Talk:Cupcake/Archive 2

Images
I thought I'd leave a note here to explain why I've settled on these pictures of cupcakes, so that subsequent changes might take these details into account:


 * Chocolate cupcakes: it shows several angles, including one that has been unwrapped
 * Plain cupcakes: No icing.  No cupcake tin.
 * Brown paper wrapper: Less common (and more expensive) commercial style of cupcake liner.
 * Gumpaste flowers: Fancy decorating, plus unusual cupcake liner (rolled at top; something similar is common for extra-jumbo sizes)
 * Wedding cake: Less common approach
 * Cupcake pan: Actually is a cupcake pan, not a (slightly larger/normal) muffin pan per description on Commons.

What I'd like to have is a picture of the pull-apart cupcake-cakes that are the current fad for kids' birthday parties. Then perhaps we could lose those links to commercial websites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The requested photo of cupcakes arranged to look like a larger cake has been supplied. I hope you don't mind that I have removed the reqphoto template ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look at the links from the references you will see that the wedding cake photo does not illustrate the pull-apart cake being described, and for which an image has been requested. (I have restored the banner and amended it to clarify what is needed.) Find the link to the recipe for the turtle cake, and look at the bottom of the recipe - THAT diagram is what we're really after!
 * Hymek (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies for misunderstanding the image request. I looked on flickr for a fitting picture with appropriate licensing, but the best one I could find was this, which for some reason is released under an Attribution-Share Alike Creative Commons license, but has a copyright symbol plastered over it. The same chef/photographer has similar bouquet-like images but all have that obnoxious copyright watermark on them, despite the BY-SA license.
 * I found another one though, which looks like what you're looking for but the pieces of it don't look 100% like cupcakes. I'll leave it up to the rest of you to continue the search, or use that image, as you so desire. For convenience allow me to repeat the link to what we are looking for. Good luck! ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 05:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been playing with some automated tools and uploaded this image to Wikimedia Commons. Use as you see fit. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The file exists at commons but doesn't appear to have an associated image uploaded. Is there another step to the process yet to complete?
 * Following the flickr link, that image is exactly the sort of thing we need -- especially as the 'flowers' are clearly cupcakes -- Commons might require the superimposed URL to be surgically removed, however! There is also scope for showing something like the turtle picture, as well, although I'm sure that better examples exist.
 * Hymek (talk) 09:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed the cupcake bouquet photo in Commons to remove the watermark and added the image to the gallery. Also removed the reqphoto tag. Look OK? Geoff  TC 14:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This flickr image, by the same person as the bouquet, shows a real 'pull-apart' cake, clearly made from cup-cakes. This could equally fit in the gallery alongside the bouquet and the turtle, since they are all distinct forms of presentation. (Might need to replace some of the existing images!) This image looks like it is available for upload to Commons, if someone feels so inclined (I no have time at present.)
 * -- Hymek (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that last pic (the pink birthday cake) is what I have in mind, but I'm not sure that it's really clear in the picture, especially if the picture is shrunk down to thumbnail size. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hadn't thought of the thumbnail issue (bother!) At least everyone knows what's being looked for now. Hymek (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I fixed my uploaded image on wikipedia commons...don't know why the bot didn't upload it. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"famous" cupcakes
I've re-removed the link and mention of the "Ron Bennington's 'I've Got My Own Cupcake'" cupcake. It's not trully a "famous" cupcake, but merely an advertisement for a particular one that's coincidentally named after someone. Per WP:N, I fail to see any reason to provide an advertisement for the store in this article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, not sure about Sprinkles' inclusion here. What's the relevance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.106.40.67 (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Queen Cakes?
Cupcakes are sometimes called this in the Ireland and (to a lesser extent) the UK (in addition to "fairy cakes," of course). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.235.219 (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a published source for this? I've seen a lot of different things called "queen cake".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Cake in a mug
Proposing to merge cake in a mug to this one because it is a non-notable variant on a cupcake. While there are recipes for a cake in a mug, recipes themselves (even if published) do not connote notability; proper sources that are not cookbooks would be required. An analogy would be chocolate chip cookies: every variation recorded in a cookbook is not notable, only the cookie itself is notable. --Jeremy (blah blah) 07:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * into
 * Support merge. The mere fact that this can be (like many other things) cooked in a microwave does not make it notable enough for its own article. pablo hablo. 08:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge it met all requirements for notability on its own. The way it is cooked is notable, it in a cup!  That's far different then something common such as a microwave.   D r e a m Focus  17:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply As it stands now it not worthy of notice because does not meet the Wikipedia standards of inclusion.
 * WP:Verifiable - it does meet the threshold of verifiability as you can prove it exists;
 * WP:Notable - as it stands now you have failed to show how it is notable.
 * Significant coverage - there is not significant coverage in the independent press;
 * Reliable - the sources you have located are not reliable, they are personal blogs or submit-your-own-recipe pages;
 * Sources - your sources are all primary;
 * Independent of the subject - they are not independent as they are self published;
 * Presumed - it is not appropriate for a standalone article as it stands now;
 * WP:Neutral - it is neutral in its presentation
 * As stated before, just because you can produce a recipe does not mean it is notable, only verifiable. There have been dozens of microwave cakes over the years, so that is not notable; cakes have been made in ramekins for decades, even centuries, so that is not notable. Show me something on Food Network or in the New York Times that is not a recipe and I will change my stand. Until that time, you have not proven how it is notable. --Jeremy (blah blah) 19:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It met no requirements for notability. And the statement "The way it is cooked is notable, it in a cup!" is ludicrous given that this is the talkpage for, er, cupcake. pablo hablo. 19:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * DreamFocus, Wikipedia uses the word "notable" to mean "complies with this standard". You seem to be using it to mean "unusual".  Merely being odd, different, or unusual is not good enough to justify a separate article on Wikipedia.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Independently notable and confusing if merged to cupcake. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support merge This is just an updated version the original form of cupcakes (which were, after all, just plain cakes cooked in pottery mugs).  I strongly disagree that a copy of the recipe from a small-town newspaper and Wired.com's wiki make it "notable".  There really aren't that any non-recipe sources that talk about this idea (as opposed to merely presenting the recipe with a paragraph or so of description, just like any modern cookbook).  There is no chance of the separate article ever meeting good article standards.  In fact, there's no realistic chance of it ever being anything more than a stub -- and not an "ideal" stub, either.  At the very most, it deserves a brief mention in this article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. I don't see any notability demonstrated on the fork article.--Caspian blue 15:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Slim-to-zero evidence that cake in a mug meets notability requirements. Its existence can aptly be described as a minor variant of the cupcake concept—a mug is simply a cup with a handle. Cake in a mug has almost no content at all, of which virtually none is substantial, and (for the next couple of moment, anyhow) contains POV personal essay that must be deleted. If this merge proposal fails, it is very likely that Cake in a mug will be successfully proposed for deletion as non-notable. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 16:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Cake in a mug is very close to the variant of cupcakes which are cooked in a ramekins. It makes sense to merge the content from the separate article into a mention in the cupcake article. Scheinwerfermann also raises the valid point that cake in a mug, if not merged, is likely to be deleted as non-notable per Wikipedia's notability requirements. The essence of cake in a mug is already contained in the cupcake article: "Originally, cupcakes were baked in heavy pottery cups. Some bakers still use individual ramekins, small coffee mugs, or other small ovenproof pottery-type dishes for baking cupcakes."  Geoff  TC 16:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. A mug is a cup. A cake in a cup is a cupcake. This 3 sentence stub belongs in a subsection of Cupcake. BillyTFried (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems that the merge is going to happen which is fine although I disagree with this outcome. Please whoever does it make sure that mug in a cake is given it's own section heading and redirected there so that the content is not just lost and mixed in, and so it can be expanded in future. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment On what basis has it been determined that a cake in a mug is a cupcake? What about bundt cakes? Brownie cakes? Where is the source that establishes a cake in a mug is a cupcake? Here's another source discussing the cake in a mug, and I don't see it mentioned as a cupcake at all, only a type of cake, here also . And here's and entire book on desserts in a mug  and again, it discusses the cake in a mug, with no indication it is a cupcake. Just because the word "cup" is in cupcake, and they may have started out being made in clay molds doesn't seem to me to justify merging an independently notable cake type into the cupcake article, which is a specific type of cake all its own. At the very least I hope a section on mug in a cake will be preserved in the cake or cupcake article (assuming a source establishing a connection can be found) so it can broken out again when someone decides to expand it with all the sources on the subject. I've never heard of microwaving a cupcake. It seems totally unrelated and includes it's own cooking methods and preparations.ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply -
 * From the article Mug, A mug is a sturdily built type of cup...; That is the definition we are using here and where the debate stems from. What we are talking about here is semantics, and from that point the two are the same.
 * Both the examples you are using are recipes, not articles. The author's intent is to create a unique presentation of the subject she is writing about.
 * A bundt cake is cooked in a bundt pan, not a cup. They have different origins and histories. Yeah there both cakes, but different enough to be unique
 * While brownies are a form of cake, they are never called cake (at least in North America). There are tea cake sized brownies, but they are still referred to as brownies.
 * Notability has yet to be established
 * --Jeremy (blah blah) 02:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've baked regular cakes in the microwave. They're very common in microwave cookbooks; see also  (and thousands of others).  Many recipes use regular cake mixes; there's really nothing special about it.  (Leave a note on my talk page if you want to know more [i.e., the critical difference between "I have done" and "I recommend doing"].)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you ever microwaved a cupcake? Because cake and cupcake are two different article subjects last I checked. Cupcakes are usually baked. Which is one of the many reasons they are not the same as a cake in a mug, the other reasons being the top of a cupcake, the way they are often frosted, and their being put in papers. Maybe we should murge mug in with the cake article since that's what we've established can also be microwaved? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All cakes are usually baked. This one is microwaved. Cake cooked in a cup or mug in a conventional oven is a cupcake. Cake cooked in a cup or mug in a microwave oven is still the same kind of cake, surely? pablo hablo. 09:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And in my solar cooker, too, which has its own quirks (e.g., browns on top, not on bottom, cupcakes more reliable than full-sized cakes, loaf-shaped cake impossible with my panel cooker), but I don't think that cake-cooked-in-a-solar-cooker should be considered a different entity from any other kind of cake-cooked-some-other-way.
 * Most people avoid using cupcake papers in the microwave (increased sogginess, visions of dioxins and other chemicals). Of course, you don't have to use them in a conventional oven, either, and I usually don't:  their primary purpose is to make the pans easier to clean (and my husband usually washes the dishes ;-).  Frosting is also strictly optional on both full-sized cakes and cakes baked in cups.  The distinction you're trying to draw simply doesn't exist in the real world.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To more directly address this assertion that cupcakes are not made in the microwave, I submit these links:
 * Cookbooks with recipes for microwaving cupcakes:
 * Products from the industry that rely on microwaving cupcakes:
 * Blogs and online recipes for microwaving cupcakes:
 * So the ability to microwave cupcakes is mentioned in multiple cookbooks; several manufacturers had entire product line based on it; and instructions for doing so are posted all over the blogosphere: I think that pretty much ends that line of argument.
 * I add that I'm not committed to having this thoroughly unimportant recipe mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia at all: there's absolutely nothing unusual about it (except perhaps its mediocrity, if you believe the average reviewer).  But it definitely shouldn't have its own article, and it makes more sense to merge with cupcake than to any other article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Here are three articles just from the last month to establish notability. . I would be surprised if any of them refer to this as some kind of cupcake. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They establish that some people cook cakes in mugs, and they establish recipes for doing so. pablo hablo. 10:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, they do not establish notability, only that there is a recipe; not a single page is an article about the product. BTW, almost all of those pages are reprints of the same recipe. --Jeremy (blah blah) 19:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Some people do make the connection between that recipe and cupcakes:
 * I used a large mug and had a very pretty and large cupcake on my hands…
 * Ok so this technically isn't your typical cupcake but it is a CUP-CAKE WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The first source you cite (which probably isn't considered reliable) is a "chocolate cake recipe", NOT a cupcake recipe. The second one shows that you can make a play on words calling a mug in a cake, a cup-cake, even though it's not one. So both cites support that a mug-in-a-cake is a type of cake and not a cupcake, which has always been my position. Thank you for providing citations to support it. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither of those are reliable sources, and I don't claim that they are. I merely say that some people (e.g., the two people making the quoted statements) connect that recipe with cupcakes.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah CoM, that is the most twisted piece of logic I have yet to see on WP. A cup cake is a type of cake. A cake in a cup is a type of cupcake. WaId has shown that others have also deduced that point. You have yet to prove your point. --Jeremy (blah blah) 05:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can criticize my logic, but you've yet to provide a single source equating a cake in a mug with a cupcake. Several sources suggest both are types of cakes. But so far we only have the origins of the cupcake and your original research and strongly held opinion to go on for the connection. Since the sources don't make the connection, and my understanding is that we go by what the sources say, I don't see any evidence that suggests a merger would be helpful or accurate. There are also the many differences I've pointed out between cupcakes and cake in a mug cakes. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply (again)
 * It is cooked in the same style vessel that earned the cupcake its name;
 * The manner in which it is cooked has no relevance as there have been cake recipes and cake brands that use a microwave as a cooking medium for at least twenty years;
 * The article is not cited with valid sources (see above);
 * The differences you and others have pointed out are trivial if on-existent, easily falling within a variant on the cupcake.
 * Again just because there is a recipe does mean it is notable.
 * You have yet to provide a valid policy-based reason why it should remain on its own;


 * As stated by others, there is nothing novel about this article: it has no established notability in the independent press. The only thing you can provide is verifiability that it exists which is not enough to qualify it as an separate article. The examples of other cakes that have their own articles have supporting sources and histories that establish their existence as independent articles. --Jeremy (blah blah) 08:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Butterfly cake
Proposing to merge butterfly cake to this one because it is a non-notable variant on a cupcake. All references are simply recipes, and as stated previously printed recipes do not establish notability. The same analogy about chocolate chip cookies still applys: every variation recorded in a cookbook is not notable, only the cookie itself is notable. --Jeremy (blah blah) 04:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * into

✅. Jafeluv (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support a merge, I tend to agree that butterfly cake is a non-notable variant. Could be persuaded otherwise if sourcing was found to suggest otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom--Caspian blue 13:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom — appears to be a mere name variant of cupcake. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 13:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom — described as "made from a simple fairy cake" (another name for cupcake), it is clearly a variant of cupcake and belongs in the variants section of this article. Geoff TC 18:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support It's not just a different name; the top is cut and rearranged (and sometimes then decorated) to look like butterfly wings. I looked for proper sources a while ago, and found nothing adequate (although plenty of recipes and assembly instructions).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Margin
There seems to be a margin on the left of the article; it might be the FixBunching template that's causing it, but I'm not sure how to fix it. --90.196.43.188 (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * By deleting the template. It's leftover from a previous layout arrangement and wasn't actually being used.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Current Trends
Hi I'm the guy that has been adding the CNN articles. I feel that it is important to talk about the current trends in cupcakes and how so many people are buying them and cupcake stands and truck are popping up all across the nation. What can I do to get this information in the page? I'm not direct quoting unless I put it in quote marks. How can I include this information?

Thanks, Lars005 (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)lars005


 * First you have to ask your self is this notable enough to include? While CNN is a reliable source that can be easily verified, these fluff pieces aren't actually well researched like a regular news story would be so and are often very fickle in nature. How ever, just add the information. If you want, start a new section using a level 2 header such as == Trends == and properly cite it using a template like cite web. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Jerem43! Lars005 (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Lars005


 * There is something of a cupcake boom going on, so if you can find enough information, and I'm sure you can, I'd be interested in seeing a section covering this. Seraphim  &hearts;  02:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)