's always has a couple of items customized toward the local palate, but the bulk of its menu (hamburger, cheeseburger, Big Mac, McNuggets, fish/chicken sandwiches, fries, shakes, fried pies, McMuffin, etc.) looks and tastes identical everywhere. Texugo (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I almost forgot that Central America is North America as well, at least according to most definitions.. And yeah there are a number of variations on the "basic" mc Donalds menu e.g. kosher MC Donalds in Israel (which is even mentioned in the Israel article). I don't know whether that is true as well for e.g. KFC and Pizza Hut two chains that are near-ubiquitous in Europe although by far less common than Burger King and the golden arches. If we include "all" fast food in North America, we also have to mention the approximately fifty fried greasy chicken chains in Central America... pollo tip top, pollo estrella... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I imagine that for regional chains, we should stick to ones that cover very large regions or are at least somewhat well-known or notable even outside their region of saturation (In-and-Out Burger, White Castle, Dairy Queen, Taco Bueno, Whataburger, etc.). The lesser-known ones or ones confined to smaller regions can (and should) be described in the most appropriate region article. Texugo (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

"...hot dogs are Danish"

No, they aren't. Hot dogs as we know them today were invented in the New York in the 19th century or perhaps in an earlier form in Germany. Even the Danish Wikipedia says hot dogs and hot dog stands were introduced in the 1920's from Germany! Also the iconic Danish hotdog variant with those red sausages, remoulade, fried onion etc. is slightly different from hotdogs you get elsewhere. --ϒpsilon (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it is my edit that claims/claimed that. I seem to have gotten the impression from hot dogs being somehow associated with Nordic countries (IKEA has edible 1€ hot dogs here in Germany), and me liking the danish style red sausage hot dogs best (you can get them in Schleswig Holstein but not elsewhere in Germany). Maybe we could say something along the lines of "hot dogs have European roots" which imho is almost beyond doubt. Pizza for example were virtually unknown in Northern Italy until the 1950s and 1960s when Germans vacationed there with their VW Käfer en masse and demanded the "Italian" food they knew from the restaurants run by (southern) Italian "guest-workers" back home... Anyway: Yes. Change it. It seems to be beyond proven that hot dogs are not in fact Danish. Sorry ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

In Germany it has to be currywurst for me!

There are several dishes that have been invented by immigrants that you hardly can get in countries where you think they originated from, like chop suey, tikka masala and döner kebab.

I'll change it to "has German roots" as they apparently were invented by the German community. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I remember my English-teacher saying that chicken tikkla masala is the quintessentially modern British food, as it was invented by immigrants but not found anywhere else and its very existence would not be possible without the British empire. In that vein, Döner would be typically (west) German. And delicious. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Pagebanner

In my humble opinion the default page banner is not only not ideal for this page, but maybe even less than helpful. Do you have suggestions? If not I may have to search commons for something. Best wishes. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Several different hamburgers, hot dogs or other fast foods? Customers at a fast food restaurant? ϒpsilon (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Someone is going to have to go to a food court and order one thing from each outlet. Special prize if they eat it all:-). --Traveler100 (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

They've stopped making Man vs. food... :)

And actually I couldn't help myself and already created a banner... ϒpsilon (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Ypsilon. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article

I don't know, but it appears to be somewhat America-centric. Some fast food joints may be "nothing special" to Americans but sought after and traveled to for people elsewhere. After all there is at least one movie that deal with people "pilgrimaging" to one particular fast food joint. Therefore I would argue about the "known and consistent" part... But maybe that is my limited European view... The town I now live in has franchises of three fast food chains (the M thing, BK and one that hides underground) and even a visit to KFC or Pizza Hut involves an hour and a half of travel, so maybe my view is distorted. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes some of these are only familiar if you travel to the USA frequently. Maybe change familiar to predictable? --Traveler100 (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Fish and chips

Not to be nitpicky, but this article is about fast food in North America and despite their politics sometimes appearing that way, that is not where Great Britain is. If there is a well known fish&chips chain in Canada or the US, ok but as it stands now, it will only dilute the article until we get de facto an article whose title should be fast food. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, fish & chips is already mentioned in street food. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Fish and chips originated in the UK. They are in no way exclusive to the UK. Many coastal areas in North America have blatantly copied the cod-and-chips seafood takeway model, particularly in Atlantic Canada, New England and the US Northwest. It makes no more sense to completely pull "fish and chips" due to its British origin than to pull "pizza" from the article because of its claimed Italian/Sicilian heritage. For that matter, "hamburgers" are mentioned in street food, is that a basis to remove them here? w:Long John Silver's is a US national fish and chips chain, although there are many regional and independent vendors. Since when did we favour chains and uniformity over independents and local colour? K7L (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. You decide. I was unaware that fish&chips were available in the US at all and as this isn't wikipedia it doesn't have to be notable. If we have to find consensus on the issue, regard my vote as decidedly meh. But you gotta make the case. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

w:Filet-O-Fish (McD) and w:List of Burger King products#Fish Sandwiches (BK). Very exotic, specialised restaurants. :) Certainly, though, fish and chips are everywhere once one ventures into seaside regions like New Brunswick, Maine or Newfoundland. K7L (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

While french fries and fried fish sandwiches are abundant, I didn't think the British pub sense "fish and chips" per se are something that really entered into the American consciousness to warrant a mention here. Obviously we know Long John Silver's is fast food seafood, but I certainly wouldn't have thought to say it's based around British fish-n-chips. Texugo (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

A British pub is a sit-down restaurant, not a fast food joint. This is takeaway food; a fish-and-chips takeout usually appears locally or regionally in coastal areas. Go further inland and seafood begins to be packaged as sandwiches to fit existing burger-chain formats or is pushed into sit-down restaurants, grills, pubs and the like. Go to the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, there will be seafood. K7L (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm just saying that serving fried fish and french fries among all manner of other fried seafood things, especially given the American penchant for serving fries with everything - that's basic enough that it's not necessarily British in origin. Unless we've got lots of stands and restaurants that focus specifically on selling fried fish wrapped up in paper with some french fries and a side of brown sauce, all British style, I'm not sure it needs mentioning here. I've never been a US coast dweller, but it's not a phenomenon I've often seen when I've visited coastal areas, and there are certainly enormous swaths of the country where people are often not even familiar with the term "chips" in the British sense. Unless we're talking about a clear and traceable imitation of the British version that has become widely popular across large areas, I'm not sure mentioning the British version is needed or helpful. Texugo (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I imagine the idea of "fast food seafood" that is most prevalent is more along the lines of Long John Silver's: popcorn shrimp, hush puppies, combo baskets of miscellaneous fried stuff, that sort of thing, including fried fish and often including french fries too, but not in any peculiarly British sort of way. Texugo (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That depends on the region; in the northeast, the takeaway cod-and-chips format looks much the same as on the opposite side of the same cold Atlantic Ocean, but New Orleans would have different local fish species and therefore a very different menu. K7L (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, I really don't care that much either way (what I care about is consistency), but it appears doubtful whether we should mention a food that is in essence nothing but a copy (Pizza, especially the Chicago variety doesn't have much to do with the thing poor people in Southern Italy ate in the 19th century, whereas if I understand you correctly the fish and chips is basically the same on both sides of the pond) of a foreign food and only known regionally. If it were a regional burger chain, of course we should mention it. Even if it is a chain of one we should mention it, if it is world famous or has a historical importance. You could say, if it is pilgrimage-worthy. But I don't see that that's the case with fish&chips. They appear to be available regionally, but even many Americans apparently don't know that. You can get fish&chips at any Nordsee in Germany. even in Görlitz or Erlangen. But a) this chain is not focused on fish & chips, but rather seafood in general and b) they are nothing in any way particular to or about Germany or any region of the country, whereas they are (or appear to my Americanized brain) quintessentially British, much like Chicken Tikkla Massala. As I said, I am not convinced. But I also don't care all that much. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"Cafeteria style"

In the article, "cafeteria style" is defined as the standard fast-food 'order and pay at a counter, then receive food on a tray' paradigm. To me, cafeteria style involves a long serving line, where you carry your tray between different stations (hot food, cold food, drinks, desserts, etc) and pay at the end for everything you've selected. I'd change it but I don't know how to describe the former 'standard' style. Powers ^(talk) 13:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree "Cafeteria style" sounds like Vapiano or a classical university dining hall to me... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps "counter service" would be more precise? K7L (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

"Single counter service", "over the counter service", "checkout service", "service at the checkout", "service by cashier"? (non-native English speaker getting too creative here :D) ϒpsilon (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah always the non-native speakers butchering the language. I mean... I am one of them. And English most likely originated from Norman soldiers trying to seduce Anglo-Saxon barmaids... ;-) I guess we could also call it "classic fast food service" but maybe that's too ambiguous... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Poutine

I don't really believe this should be its own listing item, especially because its availability in fast-food format is very limited outside Quebec. I would instead suggest making French fries an item of the list, and noting that there are many topping variations available. There's no special reason to note poutine separately from other more widely-available topping treatments like cheddar fries, chili cheese fries, bacon cheese fries, seasoned fries, etc. Texugo (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Harvey's is Toronto (York Region)-based but advertises poutine extensively, and there are many independents. Its availability may be more limited outside Canada, but certainly it can be found well beyond Québec. If you want to mention "New York Fries" as a chain that sells just fries, or whatever other novelty variant, I don't see this and poutine as mutually exclusive. K7L (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I dunno. McDonalds sells fried pies extensively, and Wendy's serves a bowl of chili, but I don't really think those are big enough to warrant their own places in the list either. The way it's written now, it just screams to me "a Canadian wrote this part!" I'd still rather see it toned down and made more inclusive in a sentence like:

Fries are sometimes served with a variety of toppings, including cheddar cheese, chili, bacon, various seasoning mixes and, in Canada, a mix of brown gravy and cheese curds, known as poutine.

I don't believe poutine as a fast food really merits much more mention than that. For the vast majority of North America, all those other topping types are far more common. Texugo (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone else? Texugo (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone selling fast food with "cheese fries" or "apple turnovers" as their primary item, the way a w:Smoke's Poutinerie primarily sells poutine. McDrivel and Wendy primarily sell hamburgers, these other items are side dishes. K7L (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I dunno. Taking the continent as a whole, fries, even as a side dish, are so ubiquitous that this poutine variation, even if sometimes conceived as a main dish, seems infinitesimally minor in comparison and, despite a couple of fast food outlets elsewhere, regional to very large degree. I think my wording above is already more than generous. Would still like to hear others' opinions. Texugo (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Texugo, but I'm not familiar with the poutine shop as a genre. Powers ^(talk) 19:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Not supporting a separate section for poutine but though should mention I have seen an increase in outlets in other parts of Canada, from Ontario to Alberta. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

For whatever it might be worth, poutine is quite common in Ottawa (on the Quebec border) and I've seen it on the menu in an expat restaurant in China. The best poutine I've had was in (a French-speaking region of) Ontario; see w:St-Albert Cheese Co-operative. Pashley (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Eurocentrism

This is ridiculous.. It's like everyone who edits wiki voyage is European.. This wiki page is centered towards stereotyping America when most of these stereotypes are more noticeable in European countries (at least western Europe).. Fast food is more prevalent per capita in western Europe than it is the USA. Yet this article focuses on "fast food is the quintessential of American cuisine" as if it isn't in france, UK, Germany... Void burn (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

When you see a McDonalds, Burger King, Taco Bell... (insert brand here) do you think "oh, something European"? This is pretty much what was meant with this. Besides our other American contributors don't have any problem with this wording. But nobody keeps you from creating a Fast Food in Europe article. Best wishes. Plus, assume good faith and stuff (I will assume the assumption of good faith, meanwhile ;-)) Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

For that matter, the main topic fast food is still on the Wikivoyage:Requested articles list (and getting cold) as there's really nowhere to put items like the British "chippy". K7L (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it takes outsider (European or Asian) to give a perspective on a subject that is just there and obvious for a North American. And yes we should do a European one, road side bacon butties trucks in the UK and currywürst Imbis in German, not to forget fries and ousters in Belgium. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with Void burn in that I would say that diner food and barbecue are much more quintessentially (or at least traditionally) American than fast food. But for people around the world, I do think that McDonald's, KFC, Burger King and the like do represent "American food" more than most anything else, since they're in their countries, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Just a nitpick: It's one Currywurst, many Currywürste. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Not that that'd stop a food fight over the Russian occupation of Crimea. Clearly the big chains are symbols of their respective countries, even if BK is actually Brazilian-owned this week and pretending to be Canadian for tax purposes. K7L (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Pictures

I looked at this article to see what is missing to make it guide, when it struck me: There are no pictures. Not a single one besides the banner. Surely a topic such as this deserves an image or two? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

pf ϒpsilon (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Done ϒpsilon (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Status

How do we make this guide? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Long lists

Would it be worthwhile to pare down the lists of restaurants in the "Well-known chains" section? If so, what criteria should we use to determine what's included and what isn't? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Only burgers and pizza are over nine, both understandably so given the variety. I don't think we have a problem yet. Powers ^(talk) 00:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I was if the opinion that part of the reason for having this article is so we don't have to list those places in individual destination guides, which would justify the list here being a bit longer. Hobbitschuster (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this. If we're going to have this article at all, it inevitably is in great part a long list of boring places. That includes Subway, McDonald's and other international chains. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Arby's Sauce

I'm no hater of Arby's, but I find their Arby's Sauce unpalatable. Is it fair to describe it as "delicious"? Powers ^(talk) 20:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I have never been to Arby's, but I know of it thanks to Jon Stewart having a long lived feud with them on "The Daily Show"... Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's not a neutral POV, but then again this isn't Wikipedia. Our manual of style does allow for subjective statements as long as they are fair. I don't know if any scientific surveys have ever been undertaken about what the general public opinion of Arby's Sauce is, but it's perhaps worth mentioning that they've been making it for as long as I remember, with the same recipe, so clearly someone's enjoying it. And I like it, and inasmuch as I know my own friends' and acquaintances' feelings about it, they tend to like it far more often than they don't. If it happens that there comes a deluge of comments on this thread of Wikivoyagers talking about how much they can't stand Arby's Sauce, I would certainly be open to modifying that bit of the blurb, but as it is now I think it's fine. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Do coffee chains belong on this list?

Having briefly worked at a drive-thru Starbucks, I definitely think of that chain as part of the larger world of fast food. Even while the food options are limited (mainly just breakfast sandwiches and pastries) I can tell you from first-hand experience that there were plenty of people in my community that treated Starbucks as their default breakfast option. However, there isn't really a good place on this page to put Starbucks.

So I wanted to ask the more regular editors of this page: would it be okay to put in a "Coffee" section? That way we could also put in some of the other big coffee chains (Dunkin' is already on this list, but there's also Caribou Coffee and Peet's). PerryPlanet (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, I think "Bakeries" would be better off re-titled as "Breakfast" or somesuch, with Panera Bread moved to a different category ("Sandwiches"?). As for whether Starbucks should be listed, I think the article's focus on strictly North American fast food should be taken into account. We've explicitly excluded chains like McDonald's, KFC, Subway, etc. whose market penetration outside of North America is comparable to within North America. I don't know how prevalent Starbucks is overseas, but that's my thinking on the subject, anyway. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, I think an important criterion for inclusion should be how far the menu extends beyond the realm of coffee. Dunkin' Donuts and Tim Hortons, for example, both have extensive menus of donuts, breakfast sandwiches, some lunch items, etc. and thus unequivocally belong on the list; Starbucks, which serves a limited selection of pastries but not much else besides coffee, is more questionable IMO. I'm not familiar with Caribou Coffee and Peet's, so I can't really say whether they belong or not. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Starbucks serves sandwiches, too. Check on the food offerings the next time you're at a Starbucks. My feeling is that there should be a separate section for "coffee, tea and snacks" places, and Starbucks should be included. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. But again, does Starbucks have an extensive enough international presence that, like McDonald's et al., it can be said that's it's not really primarily a North American fast food chain? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It started in Seattle, and I believe it's still headquartered there, and they do not serve Italian-, French- or Turkish-style coffee, so yeah, I think they're clearly American. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Starbucks does have an international presence, but I would argue it's still primarily a North American chain. According to Wikipedia, a full two-thirds of Starbucks locations are within North America. For comparison, McDonald's and Burger King have less than half of their locations in North America, and KFC has even less. I can't speak to Starbucks' presence in Asia, but I know that in Europe they've had a tough time penetrating that market (at least outside of the UK) given the long-standing cafe culture there. PerryPlanet (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, McDonald's is clearly American as well, if we're talking about what's on the menu, but then again McDonald's has locations in 119 countries and territories, and less than half of their restaurants (45%) are in North America. By that measure, Starbucks is only marginally more "North American" than McDonald's - they have locations in 72 different countries and territories, and only a bare majority of those locations (63%) are in North America. I'd argue against Starbucks' inclusion here based on that, though I think it would be fine to name-drop them in the section lede as an international chain with North American roots, as McDonald's, Burger King, KFC, and Subway already are. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Starbucks has some branches in Munich and Berlin, in my experience, so they may be having a somewhat less difficult time in tourist-frequented German cities. But your point is made. My feeling is, any chain that's associated in most people's minds with North America belongs here, regardless of what percentage of its franchises are in North America or where its corporate headquarters are. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you could refer to 63% as a "bare" majority. That sounds like a pretty overwhelming majority to me. Also, considering that the remaining 37% are spread out across 70 countries and territories, that doesn't automatically suggest to me that they're well-integrated into any market outside of North America (though it doesn't necessarily disprove it either, to be fair). PerryPlanet (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Well in my perception every city in Germany has a Starbucks. But if I read the portrayal in US media correctly in the US they are everywhere. And Starbucks is common enough in Germany for jokes about people sitting there with apple products and "working" on a new "project" or some such while drinking arguably overpriced coffee (I don't drink coffee, I can't judge) Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As you said, they're having a tough go of it in Europe, but they're going gangbusters in Asia. Moreover, quibbling about how big of a majority 63% is, IMO, misses the point of what this article is supposed to be about. The listing of fast-food chains that would be easy for large swaths of our non-North American audience to visit at home, or on a trip to somewhere other than North America, seems to be analogous to advice from Captain Obvious. It's implied from the fairly dismissive tone with which we discuss McDonald's et al. in the section ledes that the purpose of this article is to furnish people with the opportunity to have an experience they couldn't easily get outside North America. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You have a different vision for this article than what I thought it was for: Namely, to counteract the tendency for people to put in listings for every obvious chain restaurant in their town. In other words, I think this is a place for content that would be considered Captain Obvious in other articles, just as is the case in some other general topics like Stay safe. Personally, I would be dismissive of the food in most fast food restaurants, anyway, and would encourage travelers who want to find good, down-home American food to look at websites like roadfood.com (I don't think they cover Canada or Mexico, but I could be wrong). But the thing is, McDonald's and KFC are quite different in places like Malaysia, India, even to some extent France, where Mickey D's has a wine list. So I find it a bit questionable to assume that the experience of going to such chain restaurants will really be the same for people from abroad (well, maybe for Starbucks, but not necessarily the others). So, anyway, while I think that emphasizing what's unique about North America is a good idea, I don't think the standard places that also have presences abroad should be given short shrift in this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I just looked over the article again. I don't really disagree with the advice to "take the opportunity to try other chains" than McDonald's and Burger King, but based on what people (including gastronomes who don't like them in the U.S.) have told me about what these places are like in Malaysia, India and some other countries, I don't agree with this: "are almost the same the world over (though there are some variations to accommodate religious dietary laws and local tastes in which meat is used)". It's not just dietary laws and which meat is used. I've been told that McDonald's in Malaysia is (or at least can be) spicy, for example. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

(indent) While there's differing visions for this article (for the record, I agree with Ikan's; making this distinction between North American and International fast food strikes me as splitting hairs), we do agree that Starbucks warrants at least a mention, yes? Would it be alright if I started a "Coffee" section, with Starbucks mentioned in the section lede and including some of their main competitors? Caribou Coffee and Peet's are the main ones that come to mind, and they both have similar menus to Starbucks. Any others that people can think of are welcome. PerryPlanet (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason to object to this. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the idea, but I'd prefer to call the section "Coffee and breakfast" as some of the places that would be listed there (Dunkin', Tim Hortons) really can't be simplified down to mere coffeeshops. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was going to keep Dunkin' and Tim Hortons in Bakeries and refer to them as popular coffee places in the Coffee section lede, but changing "Bakeries" to "Coffee and breakfast" works fine too. PerryPlanet (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this is good enough, too. The fact that Dunkin Donuts also sells sandwiches is not important enough to create problems. In terms of chains, there's also The Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf, which seems ubiquitous in California but extends to the East Coast. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Ooh, good call. I totally forgot about that one. PerryPlanet (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Guide status and/or FTT

From what I can tell, this article is rapidly headed toward Guide status - a few of the blurbs for the various restaurant chains might be expanded, and the listings in "See also" might do with some "Go next"-style one-liner descriptions, but other than that I don't have any definite answers as to what stands in the way. Can anyone think of anything else the article may need? (At a glance, the "Understand" section seems underdeveloped compared with the rest of the article; is there anything we could add to that?)

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd also say it's close. But I am not an American, so there might be some glaring omissions that I don't even notice. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Potential omissions: Smashburger, Auntie Anne's, Bruegger's, Jamba Juice, Orange Julius, Blimpie, Nathan's Famous, and all the many ice cream chains. Powers ^(talk) 02:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, I have a few additions I'd like to make too: Saint-Hubert (mentioned currently as an aside in the blurb for Swiss Chalet, but really deserving of its own listing), Pizza Delight, Manchu Wok, Which Wich?, Church's Chicken. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

And now that we're listing coffeehouses, also Second Cup and possibly Coffee Culture. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Done-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Donut or Doughnut?

I am surprised that the spelling was changed from the former to the latter. What do our style-guides say? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Our style guides say nothing on the matter. As a North American resident, I can attest that "donut" is by far the minority spelling when used generically (i.e. not in proper names like "Dunkin' Donuts"). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Strange, I am a bit surprised that the place that embraces simplifications like "thru" and the likes would balk at "Donut". But given that my spellcheck does not seem to know "Donut", you may well be right. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Further reading. Apparently the variant spelling "donut" did not become widespread until Dunkin' Donuts went national (who very likely adopted that spelling to reduce the number of letters on their signs). "Doughnut" is the term preferred by most dictionaries and is used about twice as often as "donut". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Well it is the (only) dictionary approved spelling of the word in German, which may have led to my confusion. If I were to be a betting person, I'd bet that fifty or a hundred years from now "doughnut" will be seen as quaint, archaic and British. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Tim Horton's uses the "donut" spelling, and Krispy Kreme uses the "doughnut" spelling. Which chain is larger? --Robkelk (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

U.S./Canada bias?

This article seems to make due mention of most of the major U.S. fast food franchises, and our coverage of Canada is, if anything, proportionally even more complete. But other than Pollo Campero, there's not a single chain listed from Mexico, Central America, or the Caribbean. Wikipedia's list of fast-food restaurants mentions two Mexican chains, Benedetti's Pizza and Doña Tota, as well as chains in Puerto Rico and Trinidad and Tobago that, with no more than 40 locations apiece, seem to be too small to merit inclusion here. I'm not familiar myself with the fast-food landscape south of the U.S. border; does anyone else know of any places that we might add to balance things out? Or is the market in Latin America dominated by international extensions of U.S.-based chains? (Hobbitschuster, you seem to be familiar with Nicaragua at least; can you speak to the situation there?) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure whether we want to include Latin American North America and the Caribbean where the concept seems to be mostly imported. But for the sake of geographic accuracy we might have to do that or change the title of this article. At any rate, Costa Rica or San José in particular seems to be an extension of the US in terms of Fast Food (they even have Taco Bell and Wendy's). Nicaragua only has the "global" chains and some "domestic" chains (that may or may not originally be from other Central American countries) that focus on chicken. I do not quite remember the names but one was Pollo Tip Top and another may have been Pollo Estrella or something. But they are pretty much a dime a dozen. Genuine Nica food is mostly street food or served in real restaurants. Neither of which typically form chains or franchises to my knowledge Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The shared culture and language between Canada and the U.S. means this is article is probably best restricted to those two countries. If the title is causing confusion, we may have to change it. Powers ^(talk) 00:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I can see your point and I mostly agree with it, but what would be a way to word it that does not sound awkward or cause confusion? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Fast food in the U.S.A. and Canada. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Most of our U.S.-related travel topics use the term "United States" - Rail travel in the United States, Air travel in the United States, United states without a car, etc. - so I think if we're really going to exclude Latin America from consideration here, Fast food in the United States and Canada is the way to go, for consistency's sake. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. And I do think excluding Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean makes a whole lot of sense since Fast Food in the way this article describes it is a US phenomenon first and foremost and Canada is the most likely market for US franchises to expand as well as the origin of some unique chains (some of which have subsequently spread South). Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

An urban legend about Western Chinese food

I have heard that the Chinese characters many Westernized Chinese Restaurants display actually don't necessarily spell out the same as the English characters (if present) but often say something to the effect of "we serve westernized food" - is this accurate? Is this common? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Even if true, why would we need to include this information in the article? The fact that American Chinese food is different from the authentic cuisine of China is already made clear in the "Typical dishes" section. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Papaya King and the other Papayas

Papaya King has just three restaurants on Manhattan and now one in Las Vegas too. Nevertheless it seems to be a kind of a local institution, serving hotdogs and papaya juice since 1932. Interestingly, there are also at least two other small hotdog chains in NYC with "Papaya" in their name, Papaya Dog (one place right across the 5th avenue from the Empire State Building, yup, visitors to Manhattan easily end up there ;)) and Gray's Papaya.

It looks like the combination of hotdogs and tropical juices is a kind of iconic New York thing so maybe this/these chain(s) and their food deserve to be mentioned in this article too (they're mentioned in New York City#Don't leave without trying). Ikan, what do you think? ϒpsilon (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. Papaya King and its imitator, Gray's Papaya, are a real New York phenomenon, but whether they deserve mention in an article whose scope is the entirety of the U.S. and Canada, I doubt. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Should go in New York City#Eat or Metro New York#Eat, whichever is applicable - perhaps as a separate subsection (cf. Buffalo#Local chains). The presence of a few token locations outside NYC is no matter, so long as the chain is primarily confined to the local area. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Spin off discussion of pizza into a separate article?

What do you all think about this? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Meritorious idea. Pizza can be a really delicious artisanal food, and sometimes it's not fast at all (as witness DiFara's in Midwood, Brooklyn). Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Changes to Smashburger listing

DethDestroyerOfWords, I saw the comment you made on this article's FTT nomination, and I have to say I disagree that Smashburger's listing "was written like an advertisement". Specifically, you removed a reference to Smashburger's "distinctively high-end approach", which I see less as praise for the restaurant and more as an accurate description of the chain's ambience, food selections, and price point rather than anything that's just as apt to put certain travellers off (those on a tight budget or looking for something quick and easy) as to entice them. As well, the part about the chain's fast growth, while not absolutely essential information for the traveller to know, strikes me as value-neutral and harmless. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I tend to error on the side of caution. To me, those phrases seemed "buzz-wordy" and I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that the listing could do without and still express the same information. Especially because the rest of the listings were shorter and written in a different tone I felt it stuck out. Additionally, I've never stepped foot into a Smashburger's, so "distinctively high-end" seemed touty (perhaps it is the word distinctively that gets me. Maybe I'd have been less likely to prune had it said, "high-end experience, with price to match"? I didn't assume it was expensive place in price and atmosphere from the previous wording). I am not God, nor am I particularly attached to either way, so feel free to correct it if you feel it is better as it was. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Sub vs. Subway

• Mr. Sub — Generally regarded as a cut-rate Canadian knockoff of Subway, Mr. Sub had essentially a lock on the Canadian market from 1968, when its first sandwich shop opened in Yorkville, Toronto, until the 1990s, when Subway first began to expand north of the border. Mr. Sub now has some 200 locations that are widespread across Central and Western Canada, but lacks any presence east of the Ontario-Quebec border save for a quartet of Prince Edward Island locations. At Mr. Sub the sandwiches are a bit smaller and flimsier, the ingredients a tad lower in quality, and the bread not quite as fresh (it's shipped to each location pre-baked in plastic bags, while Subway bakes theirs in-house daily), but these deficiencies are not nearly so stark that this place won't do if there aren't any Subways around. On the other hand, Mr. Sub makes up for this by offering a somewhat wider and more interesting range of sandwich toppings, some of which are particular to certain markets or even individual locations — mushrooms and pineapple are a couple of examples.

Ouch. That's a little harsh. While the "Subway" name dates to 1968, no one in Canada had heard of their brand when "Mr. Submarine" launched in Toronto that same year. The products are very similar, if not interchangeable, but one can't really say that one is a "knockoff" of the other. If anything, Subway is gaining ground at the expense of Mr. Sub in Canada because their product is sold slightly more cheaply (a 6" sub starts at C$4 at Subway and C$5 at Mr. Sub) and is advertised more effectively (Subway spends half a billion dollars annually worldwide on slick marketing).

Subway baking bread in-house is a nice touch, but the ingredients otherwise are no better. Then there are the lawyerly gems like "With regards to the size of the bread and calling it a footlong, 'Subway Footlong' is a registered trademark as a descriptive name for the sub sold in Subway Restaurants and not intended to be a measurement of length." (wait? what?) which really doesn't suggest that Mr. Sub is the one that's "a bit smaller and flimsier". I disagree that Mr. Sub is "a cut-rate Canadian knockoff" even if they've lost a lot of ground by being out-marketed (and slightly undercut in price) over the years by the US-based chain. K7L (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

What exactly is the issue here? Is it the use of the word "knockoff" in particular, or is it that you think the portrayal of Mr. Sub is unduly harsh? Either way, I'll freely admit to having eaten at Mr. Sub a grand total of once in my life (at the Rogers Centre in 2011, to be precise) and most of the information I included in this blurb represents a rough average of the various opinions I've read from commentators on the Internet, which I've tried to reflect as fairly as possible, but in which I may very well have missed the mark. If so, "plunge forward" is the rule of thumb. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

And, parenthetically, "sandwiches a bit smaller and flimsier than Subway, ingredients a tad lower in quality, and bread not quite as fresh" describes my one personal Mr. Sub experience pretty much to a T. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I would guess that might have more to do with its location in a major sports arena than anything inherent to the chain as a whole. Powers ^(talk) 01:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

A single experience is not necessarily typical of the chain as a whole. I've eaten at a Quizno's that served a lackluster sub; that one personal experience doesn't make Quizno's a lackluster chain. (Although that particular franchise is no longer in business.) --Robkelk (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, "most of the information I included in this blurb represents a rough average of the various opinions I've read from commentators on the Internet, which I've tried to reflect as fairly as possible", which is standard practice on this site when an article needs to be burnished a little bit ahead of a term on the Main Page, and contributors' firsthand knowledge of the subject is limited. What is not standard practice in that situation is making more work for everyone by engaging in nitpicky disputes like this one and the other recent ones. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I count at least eighteen mentions of "Subway" in this article, once one excludes anything legitimately mentioning public transport. Most of them are bizarre comparisons of other chains, such as Harvey's, to this particular sandwich shop. This is supposed to be a travel guide, not a Subway advert. Mention them once and leave it at that. K7L (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that they are bizarre. There's a certain category of fast-food service (where you order at a counter, but rather than the food being prepared out of sight in a kitchen, it's assembled directly at the counter in front of you to your specifications) of which Subway is far and away the most prominent and widespread example. For other, less well-known chains that use the same service model, it makes perfect sense to use Subway as a comparison, especially if it stands in for a longer and more tedious description of the ordering process in an article that's already on the long side. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

There are also five references to Taco Bell in the "Mexican" section, and four to McDonald's in the "Burgers" section (plus two elsewhere). Should we strike those as well? The fact is that the differences between one fast food chain and another are often miniscule, and the best way to describe what distinguishes a certain place is often to compare it to an extremely popular competitor that most readers are likely to be familiar with. That's not an advertisement, that's getting one's point across to the reader in the clearest way possible. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Train stations?

From Special:Diff/3215719/3238605 what is the basis for the comment "AFAIK the first fast food chains were in train stations"? The first restaurant chain may be w:Fred Harvey Company on the Santa Fe line in 1876, but these aren't fast food, they're table service. Fast food is the likes of McDonalds (b. San Bernadino CA on Route 66), Dairy Queen (again US66, but Joliet IL) and KFC (the original restaurant was attached to a fuel station on a US highway in Corbin KY). And then there's the whole car-hop "drive in" concept. K7L (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Wendy's

While I understand the reasoning behind removing Wendy's, I don't think the chain is as ubiquitous outside North America as Andre thinks. The largest number in any one country are in Puerto Rico, which technically isn't even a foreign country. After that are Indonesia and the Philippines. Australia has none, and no European country has any either (unless you count Georgia). Powers ^(talk) 21:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Apparently I had a similar idea in opening the section below... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Wendy's not unique to North America?

According to this edit, Wendy's is "not unique to North America". The only not US country where I personally have seen a Wendy's is Costa Rica. Which is in North America. True I am not that well traveled, but I'm not sure removing this listing with the reason given doesn't create a precedent which is hard to apply any logic to. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Addressing both of the above comments here. According to Wikipedia, Wendy's is present in 29 countries and dependent territories on four continents, including various nations in East and Southeast Asia, the Middle East, South America, and Oceania. It's not as widespread as McDonald's or Burger King, of course, but profoundly more so than any other chain currently given a full listing in the "Burgers" subsection and possibly the whole article. Where to draw the line is obviously subjective, but what's not in dispute is that these lists are getting long (they could, in fact, easily be twice as long as they are now if we scrupulously included all chains of roughly the size the article deals with). If we're to cut anything out, I think we should follow the custom of denying the largest chains, e.g. McDonald's, full-fledged listings of their own (as opposed to a name-check in the section lede identifying them as chains that readers are likely already familiar with), which pre-dates my involvement with the article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Mc Donald's, Burger King and KFC have become truly global chains - you'd have to search for major countries where they aren't rather than countries where they are. 29 countries may sound like much, but it is only one more than the membership of the European Union and with the fudge factor of "dependent territories", it probably covers less than that. At any rate, the list is getting rather long, but is that really so much of a bug? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree; if the reason we're eliding the third most popular chain in America is because it's also popular elsewhere, we need to make sure that's actually the case. If travellers to North America won't actually be familiar with Wendy's then it should be the last chain we remove, not the first. Powers ^(talk) 01:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

29 countries and territories isn't all that many. I've seen McDonald's and Subway in multiple countries, but I'm not sure I've ever seen Wendy's outside the US. I think it should be restored to the list. At worst, if a reader is already familiar with it, they can always skip that paragraph. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

On the face of it, I agree that it should be restored. Powers' point is particularly apt to my mind. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not opposed in principle to restoring the Wendy's listing, but just so everyone knows, I am planning on adding a couple more places to that section before all is said and done. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

If it helps maybe we could break the Burgers section down into regional and national chains? Powers ^(talk) 13:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

We recently decided to limit this article's scope (and changed its name accordingly) to exclude any part of North America other than the U.S. and Canada. What to do about Puerto Rico, which is geographically part of the Caribbean but with more of an American cultural influence than its neighbors, and of course is considered part of the U.S. politically (including for business purposes, which has predictably translated into a heavier presence of U.S. fast food chains there than in other Latin American countries)? If a chain has a heavy presence there, as Church's Chicken and Popeyes do, should that be mentioned or would that be out of scope? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

This could really go either way, but I'd say, mention it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

PSA: Edits you don't like are not necessarily vandalism

For the record several of the changes reverted here seem perfectly fine to me. But even if one disagrees with those edits, they are certainly not "vandalism". Powers ^(talk) 02:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The "vandalism" remark wasn't solely in reference to the particular edit I reverted. This article has been the subject of an unusual uptick in activity lately courtesy of several accounts - three anonymous IP editors and now this most recent one - which have been making suspiciously similar edits (excising lively prose, spurious accusations in edit summaries of favoritism toward particular companies/antipathy toward certain geographic regions, etc.) Even if this isn't a case of edit warring using multiple accounts, which it certainly looks like, the fact remains that many of those edits remain problematic on an individual basis. (I say this with the understanding that in previous discussions you've revealed yourself to have what I would call with all due respect an exaggeratedly narrow definition of "vandalism"; however, I find the edits objectionable for the same reason regardless of what label we hang on them.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I would also advice not to be too quick in ascribing malicious intent to what simply may have been someone mistaking our tone for advertising or disparaging remarks. After all, WP is much better known and famous for its neutral, sometimes dry tone, which somewhat clashes with what can be found in many of our articles. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

As Ikan hinted at in the welcome message he left on the talk page of the user in question: if a Wikipedian is going to come here and start editing, it's their responsibility to learn and to respect the differences between our policy and Wikipedia's, especially before saying things like "[the article is] in poor shape" and "there are a lot of sentences that have no right being part of a Wiki article". Regardless of the sense of superiority many Wikipedians feel about their home project relative to other WMF sites, it remains astoundingly poor form to act as if all wikis should have policies analogous to Wikipedia's and those that don't are wrong, which seems to be the case here (as opposed to innocent newbie error) given that there were multiple different accounts making suspiciously similar edits. I know that if I were to go from Wikivoyage to Wikipedia and, let's say, remove all the inline citations from a particular article just because we don't use them here, that would earn me roughly the same reaction as this user got, and rightly so. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Andrew, I appreciate your work as always. I was a little surprised by the accusations of vandalism, though. I think that even if the user seemed arrogant, it might have made sense to post to their user talk page if you had had the time, rather than just reverting. I got to this late, or I might have posted to their user talk page earlier. Also, I think it's important to welcome users from Wikipedia and be a little patient with their lack of knowledge of community standards on Wikivoyage. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

So can we talk about some of the specific changes that user made? For starters, the text added to the Tim Horton's entry ("Famous for its coffee and doughnut options, the Tims menu has expanded in recent years to include a wide variety of drinks and food options, including lattes, hot chocolates, sandwiches, soups and bagels.") seemed like a good addition to me. Powers ^(talk) 20:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

As a preface: speaking of things that are poor form, if a person intends to make changes to multiple different listings or article sections, it's also a breach of Wikietiquette to combine all those changes into a single diff rather than breaking them up into multiple ones. Why? Because performing a partial revert where you have to separate out the valuable information from the crap is way more work than just clicking "Undo" and being done with it. And to answer Powers' question, that's exactly the nature of the edit in question: it was a mixture of valuable contributions (the edit to the Tim Horton's listing), detrimental contributions (edits to the A&W Canada, Harvey's, Fuddrucker's, and Fatburger listings), and lateral moves that neither improved nor damaged the article (edits to the Smoke's Poutinerie listing as well as the description of poutine in the "Typical dishes" section). At the time, I didn't have the time to go through the diff with a fine-toothed comb and figure out which parts were good and which weren't. Nor, according to the principles of Wikietiquette, should that be my responsibility anyway. What tipped the scale for me to just revert the whole thing was the fact that this was part of an edit war, which - yes - is a form of vandalism. (The fact that the editor switched from an anonymous IP to a registered account in order to evade the semi-protection struck me as particularly egregious). To Ikan's point, I'm more than happy to refrain from biting Wikipedians who are new to Wikivoyage, but the tactics this user employed to force his point of view on the article are as much frowned upon at Wikipedia as they are here, so as I said above, this smells more like bad faith than an innocent mistake. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

FWIW I reinstated the portion of the edit concerning Tim Hortons, though I continue to be a bit worried about the message that sends re: bad behavior paying off. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I hear you loud and clear on these things. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

In this case, where the user is clearly well-intentioned and some of the edits are not just arguable but almost certainly improvements, I see no reason why we wouldn't try to speak with them first rather than reverting wholesale. Powers ^(talk) 20:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully, how does one read passages like "this was part of an edit war", "the editor switched from an anonymous IP to a registered account in order to evade the semi-protection", and "this smells more like bad faith than an innocent mistake" and conclude "the user is clearly well-intentioned"? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully, the edits User:Plasma Twa 2 do not seem to me to resemble the edits from IP users that had been reverted and which triggered the (wholly unnecessary, IMO) semi-protection. I don't think that constitutes perpetuation of the edit war. Even if Plasma Twa 2 is the IP editor in question, creating an account is precisely the effect one would expect from instituting semi-protection. One cannot "evade" semi-protection, because it isn't targeted at individual users. Powers ^(talk) 21:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, no. I'm not from India. I'm Canadian, coincidentally from the same place that is it's acceptable to rip on in the article. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Just as an aside: this is my current IP Address. While I understand that the edits to this page have raised some tempers, assuming that all editors who are new are vandals is definitely something a buzzkill would do. I am not trying to ruin the hard work you put into the article; I am looking to build upon it and improve it. --70.74.149.42 07:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Andre, I don’t believe you can talk down to me and claim that I have a superiority complex when it takes another user to alert me to an entire conversation revolving around me. It's completely ridiculous that I can be brought up, posts made on my user name can be brought up, and suddenly you know my intentions well enough to know I'm not "well-intentioned" (on a side note, thank you User:LtPowers for notifying me). Before you accuse me of being arrogant, take a step back and think about how you appear in your responses reverting changes. “Can we please leave this article alone for chrissakes?” is exactly the type of non-constructive comment that leads to a snarky response (which, I admit, is snarky). If I’m to understand what I’m reading here, you had a negative assumption about me prior to even reverting my edit since you think I'm editing as a flame war, that I like antagonizing you or something. Which isn't true. Honestly if I made an identical edit to a previous user it's because the A&W in my city serves hot dogs and ("lively prose being desirable" aside) a snarky comment towards a location isn't a justifiable contribution to an article, whether it is Wikipedia or Wikivoyage. I was working on a list justifying my edits last week after User:Ikan Kekek posted on my wall. Clearly I should have worked to complete it a little faster and maybe I would have noticed how popular I am here earlier. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Edits

Since I need to stop living here rent free, I'd like to expand on some of the edits I believe make this article better (As I was asked to do last week by User:Ikan Kekek). While I admit I delivered it in a crude and antagonizing manner, I stand by what I said in my edit note: I don't think this article is in a good condition. Or at the very least, it has a lot of trouble areas that could be improved. Why do I think this? It's because far too much of it stretches the limits of what I think are acceptable under several Wikivoyage guidelines, such as Wikivoyage:Be fair and Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first. How, you're likely asking yourself incredulously? Let me explain.

The biggest red flag in the article to me is a random line in the Fuddruckers section: "They also have two Canadian locations, in (of all places) Saskatchewan." This was a line added by AndreCarrotflower back in May, and I'd just like to ask... why? Can you explain what it adds to this article, which is an article designed to assist travellers in making an informed decision on what fast food options are available across North America? To borrow one of your lines from the conversation above, this is a case of a user showing antipathy towards a geographic reason. Why should it be allowed to stand when (apparently) other people attempting to do so is a huge no-no? I can see why you might think it's covered by Wikivoyage:Tone but I see it as a huge violation of Wikivoyage:Be fair. It's not fair to enter your own objective opinion of a foreign province into the article, and the fact that you are willing to throw in a reference to your own disbelief demonstrates to me that you don't know anything about Fuddruckers in Canada, which makes me also believe that there is no good reason to revert my other changes to the section concerning the menu options here in Canada. The menu does have a slight variation compared to the American restaurants; I know, I've been to both. Is that not something a traveller would want to know?

Next, my edits to the poutine and Smoke's Poutinerie sections, which have been described as a "lateral move". Poutine is not "occasionally" seen in the rest of Canada anymore. It's found nationwide; it's very rare to go to a restaurant and not see it on the menu. At best I can say that the poutine section is out-of-date, then. When every major fast food restaurant in Canada that serves burgers and fries serves poutine, it can no longer be said to be "occasionally" found. On the flip side, while the article denotes poutine as containing cheese curds, that isn't always the case. That's rarely the case. I'd be a happier and fatter man if that were the case. Many restaurants across Canada use shredded cheese instead because it is easier and more accessible than curds. Finally, regarding the entry to Smoke's... read the entry for poutine again. It clearly denotes poutine as a Quebecois dish. So why are you defending the current wording of the Smoke's entry which out-of-nowhere calls it Canadian? "Lateral move" or not, "lively prose" or not, these little mistakes are dumb and it shouldn't be protested when someone notices them and replaces them.

Moving down the list, I am thankful that my Tim Hortons edit was accepted. To any traveller in Canada Tim Hortons is going to be very noticeable and I did not feel an entry that basically said "it's the Dunkin' Donuts of Canada" did it justice. That doesn't really tell a traveller anything about what is offered there. I also edited the sentence about the corporate structure of Tim Hortons since it was no longer up to date.

Then we have the A&W section, where I removed the "KFC-esque" claim. Looking at it now, I agree that it should stay. Applying the same logic I've been using so far, a traveller who doesn't know much about fried chicken would probably appreciate knowing it is similar to the one brand they likely know.

The Fatburger section claims that the Canadian locations are centred in Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton. I changed this to Western Canada and in doing so I made a "detrimental" edit to the section. I'd like it to be explained how this is edit is a detriment because it clearly paints a better picture of where a traveller can find Fatburger in Western Canada. It is true that those three cities have the most locations, but Saskatchewan has five, Winnipeg has two and you can find them in cities across Western Canada. Maybe this one can be defined as a "lateral move" but if I can't make a strong argument for it, it is also impossible to make a strong argument against it. It's definitely not a detriment to the section. Also, according to the Fatburger website, there is no location in Toronto anymore; therefore changing the section to read "they can be found across Western Canada in every major city" or something similar is what I would change it to. It's factual, more informative, and better helps travellers find what they are looking for as per Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first. Also, "heart-attack-on-a-bun" sounds dangerously close to coming out of an advertising brochure.

Lastly, we get to Harvey's. This is another section I quite firmly needs to be edited and another which was called detrimental when I attempted to do so. "which are by reputation not quite as good as Burger King's but still a great deal more flavorful than what you can get at McDonald's and other places that don't flame-broil their meat". This is a violation if be fair, specifically the page's need to be reliable. While I understand the desire to make the page lively, I don't understand this line (and clearly I'm not the only one since it has a tag in it); who exactly verified this? Is it "a rough average of the various opinions [you have] read from commentators on the Internet"? Because living in this country demonstrates to me that it is a completely false statement. I have not ever heard or known a single person who thinks a Burger King burger is more flavourful than Harvey's. If there's any line in this article that should be cited it is this one, because it's a completely ridiculous line to me. Shall we compromise on this line as per Wikivoyage:Be fair? I suggest we just say they're more flavourful than what you get at places which don't flame-broil their meat because I think most Canadians would agree with that.

Remember what the purpose of this article (and Wikivoyage) is: it is to help travellers make informed decisions. As someone who was not involved with the writing of this article up until last week, I took a look at this article and came to the conclusion that it does not fulfill that purpose effectively enough. So, I edited it and was perhaps a tad too antagonistic about it. But that does not change the reasoning behind my points. There are several other edits that I believe are justified beyond the ones that I just spent way too much of my night writing down here, but they all come back to that same point: each edit I attempted to make/propose here help to better inform travellers. If you don't agree, I invite you to tell me why. And now I'm off to try and forget I just spent an hour writing this. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

If I may, I suspect the "(of all places)" parenthetical is there not because Saskatchewan sucks, but because it's a relatively lower-population province with no large metropolitan areas. It's simply an unlikely destination for an American chain's first Canadian outlets; one might expect them in Vancouver or Toronto, but not Saskatoon. Powers ^(talk) 21:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand that, but there are several issues present in that analysis. One, it does portray the province as a second-rate destination regardless of its intent. There are no similar comments when Guam or Cheyenne are mentioned despite neither of those being first-off-the-mind tourist destinations. In the Canadian context, Saskatoon is a major city; it does't make sense to take an American standpoint and say "oh, it's a small city by my standards, how weird". Second, it reaffirms that it isn't written from the standpoint of someone who knows anything about Fuddruckers in Canada; they used to have locations in bigger cities, but they all failed. Third, the perspective of that analysis isn't fair. Should the tone taken by the article be one of surprise that they exist, or should it strive to give the best information it can? --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Candidly, I haven't read through your detailed post and generally avoid fast-food places, anyway, but I agree with you on the characterization of Saskatoon. It was an attempt at engaging writing, but I think you are right that it's better to simply present the fact. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring this conversation. I've been busy with work the past few days but will respond tomorrow. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Respond when you can and we'll work something out. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I had a whole articulate defense of myself typed out and then I reread what Plasma Twa 2 wrote above, at home on my desktop with nothing else going on rather than on my mobile phone at work when I could steal a couple of free minutes, and lo and behold, most of what you say makes perfect sense. I have a bad habit of coming out like Yosemite Sam with guns blazing when it comes to certain issues here, and I apologize for this being one of the times when I did that. By way of explanation, those edits were made during this article's term as Featured Travel Topic. When an article is featured on the Main Page, it temporarily becomes one of the highest-profile and most-visited ones on the site, which means 1) they tend to be vandalism targets and 2) it becomes extra important to carefully vet any changes to make sure they truly benefit the article.

That being said, I'm still going to argue in favor of the "of all places" remark about the Fuddrucker's in Saskatchewan, which really does strike me as lively (and value-neutral) prose. In your edits and your comments here, you seem to be very determined to prove Saskatchewan's worth as a tourist destination alongside the rest of Canada. Look, I live in Buffalo, a city that I would wager is the object of more "armpit of America" punchlines per capita than any other, and I also have a soft spot in my heart for the Prairies (Winnipeg is my favorite Canadian city that I have ever visited), so I do sympathize with your point of view to a certain extent. But let me tell you about something that happened to me in the course of editing here. Back in 2013, when Wikivoyage had just relaunched under the WMF banner to some media fanfare, an idle Google search led me to a post on Reddit's "r/Buffalo" page where someone had discovered our Buffalo article, which was and remains almost entirely my work. The general consensus in the comments was that it was written in an oversensitive and needlessly defensive tone, as if the author had a chip on his shoulder. At first the criticism really stung, but as I ruminated on it, I realized they were right. As coincidence would have it, I was also in the middle of districtifying Buffalo, which required substantial rewrites of most sections of the parent article as content was moved into the districts, and I think the article ended up much better for having taken into account the criticism from those Redditors in the rewriting process. The lesson I learned from the experience is that in writing for Wikivoyage about one's own hometown or home province, you've really got to shift out of local advocate mode and be honest about the place to yourself and to your readers. And I think that's the crux of the problem here. With all due respect to you and to it, Saskatchewan is never going to be among the first provinces that come to the mind of anyone with an objective point of view if they're asked to guess where you might find the only Canadian location of a U.S.-based chain. The fact that it is the location is unusual and noteworthy, and that can be stated without prejudice to the fact that Saskatchewan, and Buffalo too for that matter, remain perfectly worthwhile places for tourists to go. If that weren't the case, I would never have started editing here. But doing right by our readers requires us to resist the urge to whitewash or gloss over the (real or, in this case, perceived) faults of our hometown or home province.

To briefly address some of the other points: the information I had about Fatburger's Canadian locations was apparently outdated, and being a Canadian citizen, I'm prepared to defer to your expertise about poutine (I've seen the shredded mozzarella stuff before, but I assumed that was just a U.S. bastardization; I've never had anything but the real deal in Canada), and while I personally think Burger King reigns supreme in the world of flame-broiled hamburgers, as did a majority of the material my "Harvey's vs Burger King" Google search turned up, I honestly don't think that issue is worth going to the mat for.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and "heart attack on a bun" is another piece of lively prose that I think needs to stay. I honestly don't understand the argument that it sounds like an advertisement. It sounds like the opposite to me; in fact, when I wrote it, I hoped readers would pick up on the fact that it was a veiled criticism. I mean, who in the world wants to have a heart attack? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Authenticity

I think this article over-uses the word authentic. It appears seven times, including two instances of surprisingly authentic, and it's in one listing twice. That feels like bad writing.

Beyond that, in the specific context of food derived from the regional cooking styles of 19th-century northeastern Mexico, declaring that something is or isn't "authentic" is to declare that there is One True™ form of that food, which, well, is unlikely to be true. It is unlikely to be true that there is any single "authentic" form of folk cooking, and it is even more unlikely that any US fast food chains serve that authentic form, whatever it allegedly is. For example, the "Fresh-Mex" restaurants are declared here to be more authentic than the Tex-Mex restaurants, but they all use cheddar cheese, and most of them offer tofu, which were basically unknown to 19th-century Mexicans. I think we should minimize the claim that they're authentic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

On the face of it, this sounds right to me. But though it's a side point, let's remember that northern Mexico before 1836-48 included what's now Texas, California and the Southwestern U.S., so for example, New Mexican, Cal-Mex and Tex-Mex food is authentic as such. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that there are certain sorts of things that tend to happen whenever the American mass market gets its hands on a foreign food. In colloquial parlance, that's glossed as "authenticity"/"inauthenticity". The reader understands what that word means, so let's leave it at that and avoid overthinking the issue. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

just for stylistic reasons, could we replace some instances of the term with "Americanized" or its opposite? What about "adapted to mass market fast food tastes"? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Why not just stick with the way actual people actually speak, rather than contriving farfetched reasons why someone might possibly be confused or offended by the word "authentic"? I've heard the argument against that word before and it's completely bogus. The whole thing is built around a faulty premise; namely, to quote from above, "declaring that something is or isn't 'authentic' is to declare that there is One True™ form of that food". In reality, the word "authentic" can apply to ranges or spectrums of things as surely as it can to individual things. Mexican cuisine - which is really a patchwork of individual yet broadly similar regional cuisines - is actually a very a good example of this. Chiapan fried-grasshopper tacos, tacos de suadero from Mexico City, and Norteño-style asada tacos may be very different from each other, but Chiapas, Mexico City, and El Norte are all places in Mexico, therefore all of those dishes lay equally valid claims to the title of "authentic Mexican cuisine" despite their differences. Contrast that with Taco Bell, a U.S.-based multinational chain that tried and failed twice to enter the Mexican market, explicitly marketing itself as an American restaurant the second time, and I doubt I could come up with a more fitting adjective than "inauthentic" if I tried.

As for the question of cheese and tofu in "Fresh-Mex" cuisine, I'm sure a person who has lived their whole life in Mexico could come up with a hundred ways in which a taco from Chipotle is different from the ones their hometown taquería serves. But ask them to compare that hometown taquería with Taco Bell and they could surely come up with far more differences than that. Hence the comparative, "more authentic than (x)", rather than the black-and-white absolute of simply "authentic".

Finally, as for the alternatives that Hobbitschuster suggested: "Americanized" is problematic vis-à-vis Mexican food given the fact that Mexico is already part of the American continent; in fact, in Spanish, the use of the adjective americano/americana in connection with things specifically to do with the U.S., as opposed to pan-hemispheric, is often construed as offensive (the proper word for the former context is estadounidense, and the argument for differentiating the two is much stronger than the U.S. woke police's argument that "authentic" is offensive). And "adapted to mass market fast food tastes" uses six more words to convey zero more information.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that's "the way people actually speak", and the one time I remember someone saying that to me (it was about 20 years ago) I remember thinking that was a very strange way for someone to describe a Mission burrito (which is a modern San Francisco invention, not an old Mexican one). Maybe that's the way non-Latinos who are a thousand miles or more away from Mexico speak? (The man who made that remark to me was a second-generation Italian immigrant who grew up in the Bronx.) I don't know. But I know that it's jarring to me, and I find it uninformative as a description about the food. Hobbitschuster's suggestion of "adapted to mass market fast food tastes", on the other hand, is very informative. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Mission burritos are authentic - authentic Cal-Mex food. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing - For the second time now: there's a difference between saying something is "authentic", full stop, vs. saying something is "more authentic" or "closer to authentic" than something else. When a rebuttal selectively ignores large portions of the argument it seeks to refute, that functionally equates to attacking a strawman, which is very frustrating for someone like myself who is trying to debate in good faith. So please acknowledge this difference in any future rebuttals. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

If you say "authentic Chinese food", to me it means that you are referring to food that is the same, or at least very close to what you will find in China. I don't think there is any confusion as to what the terms mean. The dog2 (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The changing border makes that difficult in the case of Tex-Mex. Is this folk food "authentic Mexican food" because it was Mexico when the tradition started? Or is it "Americanized" because it's changed since the first descriptions were widely circulated? If you take the second standard, then much of what people eat in Mexican cities isn't "authentic Mexican food", either. But if you take the first, then all American forms are "authentic".

Ikan, I agree with you, but he thought that it matched what people ate in Mexico in previous generations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Look, I know that on Wikipedia splitting hairs about word choice and other such nitpicks are widely considered a good use of one's time, but at Wikivoyage not only are there always bigger fish to fry, but we've evolved a culture where, despite the wiki understanding that content is always subject to alteration or deletion, it's considered a faux pas of our etiquette to monkey around with other editors' work absent a compelling reason (factual inaccuracy, genuinely confusing or ambiguous wording, obvious spelling or grammar errors). No one in this discussion is less than perfectly clear as to what "authentic" means in the context of this article, nor does anyone seem particularly interested in discussing the amorphous nature of folk cuisine or parsing the finer points of the history of Tex-Mex food, so let's please stop searching for solutions to nonexistent problems and move on to more pertinent issues. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems like you'd like to close the discussion. That's contrary to Wikivoyage culture. I'm quite sympathetic to the arguments against using the word "authentic", but I think the solution is "more nearly authentic", rather than "more authentic". Do we all find that phrase OK? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'd rather address each instance individually, because weak writing isn't best solved by swapping out a single word seven times on the same page. Here are the instances:

1. Bruegger's serves New York-style bagels about as authentic as any you'll ever find at a fast food chain (that is to say, a notch above Einstein Bros. and light-years ahead of Dunkin' Donuts and Tim Hortons, but still no comparison to authentic NYC-area institutions like Ess-a-Bagel and H&H).
   • The problem here is that the word authentic is used twice in the same sentence. There's no significant dispute over the canonical form of New York bagels, so IMO the word is used fairly in the first instance. The second instance could, with no exaggeration, be changed to revered or something similar.
2. Sonic's menu includes surprisingly authentic adaptations of Chicago-, New York-, and Detroit-style dogs, each made with all-beef franks.
   • This use seems strange. Sonic has restaurants in all of these locations, so IMO it would be more surprising if they didn't make recognizable adaptations of these styles. If they're good, then we should probably just say that: "Sonic's menu includes excellent adaptations of these styles" rather than "surprisingly authentic adaptations" of them. Or even not say that they're adaptations, since, you know, it could actually be the real thing. If you put veggies and no mustard on a hot dog in Chicago, then it's not unreasonable to call that a real Chicago hot dog, rather than an adaptation of it.
3. Bojangles' serves perhaps the most authentic interpretation of Southern cuisine to be found anywhere in the fast-food world.
   • Fans of Tudor's and Biscuitville will disagree that we've identified the correct chain for that claim. People who think that Southern food isn't defined by chicken and biscuits will think we're in the wrong category altogether.
4. Chipotle and Moe's have embraced a concept widely known as Fresh-Mex: a a marginally more authentic and markedly healthier model that's slanted toward abundant fresh vegetables and herbs
   • Year-round access to fresh vegetables is a product of the age of refrigeration, and their "healthier model" is distinctly modern (before the 1950s, the world was mainly concerned with under-nutrition, not getting cutting fat and increasing vegetable intake). And in the spirit of being careful with this word, those of us who like to write about food will probably want to keep in mind that the academic scholarship shows that people writing about American restaurants (who are mostly American) tend to use the term authentic as a form of praise for European restaurants and as an insult for cuisines from non-white parts of the world. This means that even if you mean it as praise, many readers are going to interpret "it's authentic" as meaning that the food is cheap, the decor is tacky, and the restaurant is not very clean (all of which are stereotypes of "authentic" Mexican food in the US).
5. Rubio's also has an equally creative range of chicken and steak options, along with enchiladas, surprisingly authentic chicken tortilla soup, nachos and quesadillas, and arguably the best desserts of any restaurant listed in this section.
   • This is the second thing that has surprised us by being authentic. Most of the comments from the previous item apply here, too. Do we mean that the recipe is more like the recipes used in Central Mexico and less like the recipes used in other US restaurants (e.g., less tomato)? Or just that it's what a Wikivoyager expected, and was surprised to find their expectations met in a place that also sells chicken strips and french fries?
6. the same fish filets also make appearances inside sandwich buns and even tortillas in the form of (decidedly not authentically Mexican-style) fish tacos.
   • I fully believe the truth of this statement, but if we're looking to have less than seven uses of this word on this page, then this is an easy one to cut. These aren't any kind of Mexican-style, authentic or otherwise.

I realize that this might feel like a wall of text, and a long complaint. I'm assuming that no individual actually deliberately added seven different uses of this word on purpose. But I think we can do better than this. Since just plunging forward and fixing some of these resulted in wholesale reversion, I'm trying that other well-worn option, "talking about the problems", in the belief that understanding it will help us do better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I find it hard to discuss finer points of word choice in the abstract, so I appreciate the detail, even though it makes the discussion more complicated. I agree with points 1, 2 (though I assume you meant ketchup), and 6. I'm also not a fan of wording #3, though for different reasons: Bojangles' restaurants are almost all in the South, and I think of Bojangles' as a part of Southern cuisine, not just an "authentic interpretation" of it. Being unfamiliar with the cuisine found in Mexico, I have no opinion on 4 or 5. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I found your comment about Bojangles to be compelling, and have stripped the "interpretation" language. Feel free to improve upon it.

I think I've also solved the other problems that we agreed on. That leaves us with authentic New York bagels (IMO a good use of the term) and passing judgements about the authenticity of Tex-Mex food. I think this constitutes a solid improvement, and I'm not aiming for perfection today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I just want to add one point here. Perhaps I'm ignorant because I did not grow up in the U.S., but I do not think using the term "authentic Mexican food" necessarily has racist connotations. I personally am not a fan of the stuff they serve in Chipotle or Taco Bell, and I very much prefer the stuff you get in the hole-in-the-wall taquerias, because I find them to be much more flavourful. So even if you are using the term "authentic" to refer to the latter, I do not necessarily see it as a negative thing. The dog2 (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Did anyone here say it was? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Someone said that "authentic" is used as praise for European cuisines, but used as an insult for non-European cuisines. Maybe I'm just ignorant about American culture in this respect, but as someone who grew up in Asia, I don't necessarily see it that way. The dog2 (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

There are "PC language police"-style arguments out there about use of the word "authentic" with respect to cuisine, and there were definitely undertones of that reasoning in the original post of this thread. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

In reply to The dog2's comment above: That sounds absurd to me. "Authentic" is in my experience always a good-value word, regardless of whether it refers to truthfulness, personal integrity and individuality or tradition. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘As an ethnic Chinese, I don't find it racist if someone say that a hole-in-the-wall Chinese restaurant is "authentic". I actually view it as a compliment for the restaurant.

But anyway, judging from most of the responses here, I guess it's safe to say that most of us are against implementing the "PC language police" here on WV, with the exception of very obviously offensive words like the n-word. I think we have a consensus here. The dog2 (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem isn't saying that any given place is "authentic". The problem is in the way that term gets used. In most cases, specifically in the context of US restaurants, it is a code phrase for "ugly, low-cost restaurant with immigrants on the staff". Authentic is decidedly not always a positive value (unless we're talking about French food). Read these:

"people on social media are often very obnoxious about authenticity, and it's not at all a stretch to think that attitudes about authenticity play a role in perpetuating racist stereotypes and worsening the lives of chefs and restaurateurs who serve food that is coded as ethnic. Diners often associate authenticity in such food with shabbiness and cheapness..."

"the average Yelp reviewer connotes “authentic” with characteristics such as dirt floors, plastic stools, and other patrons who are non-white when reviewing non-European restaurants. This happens approximately 85 percent of the time. But when talking about cuisines from Europe, the word “authentic” instead gets associated with more positive characteristics."

A typical American Chinese restaurant near me just closed. By "typical", I mean a place that bought artificially colored sweet and sour sauce by the caseful, and whose menu lists nothing that the (100% immigrant) staff eats. I just checked their Yelp! reviews. Multiple customers said that the food was "authentic" and "traditional". Several of those also commented on the low prices. One reviewer, who said she was ethnically Chinese, said it wasn't truly authentic food, and also that like most Chinese restaurants, it was dirty. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Look, I don't know how many different ways there are to say that nobody here is interested in entertaining these melodramatic and overwrought arguments that take a perfectly innocuous and descriptive word like "authentic" and twist it into some horrible dog-whistle for racism and xenophobia and all manner of other such things. This is a travel guide. Anyone who wants to indulge their outrage fetish is free to do so elsewhere on the Internet; there is certainly no shortage of venues. So please stop trying to bait other editors with these arguments because no one is biting. Furthermore, just because some ill-informed Yelp reviewers are prepared to describe a cookie-cutter American Chinese takeout as "authentic" doesn't mean that the word "authentic" loses all meaning, or anything more than simply those Yelp reviewers were ill-informed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I can see where there would be problems with the word authentic, but I agree with AndreCarrotflower that connecting it to racism is a bridge too far. It feels like any major discussion we have ends up going down this road. The word authentic, as long as it is used with caution to only mean what is truly authentic, should be acceptable for usage on this website. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Authentic Chinese food in rural college towns?

I would be surprised to find authentic Chinese food in, say, Gambier, which is what comes to my mind when I think of a rural college town in the United States. I would not be so surprised to find it in a place like Chapel Hill or Ann Arbor, which I think of as major college towns. @The dog2: am I underinformed about the prevalence of authentic Chinese cuisine in rural America, or might there be a clearer way to phrase the sentence? —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: You know better, so go ahead and rephrase it. I have friends who went to college in Champaign-Urbana, and they have told me that you can find authentic Chinese food there. Most Chinese parents dream of sending their kids to a top American university (and in fact, about half of the international students in my graduate program are from China), and many of these are not in big cities but in college towns, so I would expect a college town with a prestigious university such as New Haven (home to Yale), Princeton or Providence (home to Brown) to have restaurants serving authentic Chinese food due to the large number of international students from China. The dog2 (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll rephrase. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Champaign-Urbana is a sizable city, not rural in any way. New Haven is a built-up city and not in any sense just a college town. Providence is even bigger and the capital of its state. Princeton is a college town and has a lot of greenery, but it's more suburban or maybe exurban than rural (there was a rural area to its south in the 90s that might be less rural now, but I don't know). One function of Princeton not being rural is that you can walk through town on sidewalks, and the streets are lined with shops. Plus, it's very rich. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: I see. I guess coming from Asia, I consider any settlement with less than a million people to be rural, but perhaps that's would be a medium-sized city in America. The dog2 (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You come from Singapore, not China. Is a city of over 100,000 sizable in Malaysia? I think so. Look up cities over 1,000,000 in the U.S. There aren't very many of them. Besides, rural is a matter of feel, not just population. I know the difference between a real village and a suburb. Villagers don't commute back and forth to cities every day. And small towns don't have several square miles worth of commercial streets. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Singapore is a city-state, so we don't really have rural areas. I lived in Adelaide for a bit, and it has just over a million people, but it does have a laid back rural feel, certainly a lot less cosmopolitan than Sydney, Melbourne or Perth. And I guess I will say it's even more laid back than a city like Kota Kinabalu in Malaysia, though Kota Kinabalu is for sure more laid back than the cities on the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia. I haven't been to Kuantan, Kuala Terengganu or Kota Bharu, so I can't compare them to the West Coast cities. But yeah, I guess I was thinking of Southeast Asia as a whole when thinking of what constitutes a major city; places like Jakarta, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur or Ho Chi Minh City, which all have a larger population than Singapore (if you count the entire metropolitan area). The dog2 (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Probably the only cities of comparable size in the U.S. are New York and L.A., but if you're considering cities like Phoenix and Boston medium-sized and anything under 100,000 rural, you really need to recalibrate. And for the record, KT was a small city (~30,000) in the 70s but a sprawling place in 2003. In neither period was it remotely similar to a kampung in the centre city. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)