What "Trendy" girl names do you feel will be "dated" in the future?

[name_f]Every[/name_f] year we see names that spike in popularity and dominate the charts but then after peaking, they fall and maybe even despised or called “basic” because of their popularity or association with a certain time. Then the cycle repeats with more new “unique” names rising then falling.

There are names like “[name_f]Emma[/name_f]” and “[name_f]Sophia[/name_f]” that while popular now I think they’ll be “timeless” even if 10 years from now other names take their place. But “[name_f]Jennifer[/name_f]”… well apparently is now seen as “dated” and “basic” in this day and age from what I’ve seen.

1 Like

Names beginning to sound dated or that will soon. I’ll star the ones I feel already are. These don’t include already dated ones like [name_f]Amanda[/name_f] and [name_f]Jessica[/name_f]

[name_f]Ava[/name_f]
[name_u]Avery[/name_u]
[name_f]Amelia[/name_f]
[name_u]Addison[/name_u]
[name_f]Ariana[/name_f]*
[name_u]Aubrey[/name_u]
[name_f]Brielle[/name_f]
[name_f]Bella[/name_f]
[name_f]Cadence[/name_f]
[name_f]Chloe[/name_f]*
[name_f]Emily[/name_f] (it’ll be a while)
[name_f]Emma[/name_f] (same)
[name_f]Faith[/name_f]*
[name_f]Gabrielle[/name_f]/[name_f]Gabriella[/name_f]*
[name_f]Giselle[/name_f]
[name_u]Genesis[/name_u]
[name_f]Hailey[/name_f]*
[name_u]Harper[/name_u]
[name_u]Hadley[/name_u]
[name_u]Hayden[/name_u]*
[name_f]Isabella[/name_f]/[name_f]Isabel[/name_f]
[name_f]Julia[/name_f]*
[name_f]Jasmine[/name_f]*
[name_f]Kaitlyn[/name_f]*
[name_f]Kylie[/name_f]*
[name_f]Kaylee[/name_f]*
[name_f]Kayla[/name_f]*
(Honest the k name phase in general)
[name_f]Lily[/name_f]
[name_u]Madison[/name_u]*
[name_u]Mackenzie[/name_u]/[name_f]McKenna[/name_f]/[name_f]Makayla[/name_f]*
[name_f]Natalie[/name_f]*
[name_f]Olivia[/name_f]
[name_u]Peyton[/name_u]*
[name_u]Riley[/name_u]
[name_f]Sienna[/name_f]
[name_f]Sadie[/name_f]
[name_u]Taylor[/name_u]*
[name_f]Victoria[/name_f]*
[name_u]Vivian[/name_u]
[name_f]Zoe[/name_f]

[name_f]Makayla[/name_f], [name_u]Mackenzie[/name_u], and all their variants are probably the biggest ones.

  • [name_u]Aidan[/name_u]/[name_u]Ayden[/name_u]/[name_u]Aiden[/name_u]
  • all the McNames - [name_u]Mackenzie[/name_u], [name_f]McKenna[/name_f], etc
  • [name_u]Peyton[/name_u], [name_u]Leighton[/name_u], Laklynn, all those kind of names
  • [name_u]Rowan[/name_u], [name_u]Juniper[/name_u], [name_f]Willow[/name_f], [name_u]Wren[/name_u] (+ other naturey names that people are using)
  • [name_u]Everly[/name_u], [name_u]Ever[/name_u], [name_f]Everleigh[/name_f]
  • [name_u]Finley[/name_u]
  • [name_u]Paisley[/name_u], [name_u]Presley[/name_u]
  • [name_f]Isla[/name_f]
  • [name_u]Hadley[/name_u], [name_f]Hailey[/name_f], [name_f]Harlow[/name_f]
  • [name_u]Madison[/name_u], [name_u]Addison[/name_u], [name_u]Emerson[/name_u]

Some of these names I think maybe won’t feel ‘dated’, but will definitely feel indicative of the 2000s

I was just reading about the name “[name_f]Isla[/name_f]” on Nameberry and they said something interesting:

Isla is part of a trend for simple, old-fashioned girl’s names that start and end with a vowel: Ava, Ada, Ella, Emma, Eva, Ida, Ivy.

You can add [name_f]Luna[/name_f] and [name_f]Aria[/name_f].
Those names will definitely be an indicator of the 2000s-2010s. Here’s my picks that may or may not have been said:
[name_f]Emma[/name_f] (eventually)
[name_f]Sophia[/name_f]
[name_f]Isabella[/name_f]
[name_f]Aurora[/name_f]/anything related to nature/trees that shot up so fast.
I agree the “Mc” names seem old now.
Honestly a lot of new popular names ending with “Y” don’t sound like they’ll last.
Myth figure names that rose up out of nowhere.
Any [name_u]Unique[/name_u] (prior to their rapid rise) Names that were said to have gotten a boost because of pop culture.
“Odd” spellings of popular names.
Things that end in “[name_u]Leigh[/name_u]”.
The “son” names do feel dated as well.

Names that feel trendy, and end up feeling dated, tend to be one that come out of nowhere and become very popular, very quickly. They’re usually names that have seen very little use in the past, until they suddenly spike in popularity. Many of these had never even been in the top 1000 until they became popular all of a sudden. They’re often newly invented names, or names/words that have never really been used as names before. Many are tied to a pop cultural icon, like Marilyn which was trendy/at its most popular at the time Marilyn Monroe was a big star.

Names that I think are trendy now/will become dated later:

Aria
Luna
Mila
Isla maybe? (especially in the US… it’s got a bit more of a history of use elsewhere)
Emilia (in the US at least, same as Isla)
Eloise
Lila
Thea
Evangeline
Spencer, Blair, Blake, James as a middle, other boys’ names on girls - especially those influenced by celebrities or characters
Made-up names that combine random sounds and add -lyn to the end… Jaylyn, Locklyn, etc.

  • ayden names (maybe not Aidan/Aiden itself though, which has more history of use)
    Nevaeh… already becoming a bit passé
    Harper, Piper, Hadley, other occupational and/or surname names

I think classic names are less likely to become or feel dated, because they’ve been in use so much longer, and even if they were more popular in a certain generation than another, they’ve gotten enough use in any generation that a person with that name could conceivably be any age. They’re also more likely to become classics/be seen as classic over a long period of time even if they’ve had peaks and dips in their popularity. These peaks and dips also tend to last a number of decades/generations rather than just one generation, long enough you couldn’t really guess the person’s age based on that. They don’t tend to be trendy- i.e. very popular for one generation and rarely heard before or after that.

Take Catherine or Sarah, or Peter for boys, for instance- they haven’t been as perennial as Elizabeth or William in their popularity, but still aren’t associated with a particular generation. They aren’t all that popular currently, but no one would be surprised to meet a baby Catherine or Sarah or Peter in 2018 or feel like it’s dated. It’d be more surprising and unexpected to hear it on a child today, but not dated/feeling out of place era-wise. Think listening to the Beatles in 2018, rather than wearing bell-bottoms in 2018. (Not a perfect analogy, I know!)

Personally, I think Emma and Sophia (and Charlotte, Isabella and other names with a long history of use that are currently popular) will be in that category too.

And then there’s the vintage revival names- names that were fairly popular/got a fair bit of use a hundred or more years ago, dropped off or way down the charts, but are now popular or in more common use again, like Hazel, Frances or Florence. If you heard these names now you would probably imagine a young girl, as it was previously popular so long ago that these generations have passed away (think Florence Nightingale or Frances Hodgson Burnett), but they’re not new or flash-in-the-pan names.

These types of names tend to feel old-fashioned rather than dated (which to me implies it was a flash in the pan a few decades ago). If you’d come across a Hazel, Frances or Florence 20 years ago you’d probably have thought old-fashioned (previously popular) rather than dated (previously trendy).

These are my very long, rambling thoughts on it anyways :slight_smile:

I agree that [name_f]Aurora[/name_f] will be dated too (too bad it’s my name! Lol, it wasn’t that popular when my parents picked it)

I agree that names that have a long history of use don’t feel dated as such but I know that I would avoid using them. I’ve taught a million girls called [name_f]Amelia[/name_f], [name_f]Isabella[/name_f], [name_f]Charlotte[/name_f], [name_f]Emily[/name_f], etc. I’d put other names with a long history of use but that have shot up in popularity in this category too. Names that I like and have used or would use like [name_f]Violet[/name_f], [name_f]Hazel[/name_f]. [name_f]Penelope[/name_f] and [name_f]Aurora[/name_f]. I don’t think [name_f]Aurora[/name_f] has reached it’s peak in the UK yet but it is steadily climbing. It’s a little annoying as it’s our top pick for another girl but oh well lol. We only know of one other [name_f]Violet[/name_f] so using [name_f]Aurora[/name_f] isn’t going to bother us when it’s not as popular.

I’ve started to see more unisex name being used here in the UK which I think will date. Also names that like [name_f]Luna[/name_f], [name_u]Everly[/name_u] and [name_f]Aria[/name_f] that have rised in popularity after a celeb/celeb baby or movie/book/tv show but again there are exceptions. Names like [name_f]Bella[/name_f], [name_f]Esme[/name_f] and [name_f]Margot[/name_f] don’t feel that way for me because they were used long before those associations came along.

My neighbor whose in her mid 20s is named [name_f]Aria[/name_f]. Parents chose it specifically because it sounded pretty and wasn’t in the top 1000 at the time of her birth.

[name_m]How[/name_m] the tables have turned haha.

[name_f]Aria[/name_f]
[name_u]Everly[/name_u]
[name_f]Olivia[/name_f]

I think that “classic” names can also become dated, particularly if they experience a lull for at least 80 years followed by a quick and/or very pronounced revival. I think [name_f]Sarah[/name_f], for example, is somewhat dated because it was so very commonly used in the 1980’s.

I feel like pretty much all the names people are currently using are going to be “dated” when those kids start having babies of their own. I bet all of our kids will be resurrecting names like [name_f]Sherry[/name_f], [name_f]Susan[/name_f], [name_f]Karen[/name_f], [name_u]Lisa[/name_u], [name_f]Linda[/name_f], [name_f]Brenda[/name_f], [name_f]Barbra[/name_f], etc. because they won’t really remember that generation of names any more.

Not surprising. All names go through cycles of popularity. Otherwise [name_f]Jennifer[/name_f] would still be number 1. Names that become super popular real fast are deemed “awful” because “everyone” is using them. Then people try to find “uncommon” names and whatever sticks shoots up like [name_f]Aria[/name_f]. Then rinse and repeat the cycle.

Can you believe that in the 70s/early 80s [name_f]Emma[/name_f] was only in the mid 400s?
EDIT: Even if names like Emma or Sophia become “dated” I feel like they won’t follow the route of say
Jennifer/Ashley.

Of course. Nothing is truly timeless of course.

But even so, I think because of say [name_f]Sarah[/name_f]/[name_f]Jessica[/name_f] religious significance (billions in the World are Christians/Catholics/Jews), it will live on regardless even if it feels outdated. [name_m]Even[/name_m] [name_f]Emma[/name_f], was always popular even as far back as the early 1900s and I don’t believe has ever once dropped out of the top 1000 in the past 118 years.

But many of the names listed in this thread at least in USA that I don’t will stand the test of time in the future like the above names are. Oh! I forgot to add color related names like:

[name_f]Hazel[/name_f]. [name_f]Scarlett[/name_f].

These names just got a sudden boost after disappearing for a while (more so [name_f]Hazel[/name_f]) so I think that won’t help it in the long run.

We must have different definitions of “dated”. When I say a name is dated, I am not referring to whether it “will live on”. I am referring to whether people in that person’s lifetime will later associate the name with being quite common at one time and therefore it will “date” the person. You can guess their approximate age. They are stereotyped as being from a certain generation. How to Tell Someone’s Age When All You Know Is Her Name | FiveThirtyEight

[name_f]Katherine[/name_f], [name_f]Elizabeth[/name_f], and [name_f]Anna[/name_f] are examples of names that are not dated. They are not stereotyped as belonging to any particular living generation.

I’m not sure if these are all classified as “trendy,” but I think the following names will be dated to the current decade.

[name_f]Ava[/name_f]
[name_f]Zoe[/name_f]
[name_f]Sienna[/name_f]
[name_f]Evie[/name_f]
[name_f]Isla[/name_f]
[name_f]Scarlett[/name_f]
[name_f]Zara[/name_f]
[name_u]Harper[/name_u]
[name_f]Willow[/name_f]
[name_f]Layla[/name_f]
[name_u]Madison[/name_u]/[name_f]Maddison[/name_f] (although this name feels dated to the 90’s to me, it is quite popular in our current name data)
[name_f]Poppy[/name_f]
[name_u]Alexis[/name_u]
[name_u]Chelsea[/name_u] (same with [name_u]Madison[/name_u]/[name_f]Maddison[/name_f])
[name_u]Mackenzie[/name_u]
[name_f]Aria[/name_f]
[name_f]Lola[/name_f]
[name_f]Savannah[/name_f]
[name_f]Bella[/name_f]
[name_u]Addison[/name_u]
[name_u]Eden[/name_u]
[name_u]Peyton[/name_u]
[name_f]Adelyn[/name_f]
[name_u]Indiana[/name_u]
[name_u]Piper[/name_u]
[name_u]Billie[/name_u]
[name_f]Heidi[/name_f]
[name_u]Frankie[/name_u]
[name_f]Mikayla[/name_f] (same as [name_u]Madison[/name_u]/[name_f]Maddison[/name_f])

[name_f]Olivia[/name_f] is going to be extremely dated and [name_f]Charlotte[/name_f] already sounds dated to me.

They aree both actually names that I like but wouldn’t use because they certainly fit into this category: [name_u]Harper[/name_u] and [name_u]Everly[/name_u].

When I think of names that will feel “dated” I think of names that I hear a lot right now that in a few years would be able to mark the decade they came out in. [name_f]Kinda[/name_f] like [name_f]Stephanie[/name_f], [name_f]Amy[/name_f] and [name_f]Jennifer[/name_f] for kids in the 80’s.
Names soon to be dated/mark this current decade:
[name_u]Harper[/name_u]
[name_u]Madison[/name_u]
[name_f]Sophia[/name_f]
[name_f]Emma[/name_f]
[name_f]Bella[/name_f]
[name_f]Isabella[/name_f]
[name_f]Charlotte[/name_f]
[name_f]Olivia[/name_f]
[name_f]Aria[/name_f]
[name_f]Chloe[/name_f]
[name_f]Mia[/name_f]
[name_u]Riley[/name_u]/[name_u]Rylee[/name_u]
[name_u]Addison[/name_u]
[name_u]Everly[/name_u]/[name_f]Everleigh[/name_f]

I agree with your general premise as dated being a name stereotypically belonging to a certain living generation, but I feel there are names that don’t quite fit into that, and it especially falls apart with classic names.

[name_f]Jane[/name_f] and [name_f]Louise[/name_f] are heard most often on women in their 50s and 60s or older nowadays, and rarely used for young girls. Yet most Berries consider them classic. (e.g. here: Nameberry - Welcome to the Nameberry Forums Nameberry - Welcome to the Nameberry Forums) [name_f]Margaret[/name_f] was popular at around the same time as [name_f]Jane[/name_f] and [name_f]Louise[/name_f] were, and is also heard mostly on older women, but Berries seem to have mixed opinions as to whether it’s classic or dated. (Nameberry - Welcome to the Nameberry Forums) Partly I think it’s that [name_f]Margaret[/name_f] has a heavier, more unfashionable sound, but it goes to show that names associated with a particular generation may or may not be considered classic.

Personally, [name_f]Jane[/name_f], [name_f]Louise[/name_f] and [name_f]Margaret[/name_f] all sound classic to me, even though I would assume someone with one of these names was an older woman.

I feel like one thing that makes a name classic is whether it would sound out of place on someone of any age. It would be quite surprising and seem a bit odd to meet a 40 year old Blakelynn or a baby [name_f]Darlene[/name_f], like it didn’t really fit them, but I wouldn’t have that reaction meeting a [name_f]Jane[/name_f] (or [name_f]Emma[/name_f] or whatnot) of any age.

[name_m]Ah[/name_m], so it sounds like you partially define a “classic” name by whether it is dated. I don’t, so there isn’t any incongruence in my mind with classic names also being dated. [name_f]Olivia[/name_f] can be both dated and classic.