Talk:Cracker Barrel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Cracker 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 trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 11, 2013.

Query[edit]

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)

Cracker Barrel has provided training and resources to minority employees What's a "minority employee"? John (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I've wikilinked the first instance of minority in the lede to Minority group. But as for the term "minority employee", that's an accurate term. I can't think of a way to reword it without the sentence becoming clunky. SilverserenC 09:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Sequence[edit]

I gather from a glance at the FAC that sections were switched around; unfortunately we now have "In further attempts to rebuild its image,[49] the firm has provided a scholarship through the National Black MBA Association,[50] and job skills programs and sponsorships with 100 Black Men of America[49][51] and the Restaurant and Lodging Association.[52]" coming before the reader has read the accounts of the various controversies. This is less than optimal on a FA! --John (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. The reorganization in the middle of FAC was something we didn't think to re-check over to make sure the switched wording was proper. I've now reworded the sentence, so I hope it reads better. SilverserenC 09:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Well done[edit]

I find the topic not so interesting, but I read about a third of the article and scanned the rest because it is well-written and flows well. I learned things about the store that I did not know, and not just about the controversy, but about the store's roots, and the gas pumps. I thought I remembered they had gas pumps in the South, but someone said "no, they've never had them." I bet the newer stores in the West never had the pumps. And so, it was worth my time. One should be able to find well-written articles about any topic in an encyclopedia, good job. --150.135.210.72 (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Licensing dispute[edit]

Two issues I'd like to raise about the new Licensed products section:

  1. It currently says the deal was to create a line of frozen food products, although the deal was not about a frozen foods, but rather bacon, ham, and lunchmeats. The Reuters article linked a few days ago has apparently gone 404, but the Chicago Tribune still carries a Reuters story with the same headline, and there's no mention of "frozen" foods here. Meanwhile, an AP report carried by Huffington Post says "packaged ham, bacon and other foods". Can someone update this?
  2. Second, there are couple of problems with this statement: Kraft says that Cracker Barrel products for sale in retail have been exclusively manufactured or has been licensed by Kraft and not from the restaurant chain since 1954. As the AP story linked above notes, the restaurant chain has sold a "limited number of mixes, candies and sauces through its shops and website", which is certainly retail. The article also notes it was specifically cheese Kraft began selling under the name in 1954 (other products came later). Any thoughts about how to handle these differing versions?

Lastly, as veterans of this article will correctly presume, I am asking on Cracker Barrel's behalf. I'm also happy to answer any questions about the issue if I can help. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Cracker Barrel is not a retail outlet, it is a restaurant that sells products on the side in its own setting. Retail outlets are supermarkets and similar locations. The article I read said frozen meals. If that is incorrect, feel free to fix it. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 21:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy, thanks for the fast reply. About retail: although I think it's fair to say that Cracker Barrel Old Country store operates in both restaurant and retail, I follow your point about availability in supermarkets, and I can let it go—it's actually not the main point I should have made.
The real issue is that the Reuters story is unclear on Kraft's products, but the same Associated Press version I linked before is more clear: Kraft notes that it started using the "Cracker Barrel" name on cheese in 1954. (I made an error yesterday in saying "other products came later"—in fact, Kraft's Cracker Barrel brand is only cheese.) So I would suggest changing this sentence:
Kraft says that Cracker Barrel products for sale in retail have been exclusively manufactured or has been licensed by Kraft and not from the restaurant chain since 1954.
To this:
Kraft has sold cheese under the Cracker Barrel brand in retail stores since 1954.
How does that sound? (Sounds good about "frozen"; I avoid direct editing when it's a client issue, so I can ask someone at WP:PAIDHELP if you'd prefer.) Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
It works for me. If you can find a source, this is an issue under the Lanham Act and concerns the legal concept of prior use. Take a look see at Burger King (Mattoon, Illinois) to see what I am referring too. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 22:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, that's great. About the Lanham Act: I searched recent coverage for the keywords involving the company names and Lanham Act, and it doesn't seem to have figured in any secondary sources, so, perhaps better to wait and see if that does become part of the coverage. Meantime, since you've encouraged me to make the edits but I'd prefer to keep to Talk pages (especially given the scrutiny this article has had) I'll ask at WP:CO-OP and try another recently involved editor as well. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've made both of the requested changes. Does it look okay? SilverserenC 23:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks for the assist! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

re Category:Discrimination against LGBT people[edit]

Yes it makes sense to have the article in this category. For one thing, it's not just drive-by categorization. There's a section on it in the article. They're more or less well-known for it, which probably makes sense, because how many organizations in 21st century America have on file employee termination forms with "Employee is gay" given as the entire entry in the "Reason for termination" field?

This is unsurprising, since they're a southern organization (they don't much like women or African-Americans either). I get that, for whatever reason, they don't want to let their Confederate freak flag fly as Chick-Fil-A does, so they hired folks to have this article written for them and kind of downplay this. So we have "Cracker Barrel achieved the lowest score (15 out of 100) of all rated food and beverage companies in the Human Rights Campaign's 2008 Corporate Equality Index, a measure of gay and lesbian workplace equality. Their score for 2011 had improved to a 55. The 2011 survey noted that the firm had established a non-discrimination policy and had introduced diversity training that included training related to sexual orientation, which allows an editor to then say "This company doesn't seem to fit into that category anymore, as the discrimination isn't current".

Unfortunately, facts are stubborn things. Their 2012 Corporate Equality Index dropped to 35, and stayed there for 2013.[1] This is far below median, and is out of a possible score of 100, which hundreds of organizations do achieve. It's really not that hard to achieve a high score, unless you have difficulty with concepts like "don't be an asshole". Anyway, for whatever reason, they don't seem able to sustain that towering 55. I can't think of any reason why this isn't mentioned in the article.

Can anyone help me here?

Think hard!

At any rate, for my part I think that that discriminating against LGBT folks is a important part of who they are and it's a service to the reader to group them in that category for ease of access. So I put it back. Herostratus (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. I didn't realize that their score had gone down again. If it is indeed a current issue, then the category deserves to be here. Though only so long as it is current, because if you look in the category, you'd see that only organizations where it is current for them or that the stance lasted throughout their entire existence are included in the category. Organizations that eventually changed their stances aren't included in the category. So, for now, it's appropriate to have the category here. SilverserenC 20:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I've added the 2013 scores to the article. Thanks for pointing it out. SilverserenC 20:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


It is now late in 2015 - and no actual sourcing for the category about Cracker Barrel as an organization has been presented. Collect (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

food[edit]

this book needs to have pictures of food because it talks about a food place — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.73.166 (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Biglari coverage[edit]

This article seems to be missing a substantial chunk of comprehensive coverage. Cracker Barrel's largest shareholder, Biglari holdings, has been regularly at odds with the board. They have even gone so far as to add a poison pill to keep Biglari from buying a larger stake in the company. This issue was present prior to the Featured Article candidacy, and coverage continues today. A few references:

and plenty more can be found on Google.

Currently there is only one, recently added, sentence mentioning Biglari, noting that he is an "activist shareholder" whose proposal was shot down. I am inclined to think this is a serious oversight for a featured article. Any thoughts on putting this up for featured article review? --TeaDrinker (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE - the coverage in the article is proportionate to the coverage in sources. Collect (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
That is to say, discussing it at all would be undue weight? The coverage has been pretty extensive for multiple years. Here is stuff from the past few days:
A quick search of World News finds 320 results for Biglari and Cracker Barrel. I think it is safe to say this is more than a sentence-worth of mention. It could easily be a subsection on investment history. This was the most obvious of multiple issues I see in this article. Much of the text is written as a PR document--multiple mentions of the charity work, titles like "investment and future growth" which could be taken from a prospectus, passive voice in some points of criticism followed by active voice in addressing it. I am really not sure how these issues could have slipped pasted Featured Article Candidacy. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Well of course. I've know about the Biglari stuff, and Cracker Barrel's generally parlous financials for ages. Of course it's important. There's other interesting and useful stuff not in the article too, such as Cracker Barrel making illegal payments to Dick Armey, part of the scandal that ended Armey's career, and so forth.
I think that when a user goes to an article, she wants to answer the question "What is this entity?" and stuff that describes who they are as a player on this earth, including the Biglari matter and much else is obviously as important as "Cracker Barrel is known for the loyalty of its customers" and "There are two menus: one for breakfast, the other for lunch and dinner" so on. But good luck with that. I guess it comes down to the question of "What should an article about a corporation contain"? and that's something people can disagree on, and there're enough editors of the mind "Not anything the corporation doesn't want you to know" that it's a tough row to hoe.
As a practical matter, Cracker Barrel itself more or less wrote this article and continues to control it (User:WWB Too is their PR rep). It's all on the up and up -- User:WWB Too is open about his relationship with Cracker Barrel and follows Bright Line by only posting suggestions to the talk page -- but then you have other users who, for whatever reason (ideology I suppose) are only too willing to paste these into the article and defend them. Here's a discussion re this situation from a couple years ago (there are others).
What I'd suggest is that, since you have the refs and all, you add a section describing this important matter. Of course it's relevant to answering the question "Who are they"? But don't expect to get anywhere, or for you contributions not to be massaged away if you do. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I have started work on the article, but a good deal more is needed. Do you think a featured article review is needed? --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I dunno. I don't really know how Featured Articles works. I gather that there's a checklist. I think that the items on the checklist are like "error-free prose" and "long enough" and "has nice pictures" and "references are formatted correctly" and so forth. WP:NPOV is only one item on that list and I don't think it's weighted anymore than if the references are formatted correctly or whatever, besides which I assume that they're looking for obvious POV such as blatant puffery or denigration. They're not equipped to deal with material being left out I don't think and objections of that manner are likely to be brushed off I think. Herostratus (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, all. Just noticed that Hero had mentioned me in this discussion, so I figured I should weigh in. However, all I really have to say is that I'm not too familiar with Biglari, and I haven't worked with Cracker Barrel since I obtained a few corrections in February of this year. Happy to answer any questions if I can, though. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 04:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Etymology[edit]

I know what a cracker is (e.g. a soda cracker), and I know what a barrel is, but I've never seen a barrel filled with crackers, and never heard of a "cracker barrel" outside of being a brand of cheese. The article says the name was chosen to reflect a "southern theme", implying that "cracker barrel" was a pre-existing name, but it doesn't what on earth it refers to. Do southerners keep crackers in a barrel? It makes no sense.77Mike77 (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

In olden times (pre-1900), crackers were not sold in boxes in neat cardboard with colorful characters on them.. They were sold to stores in big barrels (as were pickles etc.). Frequently the barrel was used as a table in the store, and people would gather "around the cracker barrel". Collect (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That info should be included in the article.77Mike77 (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

re Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights[edit]

(See also above: Talk:Cracker Barrel#re Category:Discrimination against LGBT people

There's no question that they have engaged in egregious discrimination against LGBT people. This is not surprising since they're a Southern (USA) organization with a Southern mindset.

To my mind, the questions are:

  1. Is this mostly in the past?
  2. If it is mostly in the past, does that matter? There's no Category:Organizations that formerly opposed LGBT rights. It might matter. Organizations change. I would be reluctant to put Republican Party (United States) in Category:Organizations championing African-American rights even tho for most of their history they were. Another might think it's recentism not to. It's probably a case-by-case thing that partly depends on how far in the past you want to go...
  3. Even if they qualify per #1 and #2, they are not an organization that exists primarily to make LGBT people unhappy. Their main mission is to sell 5000-calorie heaps of biscuits and gravy and so forth. The other thing is just a side effect of them being who they are.

As to #3, fine, but would we not put ExxonMobile in Category:organizations opposed to climate change science (or whatever) even though their actual activity is just to pump, refine, and sell oil and the other thing is just a side effect. And after all, Cracker Barrel is notorious for being intolerant generally.

The whole discussion makes me nervous because Cracker Barrel has spread some money around here, and there has been at least one libertarian-type person involved in this article, and both of those would make it difficult to have a fair discussion, so IDK... as far as refs, User:Collect had reverted the category because of lack of refs. Well there's hella refs, see the "Controversies" section for starters. The question is not refs but the three questions posed above, about which I personally can seen both sides.

Since Cracker Barrel has seen fit to try to corrupt the Wikipedia to its own ends, I'm not inclined to cut them any breaks tho. Herostratus (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Categorization requires sourcing. In the case at hand, you would need strong sourcing for Cracker Barrel as an organization seeking to discriminate against LGBT people. That you assert Cracker Barrel has seen fit to try to corrupt Wikipedia to its own ends is not a WP:RE source, I fear you might be trying to make Wikipedia rules fit your own desires here. c (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Well there's hella sourcing, as I said. As I said, the "Controversies" section has some (not saying that that's exhaustive). There are two sources for "In early 1991, an intra-company memo called for employees to be dismissed if they did not display "normal heterosexual values". According to news reports, at least 11 employees were fired under the policy on a store-by-store basis from locations in Georgia and other states". There's a source for "Cracker Barrel achieved the lowest score (15 out of 100) of all rated food and beverage companies in the Human Rights Campaign's 2008 Corporate Equality Index, a measure of LGBT workplace equality". There's also some stuff about how they've seen the light, but remember that's paid content; the previous section describes how as soon as no one was looking they went back to their old ways and so forth.
That's OK (I suppose). That's who they are. No need to hide it. They serve chicken livers (yum!) and sell interesting retro toys and so forth, so like most entities that have good and bad aspects. Our job is to just to present the facts. Is it a service to the reader to allow her to navigate to to this article via that category? I don't know. Maybe.
"Cracker Barrel has seen fit to try to corrupt Wikipedia to its own ends" is not a source but it is a fact. Ignoring facts is not a good way to start discussion stuff IMO. As I said, their decision to try to corrupt the Wikipedia makes this a fraught conversation. Whether I think that people who defend Cracker Barrel's virtue might or might not be corrupt is for my own mind to keep to itself, but if they didn't want that question being raised in people's minds, and if they didn't want us to be take especial care to combat that by making sure that negative aspects of their organization are properly expounded on, maybe they should have thought of that before starting to throw money around here, n'est-ce pas?
So, you know, if you want to demonstrate that they were never an ant-LGBT organization, or that they aren't anymore and that matters, or that they are or were but it doesn't matter for categorization purposes, the burden's on you to make your case I would say. Don't go on about sources, though, as there are sources aplenty, and if that's your entire argument you've already lost, I would say. Herostratus (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
What you have is a single memo from a quarter century ago - on which you wish to categorize the corporation as belonging in a category. That is absurd. And as for you stating as a "fact" that Cracker Barrel is a pernicious and evil company somehow buying off Wikipedia editors - that is improper - we have no sources in any way suggesting that this was an official corporate policy in 1991, and surely nothing related to 2015. Collect (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sure, whatever. I'm not going to fight you (even though you're probably dead wrong) because... meh. Cracker Barrel has made the decision to be one thing and pretend to be another, and that's their story and they're sticken to it and they'll spread around as much dough as it takes, I guess.
Hmmm, here's a quote from a Salon article today titled Southern whites will not surrender: They believe their own Hobby Lobby, Cracker Barrel psychopathology: I speak here of the Tea Party and the NRA. I speak of Hobby Lobby and Cracker Barrel. And at the extreme I speak of the White Aryan Resistance and the Creativity Movement. So, you know, it's not just me saying that these people are reprehensible bigots and that's a key part of who they are (and maybe they ought to be categorized by key components of who they are). Maybe Salon is dead wrong but it's a popular paper; it's not just some guy's blog or whatever. It's an entity that you might wish no one read, but that's different from being an entity that no one actually reads. It's not something you can handwave away IMO. Herostratus (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cracker Barrel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting Read[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 15:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism.[edit]

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)

  • 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)
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)

--(tJosve05a (c) 17:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Not a single one of which makes even a remote assertion that the "wife" is of any substantial value to this article at all. Collect (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed - no need to cover every trivial meme. Kuru (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
It may be a "silly meme" but it has received massive national media attention from outlets like the Washington Post [[2]]. 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)
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)
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2017[edit]

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

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

Requested move 18 May 2017[edit]

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)



Cracker BarrelCracker 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)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Contesting. I firmly believe that "Cracker Barrel" is the common name for this restaurant chain, which per WP:COMMONNAME should be used over the official name. SkyWarrior 01:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Mvcg66b3r and SkyWarrior: Queried move request. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: The proposed name seems overly lengthy and unlikely to be commonly used (and potentially misleading, since these are not really country stores). Note also that the extra words are deemphasized on the logo shown in the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 12:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as WP:COMMONNAME is policy, and this seems to be the primary use of the phrase. WP:HN may be appropriate for other uses, but I couldn't find articles for either of the others (Cracker Barrel (cheese) redirects to List of Kraft brands). Jack N. Stock (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per WP:COMMONNAME. Meatsgains (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose move per WP:COMMONNAME and all above.  ONR  (talk)  14:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose (obviously) per WP:COMMONNAME. I think WP:SNOW may need to be considered as well. SkyWarrior 14:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, there really isn't another major use of "cracker barrel" here. There is the actual concept of a "cracker barrel", which is the original and probably most encyclopedic meaning, and what many people are actually looking for. But we don't have that. We have Barrel, but that's kind of broad. It has an extensive "Use today" section, but not a "Past use" section, where we could discuss pickle barrels and other types of food barrels too, which is a notable thing in the history of food transportation, storage, and marketing, I think. But we don't have it yet. The other uses of "cracker barrel" are fairly trivial. The cheese is a minor thing and just redirects to a list. There are or were a couple of car races with "Cracker Barrel" in their name. There is a term, "cracker barrel" which means cornpone, unsophisticated. But its not in Wiktionary, yet. It's possible that we should have a dab page, one pointing to the restaurant and one pointing to Barrel, and also the races, and with the Wiktionary link when that page is made. Maybe. But if we don't have a dab page, we shouldn't move this one. Who cares what the legal name is? Herostratus (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per COMMONNAME. Lepricavark (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

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.

External links modified[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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