Talk:Animal cracker

debate

Does anyone actually debate whether Animal Crackers are crackers or cookies? 71.141.117.83 09:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Sweet"

Animal crackers aren't all sweet. One brand made by Stauffer's isn't sweet at all.ResurgamII 21:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. But because someone once forgot the sugar and baked an incredibly sour "lemon meringue pie", is Wikipedia obligated to say that lemon meringue pies "could be" sweet? No, because the archetype lemon meringue pie is sweet. Likewise, the archetype animal cracker is sweet. Mohanchous (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Cracker or cookie?

Here, the difference between a cracker and a cookie (or biscuit as I'd call it) is whether they're savoury or sweet. Liam Markham 15:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a good rule of thumb, but not strictly true. For example, milk crackers such a Nabisco's discontinued Royal Lunch crackers had a definite cracker consistency but were slightly sweet. They were commonly broken up into milk and eaten as a breakfast like cereal. Also, animal crackers vary in sweetness and consistency. Whereas Nabisco's Barnum's Animals are essentially a sweet sugar cookie, Stauffer's Animal Crackers are mildly sweet dry cracker. Mohanchous (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Stauffer's says they make animal crackers and sweeter animal cookies. To me, "biscuit" is a synonym for cracker, not cookie (cf. Triscuits & Uneeds Biscuits, two brands of cracker from the former National Biscuit Company). LE (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Ibex of donkey?

Under the variety section, it says in the list the ibex as of animals in Stauffer's animal crackers, but the picture next to it makes no mention of the ibex but includes the donkey. To be honest, I can't tell what animal it's supposed to be just by looking at the picture. Does anyone know what the correct animal is? —Mears man 15:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability of sweetness

"Animal crackers are sweet" -- Haha, this was either done by someone who's overly uptight about verifiability, or someone with a really good sense of humor. Maybe it's just me but I found this very humorous. Like, "Animal crackers are sweet?? Hmm, sounds suspicious, what's your source on this?" Hehe. Anyway...Equazcion •✗/C • 11:36, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I removed that silly citation that had been around since 9/11. However, the guy raises a good point, if it's true that some brands are unsweetened. So I'll fix that too. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. And I have to admit I had never heard of the Stauffer's brand. From my childhood, Barnum's Animals, and Animal Crackers generically, were the same thing. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't remember the brand I used to eat, but here: http://www.stauffers.net/dept.asp?dept%5Fid=8&depth=1 -- they claim to be the "original" animal crackers. I dunno. But I do know that every animal cracker I ever ate was sweet. This guy might just not have a good grasp of what sweet means -- he might think it only applies to sweeter things like chocolate etc. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:11, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I reckon I'll have to get some Stauffer's and test them... assuming I can find them. I haven't actually had any animal crackers for years. Seems like a good time to. Off the subject, I see that the pop culture section, burned away by Burntsauce last fall, was quickly restored by you. Burntsauce itself, since then, has been fried. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm glad, at that, since burntsauce always did leave a bad taste in my mouth. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:28, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Blech. I wonder if anyone has comprehensively gone back and tried to undo the damage he did. He and I crossed paths on only one article, which I fixed as soon he was ousted and his admin pal Alkivar was de-frocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC) I might be getting a little off-topic here. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

← Well as you probably know I did that massive rollback, so I believe the vast majority of the damage was undone. I don't know if anyone's gone back through his contribs to make sure... but with all the edits that are bound to have occurred since then in those articles, it would be a very tedious task, and one which I'm not up for :) Equazcion •✗/C • 12:45, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Good for you, for doing all that work. When I run into a trivia section in an article, I take a look at it to see if it needs improving. But the slash-and-burntsauce approach was not only offensive by its polarizing nature, it was also against the wording of the rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, sugar is an ingredient of the Stauffer crackers as well as the Nabisco version. I checked a Stauffer package tonight. However, all I saw was the 2 pound bag, so I didn't buy any. I did buy the little Nabisco box, though. Yum! :b Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hehe... But, I don't think sugar as an ingredient is evidence of something being sweet. Sugar is an ingredient in lemonade, sour candy, mixed nuts, crackers (even saltines I think).... and other things that wouldn't necessarily be considered "sweet" although I can't think of any other examples at the moment. I mean, I'm fine with leaving the sweet statement in, but just saying... :) Equazcion •✗/C • 06:22, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

That's why I qualified it a bit. I think sugar was about as far down the list of ingredients in either item, but that doesn't mean they are the same percent in each. I'll see if I can find a smaller quantity of Stauffer's and then see if they are any more or less sweet than Nabisco's, or just different. I realize that's "original research", but it's reasonable to assume that anyone with taste buds could verifiably discern relative sweetness between the two items. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Shamefully, I've eaten whole buckets of Stauffer's animal crackers, so I can attest to their flavor. They are mildly, but definitely, sweet. Someone used to Barnum's Animals, which are essentially a sugar cookie, might judge them as not sweet by comparison. Mohanchous (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

And by the way, I reworked the first paragraph. The main changes were (1) I removed a sentence saying there was a "debate" over whether animal crackers are crackers or cookies (marked for citation), and replaced it with a less objectionable statement that an animal cracker is a cracker or a cookie. (2) I removed the mention the "traditional" string on the box, this is true only of Barnum's Animals, other animal crackers have always come in standard snack packaging (the history of the string is repeated later in the article, so nothing is lost) and (3) I added the note that animal crackers are generally sold in assortments of shapes, a feature that distinguishes them from other animal shaped snacks. Mohanchous (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What's an Animal Cracker Discovery Channel thing?

This is in the pop culture section: "In the 1998 film Armageddon Ben Affleck's character does an Animal Cracker Discovery Channel thing to Liv Tyler's character, which can be found in the film's soundtrack."

Does Anyone Else Remember the Borden brand of animal crackers?

I just edited the article to reflect the existence of the Borden's brand of animal crackers, which I haven't seen available in stores for a good 30 years or more. They came in a red box, and featured the Elsie the Cow logo. They were similar, but far superior, to the Nabisco variety, I believe due to their having a higher fat content. They always seemed a bit moist, and smelled very pleasant. The odor was similar to one I used to smell in a whey processing plant I briefly worked at, so perhaps whey was a key ingredient. If anyone does remember these, and has any further info, please add it to the article, or just post it here, and I will add it to the article. A picture would really be great (but that's probably unlikely, for a product I don't think has been on the market since about 1976 - although perhaps it stayed on the market longer in other parts of the country?) KevinOKeeffe (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Where Are Barnum's Animals Crackers Produced?

The article indicates that "Barnum's Animals Crackers are all produced in the Fair Lawn, New Jersey Bakery by Nabisco Brands." However, I have a package of them in my hand from a multi-pack, and the package indicates that they are made in Mexico. I can't find a statement to this effect on Nabisco's website, but the H-E-B website link https://www.heb.com/product-detail/nabisco-barnums-animal-crackers-multipack/1883544 has the text from the back of the package, and it indicates they are made in Mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CLSwiki (talk • contribs) 20:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

How many Varieties? 54 or 106?

In the History section it says:

In total, 54 different animals have been represented by animal crackers since 1902.

But in the very next section, Varieties, it says:

In total, 106 different animals have been featured in Barnum's Animals Crackers since 1903.

Which is correct?

Also, the years cited are different, 1902 and 1903. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.233.83 (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Animal cracker. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101012020649/http://www.cadbury.co.uk/ourproducts/today/Pages/JS_cakes.aspx?category=cakes to http://www.cadbury.co.uk/ourproducts/today/Pages/JS_cakes.aspx?category=cakes

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Unneeded pop culture section

I don't think the IPC section is needed since most of the instances are unsourced, are brief instances, or didn't have a terribly important cultural impact. Since this is a well-known topic, an IPC section would be too excessive. WashyGenius (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)