From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Years  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

See Talk:List of anniversary names

6th anniversary name[edit]

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?? 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)

-ennial vs. -enary[edit]

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)

The Cambridge is the best free authority I've found on international English; it's much less anglocentric than any other free dictionary is americentric. Its definition concurs with yours: centennial is a noun in U.S. English that means what in Britain and presumably most other English-speaking countries is called a centenary. However, it makes no mention of the adjective centennial, which at least in Australian English means 'occuring every 100 years'—I can't cite this, as the Macquarie Dictionary is a subscription-only service.
The Cambridge also has a less specific meaning for 'biannual' than this article: it could mean twice every year (semiannual) and it could also mean every two years (biennial). This calls this entire article into doubt for me, including its well-reasoned but uncited explanations of Latin prefixes. MikZ (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

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

"Mensiversary" article?[edit]

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)

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)

Time magazine used it in an article in 1925. I say add it to the list.,9171,719936,00.html Pulseczar (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The current situation, whereby there is a redirection to this article, which does not mention mensiversaries or anything that has to do with them, is certainly unbearable. (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Merging wedding anniversary[edit]

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)

  • 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)
  • Support, for the same reasons as above. DFH 19:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Oppose, and here cut down "Anniversary symbols" to Silver, Golden and Diamond --Henrygb 01:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - wedding is significant enough on its own. Rgds, --Trident13 21:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

21st Aniniversary name?[edit]

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

Oak? Oak trumps diamond?

40th Anniversary[edit]

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

n Year Anniversary[edit]

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):!4D1002DEEC9E3AAE!868.entry ("Today marks my 7 year anniversary at Microsoft") ("In fact, this Saturday is Dhamaal’s 7-year anniversary –") ("SPUNDAE 12 YEAR ANNIVERSARY") ("Euphonic Records 10 Year Anniversary Tour.") ("April 12 is 26th-year anniversary of STS-1") ("Microsoft Research 15 Year Anniversary")

Examples of, what surely is, the proper way: ("People across the UK have marked the first anniversary of the") ("Friday marks the 27th anniversary of Mount St. Helens's violent eruption") ("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!-- 00:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What's diamond?[edit]

60 years is a Diamond Jubilee... 75 years is a diamond wedding anniversary

Er, this needs to be clarified, I think - or revised entirely.
Queen Elizabeth II is going to celebrate her diamond wedding anniversary this year (as opposed to her Diamond Jubilee, which won't occur until 2012). However, she was married in 1947 (60 years ago), not 1932 (75 years ago - just as well, really, as she was only 6 years old at that time).
The sources I've looked at seem to suggest that 75 years was the traditional "diamond" anniversary prior to Queen Victoria's reign, but that this was revised to 60 years specifically for Victoria's own "Diamond" Jubilee. 00:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Roman Fractions[edit]

When I made edits on this page it had already been marked as original research. This related to comments made on the page relating to use of multiplication of Latin terms which another editor was clearly questioning. While there was some merit in the proposition as put, it was not pertinent to the use of Roman fractions.

The page as it was, also proposed that pure multiplication of root terms was used for developing all Latin numerical terms - the page gave several examples (which I left intact for comparison) of how other numerals are derived - for example it suggested that 350 was derived in Latin as half of 700 - Semiseptcentennial: semi- (half) x sept(7) x cen(t)- (100) x centennial (350 years). While at face value a reasonable proposition, to develop other numbers like 925 based on this thesis would require developing Latin terms for half of 1850, or a quarter of 3700! Therefore leaving the page as is was giving defective information.

On the otherhand, there are multiple existing sources on Wiki pages that identify how the Romans treated fractions. For example, 350 years is 3-½ centuries or in Latin terms is ½ century on the way between 3 and 4 centuries. For another example, 925 years is a quarter century more than 9 centuries.

A good description of Roman fractions is found on the Roman numerals page. This is supported by Wiki pages on other situtaions where the Romans had to deal with fractions - coins, areas, lengths, weights, etc:

Therefore, most of the substaniating references were sourced from within Wikipedia, however they are robust discussions that are highly cross-referenced.

I also converted the text list to a table to make the alternatives easier to compare and assess. This meant that the derivations were not lost in the Notes sections at the bottom of the page, making critical review easier. Cruickshanks (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The Web site that was cited as a reference for many of these newly formed terms ("175th Jubilee") uses this Wikipedia article ("Anniversary") as its source of information, which is circular. (I forget Wikipedia's term for this situation.) If I understand Wikipedia's guidelines correctly, the Web site in question ("175th Jubilee") does not qualify as valid source of information. PlaysInPeoria (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Using these terms[edit]

I have just added six of these terms to articles in just a few minutes. They seem, to me, to make the articles more "flavorful". After all, reading "Septicentennial" gives a sense of satisfaction to the reader who already knows his prefixes, and if, as I have done in most cases, added an explanation afterwards, it should confuse no one.

I like doing this, and am thinking about doing it across the encyclopedia when I come across these terms, but I am asking here if there is any reason not to use the terms I have found on this page. I ask this because I am surprised they are not used more often.

Anyway, I would eventally like to start an article for some of these terms, maybe like List of prominent septicentennial celebrations, or something like that. Any thoughts? HuskyHuskie (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Historical Principles[edit]

The term "original scholarship" applies to a great number of anniversary names in the chart, including those developed using the newly described Roman fraction method.

Entries in lists and charts throughout Wikipedia generally lack citations, and the Anniversary article suffers from this fault as well. Just because something appears in Wikipedia does not make it factual, nor does the lack of a citation make something "original research." All it usually means is that contributors were not doing their job.

Several of names now relegated to a subsidiary status in the chart—including demisemiseptcentennial—are based on historical principles and were used in print publications prior to the rise of the Internet. The historical principles for developing anniversary names were described in the 1980s, if not before, and cited in a magazine article; I am attempting to track down the original source in order to add it to the "Anniversary" article.

When I can provide print references to such terms I plan to reorganize the chart to identify those terms that are based on historical principles from other neologisms.

The newly described method using Roman fractions is very interesting. However, such words do not seem to reflect how anniversary names were actually developed and used in the 20th century and earlier. It would be very useful to have citations for such words from published sources, in order to demonstrate that such words existed and were used in newspapers and other forms of popular literature. PlaysInPeoria (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


This article refers to six months as "biannual". Surely the correct term is "semiannual"? phreakydancin (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Shirley. HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


Why is all the maths written with the result followed by the formula expressed in negative numbers being added to positive numbers? For example 75=(-25 + 100) is given along side the text "a quarter century less than a whole century" which itself is meant to explain the phrase "a whole unit less a quarter". Personally I'd say that either (100 - 25)=75 or (100 - (100/4))=75 would be a much simpler and/or accurate expression. For the sake of clarity I'd suggest changing it, but I expect that there's some convention I don't know about being followed here. So, thoughts? Astrolox (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC).

450th anniversary[edit]

Per the rule this article mentions on naming a 250th or 350th anniversary, a 450th anniversary would be a "sesquincentennial". However, this term sounds too similar to "sesquicentennial"; so it can easily be objected to. Any Internet site revealing a term?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Confusing lead sentence[edit]

An anniversary is a day that commemorates and/or celebrates a past event that occurred on the same day of the year as the initial event.

"[...] a past event that occurred [...] as the initial event." Why is there both "past event" and "initial event" here? To me it looks like they mean pretty much the same thing. I know instinctively what an anniversary is, but the above definition doesn't seem to make sense. JIP | Talk 20:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Diamond Jubilee[edit]

This is the 60th. anniversary surely, not 75th? --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with you, but see the entry further up this page. Unfortunately the poster there has not provided any sources. --ColinFine (talk) 00:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)