Talk:McDonald's

RFV 1
Rfv-sense: the company. No chance this will pass WT:BRAND or WT:COMPANY. -- Liliana • 04:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with deleting that definition is that there are a lot of other definitions dependent in some way or another on that definition. And I think the fact that so many other definitions, a number of which are wholly independent of the company, exist and are verifiable would lead me to believe that that gets it to pas WP:COMPANY.  Take, for example, "Mc-" definition #4.  That definition is based primarily on the fact that there is a large fast food chain that many do not hold in high regard  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 04:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, doesn't it currently pas WT:COMPANY anyway? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. What is WT:COMPANY trying to say? It looks like "being a company name does not stop a surname from being included", but that's not necessary to say. Equinox ◑ 23:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WT:COMPANY reads as follows: "A brand name for a physical product should be included if it has entered the lexicon." Has the multinational behemoth known as McDonald's entered the lexicon?  You're darned right.  In case I hadn't made myself clear, strong keep  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 23:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You've actually quoted WT:BRAND. COMPANY says "Being a company name does not guarantee inclusion. To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested." We currently have a common noun on the same page, so once that's attested, this passes. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, per Purplebackpack89. What about translations? You just want to chuck them? --Anatoli (обсудить) 10:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, fuck McDonald's.Lucifer 03:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of it, but the way I see it, it passes WT:COMPANY and WT:BRAND doesn't apply (but may well do if the proposal to update it passes). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

RFV 2

 * Previous discussion: Talk:McDonald's.

Like Amtrak. - -sche (discuss) 04:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Are these four somehow special? We have hordes of others that are cited only scantily or not at all: Ford, Chevrolet, Chrysler, Oldsmobile, SAAB, Volvo, Mercedes-Benz, Fiat, Cadillac, Peugeot, Pepsi... --Hekaheka (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * These were special only in that they were previously tagged and still not yet resolved. I'm sure someone will RFV all of the ones you listed shortly. (Liliana, would you like to do the honours?) Some may pass, others (Peugeot) will probably fail. - -sche (discuss) 17:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Kept. I don't care whether the terms stay or go, and no-one has commented proposing that they don't meet CFI, so they're staying. - -sche (discuss) 21:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Possessive
What's the possessive form of McDonald's? How is it pronounced? --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)