Miscellaneous desk
< September 22	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 23

Popular American restaurants which only have branches in the United States

Most popular American restaurants have branches outside of the United States, like McDonald's, KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Wendy's and Burger King. However, what are notable examples of popular, household name restaurant chains in the United States that do not have even a single branch in any other country, not even in Canada or Mexico? Two examples I can think of are Chick-fil-A and White Castle, but do either of them have even have one branch in another country? If not, then what are other notable examples of such restaurants? There's Popeye's in Singapore (I know because I saw one when I went to SG last year), so I guess that's not an example. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Jack in the Box is only in the US. Somewhat relatedly, New York Fries has locations in several countries, including several states of the US, but not New York City. Matt Deres (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New York Fries is principally Canadian, though I did eat at the one in Dubai. Tasted fairly similar. Wonder where they get the potatoes from.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Drive-In also appears to be US-only. I live in Canada and, to be honest, a lot of the companies listed here and here and here are places I've never heard of, except on my sojourns to the wild country to the south. That doesn't necessarily mean much, though SW Ontario is a frequent first area for US chains to expand internationally. Matt Deres (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hardees ? StuRat (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Hardees. According to the article, they have several across the Middle East and Central Asia, of all places, including Pakistan, Kazakhstan, and Oman. --Jayron32 02:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In-N-Out Burger.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bojangles' Famous Chicken 'n Biscuits, Steak 'n Shake, Moe's Southwest Grill, Papa Gino's, Golden Corral. Buffets, Inc. runs several well known buffet chains, all in the U.S. Waffle House is U.S. only, as is Krystal (restaurant) and Huddle House. --Jayron32 02:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store. And I don't know if this qualifies as a "household name" but Checkers (aka Rally's) fits the bill. Dismas|^(talk) 02:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you asked 2 months ago, IHOP would have qualified, but they recently made their name accurate by opening their first non-U.S. restaurant in Dubai. --Jayron32 02:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think, based on the name, that they'd hop to Australia. StuRat (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

IHOP has been in Canada for over 40 years. It wouldn't qualify Mingmingla (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, here in the US we call those fast food chains, or maybe joints, not restaurants. Can't speak for the Brits. μηδείς (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what's that word under the "McDonald's" on this picture: [1] I can't read it too well without my glasses. Can you make it out, Medeis? --Jayron32 04:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word is clearly billion. You need to see a doctor. μηδείς (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on the sign you linked, the word directly below McDonald's is "Hamburgers". So, perhaps your eyes do need checking. --Jayron32 05:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"McDonald's" is to "restaurant" as "Scientology" is to "Church". A description used far more enthusiastically by the subjects themselves than by normal people. Though I notice that each of the WP articles uses the r-word regularly. Sussexonian (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're all restaurants and they're referred to as such in the US. Leave it at that. Now get back to the question. Dismas|^(talk) 13:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A restaurant is a place where customers pay money to be served and eat food. McDonald's is such a place. It might not be a fancy gourmet restaurant, and frankly, even I only eat at McDonald's when I can't afford the money or time to go to a better restaurant, but that doesn't matter. McDonald's is a restaurant, and that goes for all the others mentioned here too. JIP | Talk 17:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True. However, when unqualified, as in "Let's go to a restaurant", the meaning is taken as "Let's go to a sit-down restaurant". This is similar to how saying "She has an attitude" is taken to mean "She has a bad attitude". StuRat (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The typical McDonald's has a good-sized seating area which gets used a lot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Sit-down restaurant" is what I call a restaurant where you sit down at your table to order. That is, one with waiters and waitresses. This excludes fast food restaurants and cafeterias. Is there another term for this ? StuRat (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By that definition, Sonic qualifies. The seats just happen to be the ones in your car and you talk to the waiter via a squawk box. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I included "at your table" in the definition. StuRat (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The squawk box is at your "table". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to support StuRat's statement with actual references (what a novel concept here at the reference desk!), Types of restaurant notes that "sit-down restaurant" is a term used to describe Table service. Wikipedia even has a redirect from sit-down restaurant to that article. dictionary.com notes the usage as "served to patrons who are seated at a table" and later in the usage, contrasts "sit-down" with "counter service", which is what cafeterias and fast-food restaurants have. --Jayron32 05:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of places where you sit down, a waiter comes to take your order, you eat from a variety of food and drink, you pay and leave, that call themselves "cafe"s or "diner"s or "coffee shop"s or other things. There are places where you have to order and pay at the counter as you come in, then sit down to eat and the food is brought to you. MacDonalds is only step removed from that; but with the option of take-away. No different in essence from many Chinese and other ethnic restaurants that have waiter service for those who want to eat in, and a take-away section for patrons who want to wait for their take-away. These would all fit the definition of sit-down restaurants, but not all of them would be what we have in mind when we say "Let's go and eat at a restaurant". I agree with Stu that MacDonalds would be on virtually nobody's mind. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do the objects and substances sold at MacDonalds et al actually fit the definition of food? As my late Scots Granny would have put it: I hae me doots! Roger (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A very valid concern. As we know, food is an important part of any balanced diet. But some people skip food completely, preferring to consume objects and substances. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, at least, the big fast food chains (McD's, BK, Wendy's, Subway) all seem to have healthy things on the menu now, like salads. Even the notorious KFC offers grilled chicken (although, the last time I tried it, it was horrid). It's the smaller chains, like White Castle and Checkers/Rallys, which seem to avoid offering anything healthy. Of course, even when they offer healthy choices, most people don't buy them. StuRat (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

You sure about that, Jayron? This rather heavily implies that there are restaurants all over: Canada, the Caribbean, Mexico, etc. See here as well. Matt Deres (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Jayron's defense, the error was in the article itself: "it had no actual international presence beyond its 1500 locations across the Americas until August 2012". Whoever wrote that sentence probably conflated "Americas" with "U.S.A". A8875 (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that as the likely source of the error. Technically correct but easy to misread. Mingmingla (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can add Shoney's to the list. We, for some reason, don't have an article on it but according to 99 (disambiguation), 99 Steakhouse is only in the New England area. And it looks like Ponderosa and Bonanza used to have Canadian locations but no longer do. Also, LongHorn Steakhouse. Dismas|^(talk) 13:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Del Taco, I think. Probably other Tex-Mex chains. Hungry Howie's Pizza misses with one restaurant in Canada out of 565. Rmhermen (talk) 04:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carrow's maybe? It's "sit-down", and it's a household name at least in California, and the article doesn't mention any locations abroad. --Trovatore (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly a household name. With only 63 restaurants in California, most people probably don't have one near them. When I worked in Los Angeles, I don't remember any near me. StuRat (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Chuck E. Cheese's? -- Q Chris (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, according to [2] they have locations in Canada, UAE, Chile, Guatamala, Mexico, Panama, and Saudi Arabia. --Jayron32 13:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll nominate Bob’s Big Boy, but Burger King, Hardee’s, Arby’s and Chuck E. Cheese have all been in Hong Kong.DOR (HK) (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucratic writing contest

Request for professional advice

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi, well, I've recently had a fairly low-risk research application knocked back by the ethics department at my local university, for a litany of reasons, a couple of them good. One of the more stupid is that I will be recruiting from among friends and colleagues, and they feel I need to deal with all the conflicts of interest in the ethics form. "When recruiting friends and colleagues, conflicts of interest and dependency issues can arise. These need to be specifically addressed either here or later in the application." So in short, the ethics committee thinks that I don't know how to treat my friends correctly, or (since this is educational research), that they will become dependent on me as a teacher, or goodness knows what. And since I don't know how to treat them, they have decided that they will save my friends from me, via an ethics application form. What I am looking for, on my revised application, is some idiotic bureaucratic platitudes to offer them, because I assume that, in response to a stupid question, commonsense isn't going to work, and I need a stupid answer to match. Does anyone have any suggestions on what sort of rubbish I should feed them, and better yet (or just as good) can anyone point me to any websites or resources that will teach me how to deal with bureaucrats in their own language, especially with this issue, but also with the whole process? IBE (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In your anger, you seem to be misreading their objection. It seems more likely that they're afraid that, by recruiting friends, you'll engage in favoritism/cronyism. It's not a stupid concern at all, it's a problem endemic to many companies, universities, etc. Your inability to see that frankly validates their point of view. Also, I see no bureaucrat-ese here. Matt Deres (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, but there is no favouritism possible - I'm collecting data on the efficacy of something I am doing. I also did not say they wrote in a bureaucratic style - it is just a stupid request. There is no possible favouritism if I am not doing it for them so much as me. Can't see your point. IBE (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Matt that you misunderstood the purpose of the policy. It wouldn't hurt to have an informal chat with the chairman of the ethics committee or the university's risk management attourney to help you understand what's going on. In essence, you are asking for legal or professional advice, and so this thread should be terminated. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]