Talk:Spice cake

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge proposal[edit]

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

Merge Maple Spice Cake into this article - Sounds like each article refers to variations on the same theme and thus should be merged. Geoff T C 22:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - per nom. --Jeremy (blah blah) 05:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative support a merge, I tend to agree that maple spice cake sounds like a non-notable variant. Could be persuaded otherwise if sourcing was found to suggest otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since I'm not from Anglosphere, my experience with cakes would be much less than any other participants. I've heard the name of "maple spice cake" (but never had a chance to taste it), but not "spice cake", so I want the nominator to show some evidence that "Maple spice cake" is a non-notable variant of spice cake.--Caspian blue 13:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The major difference between the two is the addition of maple syrup to the batter. The recipe that is quoted in the maple spice cake article uses pumpkin pie spice as its flavoring base and adds a cup of maple syrup, the addition of which makes the cake sweeter and adds the distinct taste of maple to the cake. In the Northeastern US (where I live) this is a very common flavoring in candy, syrups, sausage, bacon and cookies (my wife has a great maple oatmeal cookie recipe that uses maple syrup instead of refined sugar). --Jeremy (blah blah) 21:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Utterly non-notable variant by dint of flavour. We don't have separate articles for lemon spice cake, orange spice cake, apple spice cake, etc. —Scheinwerfermann T·C13:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Delicious I'm sure, but doesn't warrant its own article. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. BillyTFried (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2009 (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.