Talk:Anniversary

6th anniversary name

The table in this article has the true Latin name for a 6th anniversary, sexennial. However, several Internet sites, none of which I can contact the owner of, say hexennial. Any comments about this?? 66.245.90.31 21:17, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Sexennial" is derived from the Latin stem "sex", meaning six. All the standard anniversary names are derived from Latin names for numbers. However, the "sex" in this word makes some people uncomfortable, leads to misunderstandings, stupid jokes, etc., and so some people use the alternate term, derived from the Greek stem "hex", also meaning six. — Nowhither 21:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-ennial vs. -enary

Let me see if I got this correct:

Several dictionaries mention both an -ennial word and an -enary word with the same meaning. To clarify this, the -ennial word is most common in the United States; the -enary word internationally. Is this correct?? Georgia guy 01:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment about the queen's official birthday is wrong - that celebrates her coronation, so I've deleted it.

"Mensiversary" article?

Although a neologism and therefore discouraged, do you think the mensiversary article (currently a redirect here) should be changed to a short entry on the topic? The redirect is to part of the article, however since redirects to sections don't work, users might think that mensiversary is a synonym of anniversary? We could clearly mark it as a neologism and link to the Anniversary article (I was thinking of using the framework of the Anniversary first paragraph thus):

A mensiversary (a neologism from the Latin mensis and versarius -- the words for month and to turn, meaning (re)turning monthly) is a day that commemorates and/or celebrates a past event (similar to the yearly Anniversary) that occurred on the same day of the month as the initial event. For example, the first event is the initial occurrence or, if planned, the inaugural of the event; one month later would be the first mensiversary of that event. --PdDemeter 12:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could have an article on it. It's got hits in Google Books, so it might not even be a neologism anymore. Voortle 01:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging wedding anniversary

Reasons for merging:

The article on wedding anniversary does not describe anything significantly different from what is present here (in the anniversary article). I am not sure if the article can be extended substantially to require a separate page for itself.
The symbols associated with the two are more or less the same. So it seem correct to have a separate page for the wedding anniversary article (Wikipedia is not a dictionary).

YashKochar 19:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Note that I would suggest merging only any of the factual information that's not already here, not bringing over the lists; the list here is visibly superior to the one there, where the "American, British, Modern" lists are uncited, difficult to verify, and are admitted in the article to lack any particular traditional basis or wide recognition. — Haeleth Talk 20:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, for the same reasons as above. DFH 19:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no merge. I feel that the Wedding anniversary topic has enough to stand on its own. I don't know what is meant by "admitted in the article to lack any particular traditional basis or wide recognition", a paranthetical "but less-widely recognised" doesn't seem too damning. And if you cannot trust the Chicago Public Library [1] who can you trust? j-beda 18:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no merge — Wedding anniversary is a significant enough event with a myriad of traditions that it merits its own article. — ERcheck (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, and here cut down "Anniversary symbols" to Silver, Golden and Diamond --Henrygb 01:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - wedding is significant enough on its own. Rgds, --Trident13 21:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

21st Aniniversary name?

What do we call the 21st anniversary? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.2.200.251 (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oak? Oak trumps diamond?

40th Anniversary

Somehow I don't think CRUNK is correct for a 40th anniversary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cgodfrey (talk • contribs) 21:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

n Year Anniversary

What's with the current turn of phrase "n Year Anniversary" (where n is the number of years)?

I mean, you hear people saying, "Oh, it's our 1st Year Anniversary" or "it is the 40 year Anniversary".

Whatever happened to "Oh, it's our 1st Anniversary" or "it is the 40th Anniversary"?

This seems to be a world-wide trend to use this turn of phrase.

Examples of "n Year Anniversary" (I haven't opened these websites, I've just viewed the websearch result summaries):
http://janac.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!4D1002DEEC9E3AAE!868.entry ("Today marks my 7 year anniversary at Microsoft")
http://www.hyphenmagazine.com/blog/archives/2006/04/dhamaal_seven_y_1.html ("In fact, this Saturday is Dhamaal’s 7-year anniversary –")
http://mvgals.net/gallery/spundae-022505 ("SPUNDAE 12 YEAR ANNIVERSARY")
http://upcoming.yahoo.com/event/191847/ ("Euphonic Records 10 Year Anniversary Tour.")
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/11273/1066/ ("April 12 is 26th-year anniversary of STS-1")
http://research.microsoft.com/aboutmsr/15years/default.aspx ("Microsoft Research 15 Year Anniversary")

Examples of, what surely is, the proper way:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk/2006/7_july_one_year_on/default.stm ("People across the UK have marked the first anniversary of the")
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_051807_life_helens_anniversary_.80082b1a.html ("Friday marks the 27th anniversary of Mount St. Helens's violent eruption")
http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/archives/the_real_world/2007_May_21_15th_anniversary ("Today is the 15th anniversary of the debut of MTV's The Real World")

Actually, it looks as though we can blame Microsoft for this trend too, because two of my random search results have Microsoft in common!

Yeah I know, this has nothing to do with the article. But I just had to rant somewhere!--203.10.224.58 00:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]