I actually really like it.
thank you all so much for your replies, its given me lots to think about… its been interesting, this whole naming an actual human-to-be, what I love ‘in theory’ doesn’t always work in real life. having said that, I’m also not ready to give up on [name]Sage[/name] entirely quite yet as a first name (esp since not everyone disliked it). I really feel that I will have a better idea when the baby is born- seeing what suits the actual baby, not just the bump iykwim. But to have an idea now of people’s reactions to the name I think will help a lot with decision making. Thanks again everyone :).
I think it sounds nice. I knew a [name]Sage[/name] Waters.
Im not a big fan of [name]Sage[/name] at all, and [name]Sage[/name] Woods is way too much for me.
I think [name]Sage[/name] Woods is fine. It’s not like when I hear the name I think “Oh, they name him/her [name]Sage[/name] to match their last name to go with a nature theme.” No. Woods is just a surname to me, and I don’t think you should worry about it.
I love the name [name]Sage[/name], btw!
I would put [name]Sage[/name] in the middle, if you love it. I don’t like it at all for a first name.
Good luck!
I personally wouldn’t do it, but it sounds like it could work for your family. If I met a little boy or girl named [name]Sage[/name] Woods my reaction wouldn’t be that it was a bad name or that the parents were cruel to give it, just that the family must be rather artistic/hippie.
I have to agree with the pps who pointed out that it sounds like a candle or gated community. That said, I really like [name]Sage[/name] in the middle spot.
It’s too much for me, I like the above suggestion of using it in the mn spot.
I love the name [name]Sage[/name]. For a boy or girl. I think it is truly unisex. I could see why some wouldn’t like [name]Sage[/name] and Woods together, but I don’t mind it. I don’t think you should have to avoid naturey names just because you ended up with the last name woods. We go by just our first names most of the time anyway.
Hmm…
I’m not quite sure (I’m a lot of help, I know lol)
I really like the name [name]Sage[/name] but i think [name]Sage[/name] Woods does have some teasing potential as does any name.
I don’t think that [name]Sage[/name] Woods is going to work.
Subtle nature names might work but nothing to obvious.
Something like [name]Winter[/name] Woods would be absolutely horrible…Beyond words horrible
I know a girl named [name]Sage[/name], and the name itself is on my long list, so no, I do not think that it is a dreadful name. More spuky-natury!
I really don’t think it works with Woods… sorry
I don’t think it’s terrible, but it kind of gives a hippie vibe, and makes me think of some fairytale forest. Reminds me of one of my brother’s friends named [name]Stormy[/name] Waters. Double word names can be tough.
I like it. [name]Sage[/name] is just a little plant/shrub, not a big tree so to me it’s not that theme-y. No more than two other nature names, [name]Lake[/name] Woods, [name]Brooke[/name] Woods.
Your last name sounds great with a lot of things, so you’re very lucky, but the downside is it’s always going to sound like a suburban subdivision, nothing you can really do about that. [name]Even[/name] “[name]Tiffany[/name] Woods” sounds like it could be one.
I have the same problem, my baby’s last name has the unfortunate problem of sounding like a law firm with many names I like…you just have to go with what you love, I think!
Since you’re looking for opinions, I’d have to say that I wouldn’t do it. I love nature names too, but with the last name Woods I’d stay away from a word name like Woods. I also thought of the suggestion [name]Aurelia[/name] [name]Sage[/name] Woods. I think that’s lovely. I’d try to avoid noun names with your last name, although I had a hard time thinking of nature names that aren’t nouns. I’m sorry. Difficult situation.
I think [name]Sage[/name] is lovely, and don’t see why it can’t go with Woods. Woods is a relatively common name, and few people think about what it means. They may not think much about what [name]Sage[/name] means, for that matter. And if they do, they’ll realize woods aren’t comprised of sage anyway. (It would be different if you were really going to go with [name]Oak[/name].) If you love [name]Sage[/name], go for it.
I find [name]Sage[/name] Woods to be very pretty, if a little over-the-top. If you wanted something that would look more professional on paper, maybe you could consider a first name that start with an S and a middle that starts with a G with [name]Sage[/name] as a nickname. Something like:
[name]Sarah[/name] [name]Georgiana[/name] Woods
[name]Sarai[/name] [name]Grace[/name] Woods
[name]Stella[/name] [name]Greer[/name] Woods
etc.
[name]Aurelia[/name] [name]Sage[/name] Woods is gorgeous! : [name]Golden[/name] [name]Green[/name] Woods. 
Since you love nature names for first names, I would stick with that concept. [name]Sage[/name] is a great name so if you love it, just choose a slightly more traditional middle name. I think however, there are other nature name possibilities that might work better with Woods. I partiuclarly like [name]Wren[/name] Woods. Some other ideas are: [name]Coral[/name], [name]Starling[/name], [name]Zinnia[/name], [name]Hazel[/name], and [name]Emerald[/name].