OP you obviously do not work in a majority-Latino school.

It was my great great grandmother's name, and her daughter's name. They were born in the 1840s and 1870s. It's part of my name too. Classic I'd say, not Gen X.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the name Christina. It's hardly ever used anymore for baby girls. What are your thoughts? Should I just do it?

And it's definitely not Christine that I want to use... It's Christina, with an a at the end.

It’s actually not a generation x name and had been around way before generation X. It was big with the baby boomer generation and suck around a bit for some generation Xers.

I agree--I don't think of it at a GenX name. Chrissy, yes, that's GenX. But Christina seems timeless to me.

Anonymous wrote:I was born in 1981 and I once had a third grade class with 4 Christinas in it.

yes, I'm also 1981 and I feel like I've never been without a Christina... in elementary school, high school, college, I always have at least one good friend named Christina, and usually a couple.

There are two in my family.. they’re 50 and 75.

Anonymous wrote:I love the name Christina. It's hardly ever used anymore for baby girls. What are your thoughts? Should I just do it?

And it's definitely not Christine that I want to use... It's Christina, with an a at the end.

It’s actually not a generation x name and had been around way before generation X. It was big with the baby boomer generation and suck around a bit for some generation Xers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not gen x-specific but a classic name that's been around forever. So much the better it's not popular now!

??? Why would someone want to give their child an unpopular name? Weird.

I think it's weird to want your child to have the same name as 5 others in their classroom.

I like the name Christina.

Np. I used names that I liked popular or not. Why would you avoid a name you like just because it is popular?

I was born in 1981 and I once had a third grade class with 4 Christinas in it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not gen x-specific but a classic name that's been around forever. So much the better it's not popular now!

??? Why would someone want to give their child an unpopular name? Weird.

NP. Why would someone want to give their child a popular name that so many others will have? Weird.

Because most of us want our children to have a recognizable and popular name?

It’s not like a name is some precious commodity where obscurity bestows novelty and makes a child more unique or something.

I have a feeling you don't even know how stupid you sound.

You have no idea what "most of us" want. I don't know anybody who deliberately chose a name because it was popular, in fact it is more likely they decide to name their kid a name they like despite it being popular.

Seems like you may also think that using phrases like "obscurity bestows novelty" makes you sound smart but trust me, it doesn't.

Oh toots. I promise you I would lap you in an intellectual race. Maybe sit this one out.

Calling people "toots" is absolute evidence of what an arrogant moron you are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not gen x-specific but a classic name that's been around forever. So much the better it's not popular now!

??? Why would someone want to give their child an unpopular name? Weird.

NP. Why would someone want to give their child a popular name that so many others will have? Weird.

There are basically no names where that is true anymore, though. The most popular girl names now will account for around .1% of all babies that year. Compare that to the 70s when nearly 4% of all baby girls were named Jennifer.

There's more diversity of names in general, which somewhat unexpectedly has the benefit of making even the most popular names more unique. So you can name your kid Charlotte or Olivia and odds are actually decent they will never be in a class with a child who has the same name.

And conversely, you can give your kid a much less popular name and, whether by random chance or by micro-trends in your area/socio-economic class, they may encounter multiple kids with that name as they grow up, even if it's ranked way down in the 900s or something. I've seen this happen.

The regional distribution (what you call microtrends) is significantly more important than a national average. As we've navigated through various social groups (school, church, scouts, etc), we have noticed a lot more repetition of names than the national statistics would suggest.

Absolutely. I have two kids, one with a top 50 name that we love but did assume would be more likely to result in having classmates with that name, and another child with a name that was not even in the top 1000 a few years before DD was born and even now is in the 700s I think.

Guess which one has had two classmates with the same name, and which has never met another child with the same name? Microtrends have a much bigger impact on how "unique" your child's name feels to them during their childhood than overall popularity (though overall popularity might become more relevant later on in life, but I think mostly on the margins, with super common or super rare names. If it's out of the top 10 but still in the top 500, most people probably have a relatively similar relationship with their names in terms of popularity).