• the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 hours ago

    When I was in school every third girl was named Jennifer and every third boy was named Christopher. Don’t really see either of those nowadays. I’m in my 40s so they’re about 15-20 years from being old people names.

    Also Karen. The internet ruined that name.

    • tiramichu@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Exactly this. The majority of super-popular names now will all be “old person” names in future.

      In turn, the “old person” names of the recently deceased generations, like ‘Florence’ and ‘Edith’ are starting to reappear and be given to children again, because with that old generation dead they are freed from the old-people stereotype and seem good again. It’s cyclical.

      Amongst all names, there are some which are conversely a lot harder to date. Names that are always being given, but never top the popularity lists. Names like Mark, Thomas, or Matthew. Harder to date people with names like these, because there’s always plenty of them.

      • snooggums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        The commonly used names from religions will always dominate top name lists for sure.

      • olosta@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        The cycle is reinforced by people giving the name of their grand parents to their kids.

    • dingus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yeah but it seems like some names are always somewhat popular no matter the era. “John” and “James” for example

  • exasperation@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Seems like there’s a way to analyze this in a systematic way, from social security name data. Any name that popped up as a newly popular name and fell back off within a decade or two would probably eventually become a marker of that generation.

    Gladys was popular between 1900 and 1920, and became known as an old lady name by the 80’s or 90’s.

    Karen was popular between 1945 and 1965, and is regarded a prototypical boomer name.

    The Baby Jessicas of the 80’s will be retirees in the 2050’s. Ashleys and Emilys will probably be that in the 2060’s. There will be Britneys and Emmas.

    But the methodology could probably be applied to the data in a systematic way.

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    22 hours ago

    Karen has been a very popular name through many years. I imagine it’s dropped close to zero now.

    Ella/ellie became way over popular. My kids knew so many girls with those names, more than one in a lot of their classes. No one gives out a name that’s so common

    Isabella for dogs. There are so many Bella’s and Izzies. Maybe it’s just my family: my brother got Bella. I got a rescue named izzie and honorable mention to my other brother with Ozzie

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      With one exception.

      Ozzie the Australian Shepherd is a great dog. He deserves to own the name as an exemplar of his breed. I’ll fight you on this.

  • 11111one11111@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    22 hours ago

    My bet is on unabbreviated names like Samantha, Nathaniel, Joshua. Any name that isn’t already the abv. version. I think people will go towards the Sam’s, Nate’s/Nathan’s and Josh’s. No reason to think this just a gut feeling.

  • 🐋 Color 🍁 ♀@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I’m not sure if it’s very common, but Elaine. It’s my name and I love it, but I’m already seeing people who think it’s kind of an old woman’s name! 😅