Results 1 to 5 of 24
December 10th, 2012 11:42 PM #1
Does this rule exist for other namers...Or is it just me?
A name being too UNpopular to be usable?
Some people have limits as to how popular a name is - like no top 20/top 100 names.
But does it concern you if a name is distinctly uncommon? There are some names below the top 1000 that I love and wouldn't mind using, though I'm generally skeptical of names below the top 1000. After all, they're unpopular for a reason. I would only use a name that's familiar to almost everyone and isn't majorly outdated (and is spelled correctly and on the right gender and not made up). Most of the names below the top 1000 break at least one of those criteria. Most likely, it's being unusual/unfamiliar. I think my limit to how unpopular a name can be is somewhere around the 50-60 children spot as long as it fits my "rules," but it's not a set number.
Anyone else skeptical of really uncommon names?
December 11th, 2012 02:17 AM #3Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
I agree! It wouldn't stop me if I absolutely loved it (popularity wouldn't either,) but I would be wary of a very uncommon name or one that is badly perceived. Practically, it's much easier to go through life with a common name than an incredibly rare one, and a common name is far less likely to be a hindrance in any way. I love Agatha and Zebedee, but I doubt I'd ever consider using them- they're just too disliked by the general population.
December 11th, 2012 02:59 AM #5Senior Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2012
No, I'm happy to find that a name I love has never been popular. I never wanted to be like everyone else and I don't want my kids to be like other kids. Tallulah has never broken the top 1000 and many of my favorites rank very low if at all.
However popularity is relative. My name was in the top 50s when I was born yet it was never "popular". My parents got a lot of flack for their choice, so in spite of it's ranking it wasn't generally liked and still isn't. In my lifetime I've only met 4 others with my name and usually people say I'm the only person they've ever met with my name.
Fox * Rohan * Jade * Shea * Eden * Blaise * Greer
Lotus * Noor * Tallulah * Jasper * Linden * Arden
December 11th, 2012 03:25 AM #7Senior Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2012
I think 50 may even be a little low for me, generally speaking. By the time you get to that point you're mostly dealing with creative spellings. And like you said, there's a good reason why you're practically the only person who decided to use it. I wouldn't rule out a name just because there were fewer than 50 babeis given it, but that's generally a good indicator.
Some gems below 50 last year:
Minerva #38 (may be too unusual/outdated for some, but I think it's beautiful!)
Lenore #33 (with Eleanor's popularity and it's literary significance I'm actually surprised this one isn't more popular)
Niles #41 (I prefer it to Miles, which is growing in popularity)
Liev #23 (such a handsome name! I honestly couldn't believe it was that low)
Rupert #8 (ok, so apparently it takes a special kind of person to love Rupert. But how in the hell were 9 more boys named Nevaeh last year than Rupert????)
There are also other names like Lavender, Verity, Stellan, and Viggo, that aren't appealing to me but still work.
December 11th, 2012 10:55 AM #9Senior Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Flyover Territory
I kind of have this rule. However, it's more about familiarity. For instance I would use Mabel (although as of the last couple years she's gotten well over 50) or Rupert (poor Rupert!) in a heartbeat because most people would find them familiar and easy to spell/pronounce even if they've never met one. They are also similar enough to other names that are popular or have been popular, that I truly believe most people would find them appealing once they associated it with a little kid. Also, in Rupert's case there are enough pop culture references (Grint, Everett) that it's seeped into the public consciousness even if it's not being used.Tara, proud mama to a Honey Badger
... and a Badger in Training