Talk:Cracker Barrel

The New York Post is reporting that the company's CEO admitted on an investor call that it's not as relevant as it used to be: https://nypost.com/2024/05/23/business/cracker-barrels-ceo-admits-chain-not-as-relevant-as-we-once-were/

I can't find actual transcript from investor call, but some of the more salacious, non-trustworthy outlets (e.g. Daily Mail) have run with the story. I was going to update this article based on NY Post story, but per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, I think I will hold off until I can confirm those comments + clearly see their source. Sawitontwitter (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Several of the references are linked to nexis.com with a link that attempts to retrieve a live document. The "archived" versions of these links are also attempting to retrieve a live document, meaning that if you don't have a nexis.com account, you can't read the source articles even on the Wayback Machine. Examples:

• url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4S5W-1K80-TX4X-W1B5&csi=140610&oc=00240&perma=true |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |access-date=January 25, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131224125539/http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4S5W-1K80-TX4X-W1B5&csi=140610&oc=00240&perma=true |archive-date=December 24, 2013 |issn=0097-8043
• url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=3SJB-2X10-0019-F10P&csi=7986&oc=00240&perma=true |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |access-date=January 25, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131224120410/http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=3SJB-2X10-0019-F10P&csi=7986&oc=00240&perma=true |archive-date=December 24, 2013
• url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=3SND-S900-007B-43X7&csi=3559&oc=00240&perma=true |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |access-date=January 25, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131224123832/http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=3SND-S900-007B-43X7&csi=3559&oc=00240&perma=true |archive-date=December 24, 2013

Ɛs Huvər (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

What's the best way to fix the links, Ɛs Huvər? Silverseren^C 00:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Silver seren I don't know. Is there any way to get a link to a static version of the page? Ɛs Huvər (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think Nexis pages can be archived properly due to them being to a called document database, unfortunately. Silverseren^C 20:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright, let's actually discuss this. Y'all do understand that a history section for a company is meant to cover their entire history and not minutia social media controversies, right? There are tons of news articles written about any and everything there's even a modicum of complaints about, but we don't include all of that in articles just because news articles exist. There's a reason why we have a due weight policy and a recentism explanatory essay. And that's also why the controversies currently included in the article are only ones that are decades long issues that affected the subject for a long period of time.

This is especially so when discussing measurements like stock prices. News articles report on any and every stock fluctuation. We don't include all of those willy-nilly. Just look at the actual stock history for the past six months of Cracker Barrel. You can see a similar amount of stock drop happened in the last week of July and continued even further into the first week of August. If you expand it out to a year, you can see that the first two weeks of February saw the stock drop almost 30%. Neither of which is discussed in this history section or any of the other myriad times that happened throughout their entire stock history. We only discuss decade long trends in things like stock prices.

For example, news articles covering the height of their stock price that they reached at the end of the 2010s and recovered from in 2021 after the pandemic started before they've been on a downward trend ever since would be appropriate to include in the history section if such news coverage exists (it is alluded to with the 16% drop in customers sentence). But these current events? Not important whatsoever unless it becomes a years long trend that is covered. That's what due weight is about. Silverseren^C 04:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

There is plenty of room in Wikipedia rules to diviate from a classsic encylopedia format to current events. You know that, I know that, now the whole world knows that. The problem with with Wikipedia is consistancy from one page to the next. Editors have mob mentality when it comes to their own best interests and their Find a Grave mentalility. Especially those with multiple cyber-space badges. Cracker Barrel is in deep dung right now and a quick view of the page is absent of the fact and the reasons behind it. They are in serious financial trouble and it is only going to get worse. A good example of why you are dead wrong is the Wikepedia page on the 14th Amendment. Your agurment here is not valid over there. And the editors on that page are extremely selective on their deviations to the rules they cite when it doesn't fit their agenda. Wikipedia is on the road to losing their 501(c)(3) status because of editors having the same frame of mind behind the downfall of Cracker Barrel. Stjoan1 (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

This is a crazy take. It's a headline news story, and one of the most prominent events in the company's history. This is some of the most extensive media coverage the company has ever had. 2601:581:4502:2520:F5E7:E0E9:DE6E:83FB (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I think this encyclopedia has a tendency to devote far too much detail on stuff that flies in the face of policies like WP:NOTNEWS and WP:WEIGHT; the Sydney Sweeney ad has five paragraphs dedicated to it at American Eagle Outfitters, including details about fluctuating stock prices – it is tagged for WP:DETAIL and editors should read up on WP:CSECTION while they're at it. However, this article has opted to not mention this incident at all, except to say that a rebranding has taken place. Since this discussion has taken place, the company has issued something of an apology.( See CNBC, The Guardian, ABC News, etc). It has prompted opinion pieces in CBS News, New York Times, USA Today, etc. Trump has now chimed in.Reuters To 2601:581's point, this is the most coverage Cracker Barrel has faced in a long time. Going the Sydney Sweeney route isn't the way to go, but completely ignoring it does not seem like the right option either. 2–4 sentences should do it. There is too much coverage from high quality sources to justify no weight at all.LM2000 (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks like a moot point with Subman758's addition. Seems like that additional sentence covers anything needed as it is. It's actually probably more likely the case that in a few years, both sentences will end up being removed entirely as not relevant to the broader history. Silverseren^C 23:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the current addition works well enough for now. Whether or not future generations will care about the August 2025 Cracker Barrel crisis is up to them.LM2000 (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Of course, LM2000, you also then get the current situation, where people try to shoehorn in the news pieces about the controversy into any other part of the article they can manage and also try and word things as non-neutrally as possible, such as what Justdoowit665 is currently doing with the logo addition. Which I've just put up for deletion on Commons, by the way. Silverseren^C 01:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

What you have is an old and tired argument such as gold is money. Your editing mentality is like WW2 censors in the broader sense of history. Instead, your futuristic argument on history falls on its face through censuring editors after the fact because of the obvious. Stjoan1 (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Second. CaptainKablueyX (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

"Y'all" - what does this mean? 92.40.217.169 (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

We do have an article on that. Silverseren^C 16:46, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not able to edit the page due to protections, but I have uploaded a svg version of the original (now present) logo to Wikimedia Commons which I suggest we use here. svg is higher quality than the present png and Commons is more stable than the specific link the present logo is referencing. I have also made this the preferred logo on the Wikidata item for CB and marked the "new" (now previous) logo as deprecated rank. Let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cracker_Barrel_Logo.svg -- GA Kevin (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)