Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's FREAKY how we all try to pick an original name, and then end up inadvertantly picking the same name as everyone else. I know so many people who picked off-the-wall names for their kids, only to have them be super popular. Because we're so affected by our culture, it seems the only way to ensure a unique name is to pick something really old-sounding to our generation (e.g., Mildred or Edna), something that sounds pretty mundane (e.g., Susie or Bob), or something that has become a casualty of our pop culture (e.g., Kermit or Miley).

Anyway, I think there are a lot of "--on" names floating around for boys (Mason, Sampson, Soren, etc.). A girl name that seems popular lately is Bailey.

Actually, I think picking something old is how you get a popular name these days. If you want unique, pick something popular in your own generation, like Jennifer, Susan, Angela, Christine.

I actually read an interesting article about this. It's the REALLY old names that are popular now (like from our great-grandparents' generation). These are the names of those who are likely deceased, as morbid as that sounds. If you pick names from our grandparents' generation (or even our parents' generation), then you're more likely to be safe (originality wise). These names actually conjure an image of an "old person" to us. The old, old names don't actually make us think of old people; they sound new again because we're so far removed from them.

Laura Wattenberg says parents like names roughly 60-90 years older than them (I think we could safely say that refers to their grandparents or great-grandparents, depending on the timing between generations), or 20-40 years younger than them (their children's and children's friends names!).

http://www.babynamewizard.com/node/32989

So I agree that names from our parents' generation would tend to be safest. Those or ugly names that will never, ever be popular again.

I'll buy that.

Anonymous wrote:I have a Lucy and am honestly shocked to see her name on this list! I've never met another Lucy in my entire life, let alone a child my daughter's age. I *thought* we were being orginal. Can someone please let me know where all the Lucy's are? FWIW, We live in VA and she attends school in NW DC.

There is one in my playgroup (9 months old) and just saw one in CVS this week who was about 6 years old.

Anonymous wrote:I have a Lucy and am honestly shocked to see her name on this list! I've never met another Lucy in my entire life, let alone a child my daughter's age. I *thought* we were being orginal. Can someone please let me know where all the Lucy's are? FWIW, We live in VA and she attends school in NW DC.

I know a Lucy in Atlanta. And two in NoVa.

And by safest I mean least popular!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's FREAKY how we all try to pick an original name, and then end up inadvertantly picking the same name as everyone else. I know so many people who picked off-the-wall names for their kids, only to have them be super popular. Because we're so affected by our culture, it seems the only way to ensure a unique name is to pick something really old-sounding to our generation (e.g., Mildred or Edna), something that sounds pretty mundane (e.g., Susie or Bob), or something that has become a casualty of our pop culture (e.g., Kermit or Miley).

Anyway, I think there are a lot of "--on" names floating around for boys (Mason, Sampson, Soren, etc.). A girl name that seems popular lately is Bailey.

Actually, I think picking something old is how you get a popular name these days. If you want unique, pick something popular in your own generation, like Jennifer, Susan, Angela, Christine.

I actually read an interesting article about this. It's the REALLY old names that are popular now (like from our great-grandparents' generation). These are the names of those who are likely deceased, as morbid as that sounds. If you pick names from our grandparents' generation (or even our parents' generation), then you're more likely to be safe (originality wise). These names actually conjure an image of an "old person" to us. The old, old names don't actually make us think of old people; they sound new again because we're so far removed from them.

Laura Wattenberg says parents like names roughly 60-90 years older than them (I think we could safely say that refers to their grandparents or great-grandparents, depending on the timing between generations), or 20-40 years younger than them (their children's and children's friends names!).

http://www.babynamewizard.com/node/32989

So I agree that names from our parents' generation would tend to be safest. Those or ugly names that will never, ever be popular again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's FREAKY how we all try to pick an original name, and then end up inadvertantly picking the same name as everyone else. I know so many people who picked off-the-wall names for their kids, only to have them be super popular. Because we're so affected by our culture, it seems the only way to ensure a unique name is to pick something really old-sounding to our generation (e.g., Mildred or Edna), something that sounds pretty mundane (e.g., Susie or Bob), or something that has become a casualty of our pop culture (e.g., Kermit or Miley).

Anyway, I think there are a lot of "--on" names floating around for boys (Mason, Sampson, Soren, etc.). A girl name that seems popular lately is Bailey.

Actually, I think picking something old is how you get a popular name these days. If you want unique, pick something popular in your own generation, like Jennifer, Susan, Angela, Christine.

I actually read an interesting article about this. It's the REALLY old names that are popular now (like from our great-grandparents' generation). These are the names of those who are likely deceased, as morbid as that sounds. If you pick names from our grandparents' generation (or even our parents' generation), then you're more likely to be safe (originality wise). These names actually conjure an image of an "old person" to us. The old, old names don't actually make us think of old people; they sound new again because we're so far removed from them.

I have a Lucy and am honestly shocked to see her name on this list! I've never met another Lucy in my entire life, let alone a child my daughter's age. I *thought* we were being orginal. Can someone please let me know where all the Lucy's are? FWIW, We live in VA and she attends school in NW DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's FREAKY how we all try to pick an original name, and then end up inadvertantly picking the same name as everyone else. I know so many people who picked off-the-wall names for their kids, only to have them be super popular. Because we're so affected by our culture, it seems the only way to ensure a unique name is to pick something really old-sounding to our generation (e.g., Mildred or Edna), something that sounds pretty mundane (e.g., Susie or Bob), or something that has become a casualty of our pop culture (e.g., Kermit or Miley).

Anyway, I think there are a lot of "--on" names floating around for boys (Mason, Sampson, Soren, etc.). A girl name that seems popular lately is Bailey.

Actually, I think picking something old is how you get a popular name these days. If you want unique, pick something popular in your own generation, like Jennifer, Susan, Angela, Christine.

If you want something unique, pick something from your mom's generation, not your grandma's. I don't know many girls called Nancy, although friends just named their daughter Carol-- not Caroline, which is getting common-- and I thought, now that's unique!

Then again, those names don't sound nice to us the way ones further removed do, do they?

Anonymous wrote:It's FREAKY how we all try to pick an original name, and then end up inadvertantly picking the same name as everyone else. I know so many people who picked off-the-wall names for their kids, only to have them be super popular. Because we're so affected by our culture, it seems the only way to ensure a unique name is to pick something really old-sounding to our generation (e.g., Mildred or Edna), something that sounds pretty mundane (e.g., Susie or Bob), or something that has become a casualty of our pop culture (e.g., Kermit or Miley).

Anyway, I think there are a lot of "--on" names floating around for boys (Mason, Sampson, Soren, etc.). A girl name that seems popular lately is Bailey.

Actually, I think picking something old is how you get a popular name these days. If you want unique, pick something popular in your own generation, like Jennifer, Susan, Angela, Christine.

Don't think it's been mentioned yet, but I know three Noras under 3.

It's FREAKY how we all try to pick an original name, and then end up inadvertantly picking the same name as everyone else. I know so many people who picked off-the-wall names for their kids, only to have them be super popular. Because we're so affected by our culture, it seems the only way to ensure a unique name is to pick something really old-sounding to our generation (e.g., Mildred or Edna), something that sounds pretty mundane (e.g., Susie or Bob), or something that has become a casualty of our pop culture (e.g., Kermit or Miley).

Anyway, I think there are a lot of "--on" names floating around for boys (Mason, Sampson, Soren, etc.). A girl name that seems popular lately is Bailey.

Far and away...Jack. I know so many Jacks.

For girls...Julia, Sophia, Isabel, Caroline. I hear all of these on the playground pretty regularly.

All great names though.

Anonymous wrote:You just reminded me: Henry.

But maybe not for babies? Then 5 Henrys I know are all 6-9 years old now.

Definitely for babies as well. Of the 8 babies in the infant room at daycare... 2 Henrys. And I know another infant Henry.

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. So to summarize, the most overused baby names in this area are:

GIRLS:
Sophie/Sophia
Ella/Ellie/Elle
Ava
Eva
Evelyn
Mia/Maya/Maia/Malia
Isabelle/Isabella
Lucy
Grace
Lily/Lillian
Zoe
Olivia
Emma/Emily
Addison
Chloe
Charlotte
Annabelle/Anna
Alexandra/Alexandria
Madeline
Madison
Hannah
Leah
Quinn
Layla/Lola
Anya
Alanna (really?)

BOYS:
Jack/Jackson
Liam/William
Aiden (and all that rhyme)
Max
Alexander
Charlie
Henry
Owen
Sam
Finn
Quinn
Elijah
Mason
Micah
Matthew
Lucas
Noah
Tyler
Theo
Harrison
Gavin
Dylan
Eric
Michael

Does this sound about right? Any others?

I would add Benjamin to the boys list.

Anonymous wrote:

What? A popular AA name is Tanisha, but it can be spelled Taneesha, Tanesha, Tenisha. That alone would split the numbers enough to keep it off the list. There's really only one way to spell William. And there's nothing "oh lord" worthy about noting that AAs use a different set of names than other racial groups, and that they more often go for unique names.