Talk:Wedding anniversary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Modern?

Where do these come from? I see a link at the bottom to a Chicago Public library list, but the Library's list is not at all the same as this one? Ryanneve 03:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree - the list is wrong. I think someone tried to parse the CPL list and just wasn't paying attention. For example, the CPL list says the 9th anniversary is "Pottery (China) -- Leather goods", but the Wikipedia page says "Pottery, Willow -- Pottery -- China", as if some text parser saw "(China") and thought that was the second entry. I know these lists are not written in stone anywhere, but any Internet search will display lists that are practically identical to the CPL list, but nothing that matches the Wikipedia list. Timur tabi 17:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The modern table is surely some marketing idea by department stores or similar gift retailers? Where is the evidence for it origins or the fact that people are following it? Weddings and wedding anniversaries stir feelings of stability and tradition, so it is counter-inutitive that most individuals would not go to the traditional lists if given such an option. Having the modern lable also makes it subject to change how's about the mobile/cell phone anniversary or the therapy anniversary or what about the revision to the pre-nup aggrement anniversary "There we go darling, my gift to you is to rise the ante should we divorce". Dainamo 17:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

According to http://marriage.about.com/od/anniversariescelebrations/a/annivhistory.htm, the "modern" list is from 1937, by the American National Retail Jeweler Association, plus later additions. The "traditional" seems to have been from Emily Post's knowledge of tradition up to her time (and I for one would consider her a reliable informant on the subject).

However, the inclusion of Bismuth on the wikipedia page seems to be a joke, and it should probably be deleted!

For one thing, nothing is now MADE out of bismuth that could remotely be considered a gift, unless you count its alloys--notably modern pewter--and compounds. Then, web-searching (Googling, specifically) anniversary gifts bismuth tungsten turquoise 16th 20th vs. anniversary gifts -bismuth tungsten turquoise 16th 20th strongly suggests (but does not prove) that all lists containing bismuth have been copied from here!

BtW: The only general list I've found that includes 4 items for the 16th thru 19th has peridot, watches, tanzanite, and aquamarine, respectively: The version of "Modern" at www.weddingfavorreflections.com/page/1197296. (There is another list, much more frequent on the Web, that focuses ONLY on gems, with cat's eye instead of or in addition to tanzanite, from which the above is probably taken to fill in the hole.)

NOTE: I'm not trying to hide; I think I may have an account here, but can't find it! My frequent User Name: GeorgeTSLC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.222.130 (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The CPL List now comes up to a 404 page. Should the link be eliminated? 17:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.224.98.48 (talk)

Personally, and for my ha'penn'th, the Modern List is rubbish. Even the name Modern doesn't make any sense and refers nowhere in particular. Dutchdavey (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm in compleate agreement, does anyone know of a source for an acceptable "Modern" list? If not, the list should at least be renamed... perhapse "1937 ANRJA Recomended List" or something? Metatron (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German List

Is the German list really necessary? It seems to take up more than half of the entry, and it is at best somewhat interesting, but probably useless for most people searching this entry. Also, the article doesn't include the English ones. I don't speak German, so it is entirely possible that the German version includes the English version somewhere, but I digress. I'm not saying that that said German page is a reason to remove the German counterpart from the English entry, but I just feel this is an unnecessary part of the page. Drunkasian 19:22, 2005-05-16

I have to concur; it's not only trivia but (a) arguably irrelevant trivia, as I doubt many people even in Germany have ever celebrated their 6 1/4th wedding anniversary with a gift of mutton, (b) contains enough obviously-ridiculous entries (radium? Crown jewels?) to make the authenticity of the list look dubious, and (c) seriously unbalances the article. If anyone feels strongly that this information needs a place in English, perhaps they could create an article specially for "Alleged German Wedding Anniversay Traditions"? Haeleth 21:57, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the 'double diamond' anniversary As far as I know only three English speaking couples have celebrated their 75th wedding aniversary;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/3583743.stm and they chose to call it a 'Diamond Gold' anniversary
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/156640.stm who called it a 'Gold and Silver' anniversary

and

http://www.abc.net.au/milduraswanhill/stories/s784768.htm but I can't find any reference to what is was called

[edit] Aluminium/Aluminum

Since Aluminium appears only in the American column, it makes sense to rename it Aluminum. Kayman1uk 11:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

And again Kayman1uk 21:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
As per that decision, I've changed "jewellery" to "jewelry". Bobo. 05:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Except that "jewelry" only appears in the "modern" column, so that decision doesn't apply. Furthermore, looking over the MoS again, it becomes pretty clear that an article should be restricted to one spelling system or the other, not mixed, even if parts of the article relate to practices in different parts of the English-speaking world. As such, since this article has always predominantly used British spellings, I'm changing the anomolous American spellings back to the British forms (including "aluminium", for consistency), in accordance with what the MoS recommends. — Haeleth Talk 14:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

This whole article has pieces that belong elsewhere and possibly nowhere in wikipedia. I think the wedding remarks should be merged into wedding. The unsourced identification of gifts at various points is sufficiently covered in anniversary. I think we should remove the mergto anniversary tag as the redirect should most likely lead to wedding and not anniversary.Alan.ca 21:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  • No merge — I was searching specifically for the topic "Wedding anniversary" and found this page. I would not have looked for wedding for the information. The topic wedding anniversary merits its own article, albeit this article could be improved. — ERcheck (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Would you not have then looked in the page for anniversary ?
  • Merge with Anniversary would seem OK to me. That page already duplicates most of this one, though there is some non-overlap. DFH 18:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that discussions about merging with wedding are at talk:wedding and discussions about merging with anniversary are at talk:anniversary - at least that is where the merge tags direct one to. In case anyone is counting votes here rather than there - I think wedding anniversary can stand on its own, and does not need to be merged, though it should be referenced in wedding, anniversary, and perhaps wedding traditions and customs. j-beda 14:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Symbolism

It would be great if someone could add the symbolism of each anniversary. --203.122.234.30 05:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? --Masamage 08:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Britney?

Albeit it's funny, but is there a source somewhere for it?

Nevermind, someone got it...

[edit] Traditional gifts

The traditional gifts list is hardly official. I don't think it's appropriate to define the official list of wedding gifts based on one author's opinion in one published book. Further, the link provided is full of pop up and in articles ads. A dubious source at best. Alan.ca 19:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't call it "official," but it is certainly a well-known list and an extremely common phenomenon. It should be mentioned and explained and talked about and well-sourced. (And Bartleby is the only place I know of the find the full text of that book online; if someone has a physical copy of the book, it would make a tidier citation, but of course wouldn't be a different source.) --Masamage 19:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British vs American Tradition

On what authority were the gift items of the first two years under the British tradition swapped? Prior to April 19th of 2007, the British tradition had cotton first, and paper second, and now it's been flipped to match the American tradition. Normally details such as these would go totally unnoticed by me, except I have been trapped in the discrepancy!! Last year was my first anniversary and I followed the "British" tradition.

Some person just flipped the years around and didn't justify it (from what I can tell in my extremely limited experience contributing to Wikipedia). Can I just change it back?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadohert (talk • contribs)

1st has always been paper in both traditions Dainamo 17:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This is annoying as I also followed the "British" tradition as it was originally posted. Can we get this confirmed? --Ben 09:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
This change was made 07:29, 19 Apr 2007 anonymously from 209.247.22.72 without commentary. As much as I'd like to say "just revert it" - I can't authoritatively say either version is correct or not. Anyone got a British etiquette book handy? FWIW, I too followed the British cotton first anniversary "tradition" last year (Wikipaedia never lies - it changes reality to match its facts). --Mgoodhew 01:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Golden not Gold

Checked this through google. While google is a blunt insturment it confirms this suspission overwhelmingly. Dainamo 17:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right that the anniversary is referred to as the "golden anniversary," but the list is a list of gifts, not a list of names for the various anniversaries. You can give someone a gift of gold, but you can't give someone golden, because golden is an adjective not a noun. PubliusFL 17:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)