Jump to content

Talk:Cracker Barrel: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
COI disclosure
Line 45: Line 45:
{{WikiProject LGBT Studies|class=FA}}
{{WikiProject LGBT Studies|class=FA}}
}}
}}
{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=WWB Too|U1-employer=Beutler Ink|U1-client=Cracker Barrel Old Country Store}}
{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=WWB Too|U1-employer=Beutler Ink|U1-client=Cracker Barrel Old Country Store |User2=CB JessicaM |U2-employer=Cracker Barrel}}
{{Copied|from=User:WWB Too/Cracker Barrel Old Country Store|to=Cracker Barrel Old Country Store|diff=http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cracker_Barrel_Old_Country_Store&action=historysubmit&diff=474487629&oldid=473705210|date=1 February 2012}}
{{Copied|from=User:WWB Too/Cracker Barrel Old Country Store|to=Cracker Barrel Old Country Store|diff=http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cracker_Barrel_Old_Country_Store&action=historysubmit&diff=474487629&oldid=473705210|date=1 February 2012}}


Revision as of 16:11, 19 February 2021

Featured articleCracker Barrel is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 11, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 30, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
February 5, 2012Good article nomineeListed
February 6, 2012Good article reassessmentKept
March 12, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
May 13, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Origin of name

Where does the name come from? What does it mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.90.93.21 (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Read

I too found the topic rather boring at first, but was unaware of all the controversy surrounding the restaurant chain. The article was well written and it completes its goal of informing readers information that they did not know before they read it. Growing up eating at Cracker Barrels I had no idea that there was so much controversy about their policies and found it shocking. When I first began to read the section of the article that discussed the controversy I thought it was going to be biased against Cracker Barrel. To my surprise, it wasn't. I thinkn this is a good example of an article that is unbiased even though it talks about negative attention it has received. Overall, a great article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelgav09 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism.

People keep adding stuff about "Brad's wife" to the article, even after semi-protection. Might need to be watched for the next week or two. 2600:8800:2404:5C00:1041:D75F:77D0:B69F (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is an online meme, I'm wondering if there should be a brief sub-section in the Controversies section, something about labor practices using it as an example – not that we know the circumstances of the termination, but that it was controversial regardless. It's not the first time that a termination at Cracker Barrel has become a widely-discussed phenomenon. Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't mention every passing meme in the main article. Let's at least wait and see if there's substantial coverage that continues in reliable secondary sources. Jonathunder (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--(t) Josve05a (c) 17:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - no need to cover every trivial meme. Kuru (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. What with the WaPo and all, maybe it belongs in List of complete nonsense or whatever we have for stuff like this, but not here. Herostratus (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a "silly meme" but it has received massive national media attention from outlets like the Washington Post [[1]]. Calling it a "silly meme" and not including anything about it, for example under "controversies", at this point is clearly inserting biased personal opinions into the article (bias can represent itself as lies of omission). Even the CIA has a task force on "meme warfare" and memology is a major recognized active area of study that has profound influence on the world. It is most certainly and unarguably of great significance to this article, vandalism notwithstanding. Even if it is a passing meme, you can be certain it will be studied at length by people who are interested in social media, corporate presence, and memeology. 144.92.166.201 (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Well, we do have List of memes. It would be there it should go since it better answers the question "What are some memes?" than the question "What is Cracker Barrel like?". The thing is, every entry in List of memes has its own article, so you'd want to do that first. Could we have an article on this? Speaking as the author of Vodka eyeballing and Planking (fad) and Beezin', my answer is: Yes. Yes, we could. So go to it, colleague! Herostratus (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, Beezin'. Note that Burt's Bees was popularly sold in Cracker Barrel. This may all be a delicately crafted web of nonsense. Kuru (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2017

I notice that Cracker Barrel only currently employed 69,999 people (minus Brad's Wife) WeWantJusticeForBradsWife (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WeWantJusticeForBradsWife: Not done. TJH2018talk 03:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 📞 contribs 21:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Cracker Barrel → Cracker Barrel Old Country Store – Company's official name; want to distinguish from Cracker Barrel cheese or actual cracker barrels Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cracker Barrel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cracker Barrel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2018

Your section map about Cracker Barrel restaurants has omitted the one nearest to me: Washington, PA 1008 Trinity Circle Washington, PA 15301-2972 724-222-7050 207.255.126.78 (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing a location map? Kuru (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - We don't have maps showing the locations of retail outlets in any of our articles, so you must be seeing this on another platform e.g. Google, Bing, etc. which are outside of our control. - Arjayay (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR Sponsorship

Cracker Barrel's sponsorship turned into a fiasco and eventually a lawsuit. I believe it merits a mention and I'm seeking opinions of others as to where this information should be mentioned. Is the preference under the existing controversies section or should it be mentioned after the NASCAR information already in the article? Modor (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)Modor[reply]

It might be worth a mention in that article, but probably not here. Jonathunder (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it could be mentioned in 2001 Cracker Barrel Old Country Store 500, particularly as it ended the sponsorship. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding section on Cracker Barrel logo controversy

Recently there's been a controversy brewing after someone noticed that the loop on the far right of Cracker Barrel's logo resembles a whip. Many have responded by boycotting the store and regretting their purchases. Is this worthy of inclusion under the Controversies section yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.164.18.97 (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consider FARC

Per Wikipedia:Featured article review, edits need to be considered since this is at FA status that seems too be falling short.


1) The lead has become unruly and is overly focused on controversy. The issues can be discussed in the prose and I wonder why we even have that many sources in the lead. The version had 1 of 3 paragraphs devoted to controversy, but it has gotten out of hand with controversy dominating the lead


2) There seems to be a lot of reverts in the last couple months. Looking further in to the history this seems to be a minor lightning rod of an article which has made it inherently unstable.


3) MOS:Images is not met

3a. Why is the gift shop image underCracker Barrel#Restaurants left justified and sandwiching with "A Cracker Barrel guest playing peg solitaire"

3b. 2012 wasn't that long ago, so where is the alt text?


4) Sourcing

4a. Looks OK overall but a lot of primary sourcing

4b. At least one date in inconsistent and publish date with access date is not consistent.

4c. Is Human Rights Campaign or the NAACP reliable sources on this subject?

4d. Why is staff writer even wikilinked in a source?

4e. I verified at least one dead link and there are multiple other flags and timeouts per the external link tool.


5) The weight given to controversy alone makes the article read as a "hit peice". I'm not saying that there is no room for criticism, but:

5a. Even the section titles don't meet the MOS on how to use dashes with Cracker Barrel#Race- and gender-based discrimination lawsuits

5b. And of course WP:UNDUE and Wikipedia:Criticism; it would be much better to reduce the overall footprint or try to integrate Cracker Barrel#Controversies in to the history section. Note: The FA nom did have a "controversy" section in 2012 and I am actually surprised that got past the reviewers.


6) 1 redlink: Maple Street Biscuit Company

2601:601:CE7F:E270:D6E:C938:448E:2071 (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cracker_Barrel&oldid=1007722202"