New Post
Search
HelpInteresting Name Article Written By Non Name Nerd
It's humorous, accurate and insightful. I loved the part where the author talked about parents trying to wrench individuality from a fad name. It reminded me of a conversation I once had with a woman about to name her dd Emily Grace (would go by both names). When I reminded her that Emily was #1 at the time and Grace was a very popular mn, she replied, "That's okay. She'll be the only Emily Grace that *I* know." Okay ...
http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/12/how-to-name-baby.html
ETA that the article was written about a year and a half ago so my apologies if it was posted here. I don't believe it was, though, since I've never read it before.
http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/12/how-to-name-baby.html
ETA that the article was written about a year and a half ago so my apologies if it was posted here. I don't believe it was, though, since I've never read it before.
This message was edited 5/15/2015, 4:15 AM
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
The author confesses to a "lifelong fascination with the topic" of names and to playing with Name Voyager in his spare time. So he's definitely a name nerd. And you can tell by how he writes. That attitude. "parents who are far too thrilled with themselves and are having far too special a child for a Timeless or Top 10 Name, but who also look down upon those who go for a Super Weird Name as annoying or unclassy." What, wait. Who's looking down on who? That is not what motivates people to choose names. He's got a superior attitude and it's posing as humorous. He's the one who's sneering at "name fads" and "Your Mom's Friend" as though he's too cool for it. Oh, the dread of being middle aged and having a middle aged name! The young people will think it's tacky, oh noes!
It's entertaining, I guess. Written for folks who never bothered to read anything about names and name popularity even though it's pretty common as a topic for clickbait "stories" all over.
I disagree with something though. He says if you name your kid "anything from the current Top 20," "There will be three other kids in the class with the same name and they’ll be referred to along with their last name initial." That's right after he says only 73% of babies born in 2012 got a top 1000 name, compared with 95% in 1950.
The popular names are just not that common anymore ... I am tired of people saying stuff about using a top ten name, let alone a top 20, meaning there'll be 3 kids in every class with the same name and they'll have to use an initial. It's not true. So I irritably crunched some numbers to show it.
There are no longer 3 kids in a class with one name anymore, except in pockets where that name happens to be especially popular at a certain time. The #1 girl name was given to something like 4% of girls in the 1970s, 2% in the 80s, and now only about 1%.
You still see 2 kids with top 10 names in a class now and then, but not in most classes. The 10-20 ranks should be pretty safe now. The #20 name in 1994 was given to a larger proportion of girls than the #10 name in 2014. 12% of girls were given top 20 names in 2014 versus 19% in 1994. With boys it's even more so - half the proportion of boys were given top 10 names (15.5% vs 8%). Although more boys still get top 10-20 names than girls do, it's fewer boys overall getting the top 20 (about half as many boys are named top 10-20 names as well, 1994 vs 2014).
It's entertaining, I guess. Written for folks who never bothered to read anything about names and name popularity even though it's pretty common as a topic for clickbait "stories" all over.
I disagree with something though. He says if you name your kid "anything from the current Top 20," "There will be three other kids in the class with the same name and they’ll be referred to along with their last name initial." That's right after he says only 73% of babies born in 2012 got a top 1000 name, compared with 95% in 1950.
The popular names are just not that common anymore ... I am tired of people saying stuff about using a top ten name, let alone a top 20, meaning there'll be 3 kids in every class with the same name and they'll have to use an initial. It's not true. So I irritably crunched some numbers to show it.
There are no longer 3 kids in a class with one name anymore, except in pockets where that name happens to be especially popular at a certain time. The #1 girl name was given to something like 4% of girls in the 1970s, 2% in the 80s, and now only about 1%.
You still see 2 kids with top 10 names in a class now and then, but not in most classes. The 10-20 ranks should be pretty safe now. The #20 name in 1994 was given to a larger proportion of girls than the #10 name in 2014. 12% of girls were given top 20 names in 2014 versus 19% in 1994. With boys it's even more so - half the proportion of boys were given top 10 names (15.5% vs 8%). Although more boys still get top 10-20 names than girls do, it's fewer boys overall getting the top 20 (about half as many boys are named top 10-20 names as well, 1994 vs 2014).
This message was edited 5/15/2015, 12:28 PM
1
The author may have noticed names before, however, I got the impression that he didn't become truly interested in them (or at least in naming trends) until his friends began having children. That's when he probably did his research and I did appreciate that part of his article -- the work that went into it. I didn't totally agree with him on everything. For example, he missed some trends (i.e., the ayden trend). He also missed out on the fact that a popular female name is still not as common as a popular male name because the pool is so much larger.
As for being snarky or superior, he's no different from many, I suppose. What I liked about the article was that it was informative without offending new parents-to-be. He got his point across with humor and he enlightened his readers at the same time. It was definitely a good read for the naming novice.
As for being snarky or superior, he's no different from many, I suppose. What I liked about the article was that it was informative without offending new parents-to-be. He got his point across with humor and he enlightened his readers at the same time. It was definitely a good read for the naming novice.
This message was edited 5/15/2015, 2:09 PM
1
Spot on and a humorously interesting read. Thanks
I do think I'd add a new "hipster / vintage revival / ugly-pretty" category now
I do think I'd add a new "hipster / vintage revival / ugly-pretty" category now
This message was edited 5/15/2015, 11:59 AM
1
This article is not only entertaining but a great read for even non-name-nerds.
I, obviously, wanted to add to it. Especially in some of his categories. (He left out parents who try to resurrect names!)...
However, I think I will be recommending this article to parents who are expecting but don't want in depth advice ;).
I, obviously, wanted to add to it. Especially in some of his categories. (He left out parents who try to resurrect names!)...
However, I think I will be recommending this article to parents who are expecting but don't want in depth advice ;).
1