Talk:Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten's wedding cakes

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
No response to issues despite multiple pings in over a month; closing as unsuccessful.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that when Princess Elizabeth married in 1947 she received crumbs from Queen Victoria's 1840 wedding cake as a gift? Source: Crumbs make 107-year link. Miss F M Findrey of 2 Oak Terrace, Cheltenham has sent a packet containing crumbs from Queen Victoria's wedding cake to Princess Elizabeth as a wedding present. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000669/19471108/062/0003
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: This is my first time submitting a DYK nomination - apologies if I have got something wrong.

Created by BJCHK (talk). Self-nominated at 06:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC).

• Article is new enough, long enough, does not appear to have been copied from elsewhere and is prolifically sourced using well formatted inline citations. I'd love to be able to approve this. However, a couple of things trouble me. The most obvious problem here is that the suggested hook is not about the wedding cakes of Elizabeth and Phil. To be frank, I was suprised enough to see the size and height of the main cake. And it is also of great interest that the couple were restricted because of post-war rationing etc. But putting that obvious problem aside, I don't see any evidence of the cakes (plural) being subject of any authoritative work or news source. It seems to be to be WP:OR (though very well done) to create a Wikipedia article about all the cakes, without demonstrating they have collectively been a subject of study, or interest by others. Unless maybe this is intended as a list article. I've raised the problem on the article Talk page. I'd welcome a second opinion on whether it's a valid topic at all. Sionk (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The subject is notable. I remember seeing a documentary on the cakes. They interviewed many of the people involved in making them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the hook is so tangential to the article that it shouldn't be used, especially since there are so many possibilities, so I've struck it. I feel that Sionk is onto something with approaches such as be the size and height of the main cake (nevertheless less smaller than it might have been due to the rationing and ingredient shortages); a valid use of Victoria might be the dozen cakes total for Elizabeth vs. over 100 for Victoria (again because of the shortages), or the sending of slices back overseas in thanks for the supplied ingredients from there. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• @BJCHK: Still with us? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
• The nominator hasn't edited since October 28 and did not respond to any comments on this nomination as well as a ping. Unless they return or another editor adopts this, there does not appear to be a path forward for the nomination at this time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

• I have a couple of queries (think I posted this on the wrong thread yesterday):

- 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 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)

References