Talk:Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten's wedding cakes

Did you know nomination

 * Do you recommend I change the DYK to the "10,000 mile cake" ingredients? If someone could point me in the right direction of where to make that edit I would appreciate it. Thank you BJCHK (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Is the topic notable?
I was drawn to read this article and it is clearly a well-researched topic by the creator. But, as my comment above on the DYK review says, stuggle to see any evidence that the cakes (plural) have been a topic of research ou=tside of Wikipedia. Would it be better to re-write the article but focus on the main wedding cake? The main cake, by its size and ambition, seems to have been widely talked about. Maybe the others could then be listed briefly, or merged into the main Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten article? Sionk (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest the article is re-named "Wedding cake of Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten" and edited accordingly. Judging by all the news about the main cake, that's clearly a notable topic. The other cakes evidently could be mentioned ...and in the main wedding article too. Sionk (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

- The other cakes were all covered by local news outlets at the time, with several talking as if theirs was the main cake - do these news articles not count as an authoritative news source? (there was confusion at the time, and subsequently, as to which was the 'principal' cake - the Cordon Bleu team took time to clarify which was which, as it wasn't immediately clear) - I have found recent articles regarding contemporary news of the Peek Freans and Country Women's Association cakes (2015 and 2016), demonstrating that the wedding cakes, and not just the principal cake, continue to be of interest today  - do these help bolster my case that the 12 cakes, as selected by the palace, can stay as a group? Thank you BJCHK (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have a couple of queries (think I posted this on the wrong thread yesterday):


 * I found more articles from a quick literature search. My search was flooded with recent newspaper articles. It is apparently a matter of continuing interest, as the 1947 wedding cakes seem to have set the bar for subsequent ones, and so there is renewed interest with each royal wedding such as those of King Charles and Prince William. And newspapers are sufficient to establish widespread coverage in reliable sources; academic sources are not required. But they do exist eg
 * Jannuzzi, Kristine. "Royal Wedding Cakes", British Heritage Travel; Dublin Vol. 39, Iss. 2, (Mar/Apr 2018): 74-75.
 * Charley, S., Interpretation and Custom: The Case of the Wedding Cake, Man (London), 1987, Vol.22 (1), p.93-110
 * This is a great article. You've done a wonderful job. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm evidently not making my point clearly enough. Various organisations will want to promote their own cake, that's true, but there's very little if anything written about all the cakes of Liz and Phil as a subject. The Jannuzzi article you've mentioned is not about the 1947 wedding cakes, but about the main cakes of various monarchs and royals (including the 9 foot tall 1947 cake). Though this Wikipedia article is indeed interesting, it's a work of original research. We can't simply decide something would be interesting to write about, then construct an article about it through our own research. Wikipedia is meant to reflect what has already been researched and written about by other authoritative authors/journalists. Sionk (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)