Talk:Big Mac

Food and drink B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Image

The Current image features a Big Mac that appears to have been stepped on. The top bun is concave and the lower second patty is not visible. If the previous image was to perfect I understand, but this picture seems to be deliberately uglified. Can't we get a nuetral Big Mac photo? --Murphoid 03:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else think the photo here is an unrealistic representation of an actual Big Mac? Looks more like the idealised food photography that is used in the marketing material to me - an actual Big Mac is much flatter and soggier, and sort of greyish in colour. An actual Big Mac does not contain anything qute so green and fresh looking, either. Graham 23:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'd love to see a real picture. If I ever get one of these horrible burgers again, I'll take a picture and put it on the Commons. Bungopolis 06:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have finally got around to taking a picture of a real Big Mac. (It was consumed after photography by my daughter as her contribution to Wikipedia!)--AYArktos 00:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good on yer - but shades of John Gummer? You brute!!!Graham 05:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any objection to replacing the picture with an AMERICAN Big Mac? One that comes in the cardboard case. Reiver 15:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't. The basic sandwich looks the same, and I suspect that if it was shown in the box, the sandwich itself would be less visible. -- Hawaiian717 22:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what is wrong with an Australian Big Mac, this is an international encyclopaedia and some of us are very sensitive to any intimations of Imperialism :-) --A Y Arktos\^talk 02:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

while the original picture up was clearly a stylized one, the new image looks nothing like a big mac that hasn't been purposely made to look like that... is there a more realistic and less disgusting picture that someone who DOESN'T hate mcdonalds wants to put up? 1337wesm 00:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure that 480 is 14% lower than 540?

The picture looks realistic enough to me, but a better looking photograph is certainly possible. I don't think a promotional photograph would be a good replacement though, not least for copyright reasons.--Eloil 21:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info box

I added a snazzy info box template that I'm working on for foods' nutrition information. You might not want to read it while eating a Big Mac, though... ;-) Miraculouschaos 01:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do the ingredients and quantities apply universally - the Big Mac is an international product. I know they are standardised, but by that much?--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this info is from McDonald's own site. It may be applicable only to the US market, though.Miraculouschaos 02:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - As it turns out, I just checked McDonald's Australia website, and there are a few differences. The Big Mac has 80 calories less in Oz, for instance. Hmm, we'll have to figure out a way around that. Miraculouschaos 02:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

The Australian info is at http://www.mcdonalds.com.au/PDFs/NutritionInformation.pdf I am sure McDonalds aroound the world has national sites. The Australian Big Mac claimes only 480 cals compared with the US. Sodium is for example 800 mg cf 1010 mg. Altogether a lesser burger obviously.--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International comparisons

Given the differences in size and composition between the Australian and US burgers, it might be interesting to produce a table of these differences. It would not contain the full details included in the info box but some key ones. For example:

Comparisons of the Big Mac standard nutritional values in different countries (% = % or recommended daily allowance)
Country	Serving size (weight)	Calories	Carbohydrate	Protein	Total fat	Dietary fiber	Sodium	Reference

Australia		480	36.2g	25.3g	24.9g		800mg	[1]
France		492	38.9g	26.2g	25.8g	4.2g	0.9g	[2]
Malaysia	209g	484	46g	26g	23g		730mg	[3]
India - West Zone (Chicken Maharaja Mac)	255g	573	54g	32g	26g			[4]
United States	219g	560	47g (16%)	25g (45%)	30g (47%)	3g (14%)	1010mg (42%)	[5]

--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some countries do not appear to have nutritional information readily available. To save research - I will note as I find. I will also note their local special hamburger.

Country	Reference	Local special hamburger name
Guatemala	http://www.mcdonalds.com.gt/	Quesoburguesa
India North Zone	http://mcdonalds.net.in/mcd/corp/index.htm - broken links to "Our food"

--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mega Mac

Has been availible in Ireland for far longer than stated... where i work has sold it since it opened in 2005 and i have seen it at least in 2004 in a different maccy d'sOwwmykneecap 21:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1010mg

Isn't 1000 miligrams the same as one gram? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.235.1.34 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC+10 hours)

Yes but 1010 mg is not the same as 1 gram other than approximately--Golden Wattle ^talk 22:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. I now used 1.01g. More accurate. 67.188.172.165 04:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but not probably an appropriate unit for the quantity - why didn't you leave it alone? You will see from the source that sodium is not measured in grams in this case (or usually for food) but mg.--Golden Wattle ^talk 18:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at the table of nutritional values, it says "Salt" in the table and some of the values there do indeed appear to be for sodium chloride, but some are just for sodium - 2200mg sodium chloride isn't the same as 2200mg sodium. The table fails in that the values can't actually be compared across countries 130.88.150.39 (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of nutritional information - liberal bias?

An editor from an IP address 209.94.161.136 (talk · contribs) removed the nutritional information from several hamburger articles with the edit summary: Deleted nutrition information, which shows a liberal bias. I don't think the edits are in line with wikipedia policies. If the editor thinks that the inclusion of verifiable information which has been reliably sourced does not meet Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, he needs to explore this on the discussion pages and explore how to resolve the issue.--Golden Wattle ^talk 22:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be re-added. I think it's been removed because it puts a bad light on the food when people see what they contain. I assume this was done under the instruction of McDonalds? It wasn't discussed here and it was a major change. The information is still fact, and I belive it's important fact. Danno81 08:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added the information as it's relavent. If anyone has a good reason to remove it please discuss it here. Otherwise I will simply add it again. This is factual information and there are different types of big mac so this is a good comparison table with useful factual information. Please check and confirm the values in the table, however don't remove it completely without a discussion and a valid reason to do this. Danno81 08:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Dietary Laws

As far as I know, the dietary laws which prohibit the eating of beef are not part of Islam.

Is there Bacon in the big mac? or some other pork? Otherwise it would not make sense that it would be offlimit to muslims. Jews don't eat pork either (many). - Abscissa 04:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is not the Big Mac itself but the grill used for cooking meat may (or more likely will) be used to cook bacon as well. Also, McRib or any other burger using pork patties may use the same grill. --Revth 07:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty ignorant that people would get offended that their meat is halal, would these same ignoramii complain if it was kosher? If you don't believe in a religion it's "magic" doesn't effect you. 64.228.0.141 03:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Energy values

The energy values should be kilocalories, not calories--Darin-0 20:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but there is some confusion, the US McDonalds says it's calories, Germany says it's kcal (which is correct). Also, some of the facts have changed. For instance, Germany's Big Mac is now with 495 kcalories (instead of 503). Grinder0-0 20:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ingredients

I've changed the page so that it does not use the ad song to give the ingredients for the Big Mac, as this is obviously inappropriate in several ways. It is not neutral, as it is using McDonalds-provided material in place of Wikipedia-provided material, and it does not meet WP:FU requirements, as it is either trademarked and/or copyrighted, and thus can not be used unless it is irreplaceable, etc. Thus, it can only be used when used specifically to discuss that song, not to discuss the actual ingredients of a Big Mac. 76.100.162.31 23:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's never been acknowledged by anybody that special sauce was thousand island dressing and it doesn't even taste the same anyway. I thought this article was supposed to be based on facts and not guesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.244.21 (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was recently added and it was unsourced so now it is deleted. MrMurph101 19:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal (Special sauce to Big Mac)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of this discussion was Merge due to apathy

Honest truth, does an ingredient need its own page? The special sauce is directly related to the Big Mac and doesn't need its own page. Where else does it fit in with McDonald's products?

- Jeremy (Jerem43 05:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I dunno, I think it should be separate... I actually looked up special sauce to know what it was not I don't wanna have to look through the Big Mac page to find the info on the special sauce. Seems like everything has its own separate page on wiki. Which in my opinion is a good thing, if the space is there, use it!!! But thats just my opinion, I'm sure you'll fight for yours i honestly don't care anymore and I'm over it as of.......now. Robkehr 06:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks and no real opinions against the merger. I am doing it - Jeremy (Jerem43 23:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Isn't it normally considered good form to provide notice of the proposed merger at the other article too? PubliusFL 17:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see you did put a merger tag on the other article. I mostly watched its talk page. Sorry! PubliusFL 17:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US values only!!!

The whole page seems to be geared towards describing the US sandwich only. Can we please edit this to show ranges they cover globally? eg, not just saying it weighs 45g per pattie, but I believe we should say between 30g and 60g (these are not the true values for the patties, just trying to give an example) Danno81 08:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mini Mac

It was discontinued in Australia about five years ago.