As pointed out many times in this forum, certain names carry with them strong feelings about a person’s age. For example, if you hear the name [name]Jennifer[/name], it’s often assumed she was born in the 80s (even if this is not the case).
[name]Do[/name] you think the [name]Ella[/name] names (including longer names that end in “ella”) will have the same effect for the current baby generation?
Yes, definitely!
It is hard to say how long [name]Ella[/name] will remain popular. I think using a longer more traditional name like [name]Elizabeth[/name] or [name]Eleanor[/name] will help prevent the dated feeling 20 years from now.
I don’t think [name]Ella[/name] will be the most dateable name used now. I think for girls, [name]Madison[/name], [name]Emily[/name]/[name]Emma[/name] and [name]Isabella[/name] will be the most dated. [name]Ella[/name] is pretty traditional in my eyes, especially as it has been a nickname for [name]Eleanor[/name] and [name]Elizabeth[/name]. For the boys, the [name]Aiden[/name]/[name]Brayden[/name]/[name]Kayden[/name] trend will be very dated, and [name]Jacob[/name] will probably be dateable as well.
Great to hear all of your ideas so far.
I just want to clarify - I am not only speaking of the full name “[name]Ella[/name]”, I am also referring to [name]Isabella[/name], [name]Gabriella[/name], etc.
Hmm…[name]Ella[/name]. You know what? No. [name]Ella[/name] is a name that feels sort of timeless. It is simple and sweet and has been around forever. Names that sound more “made-up” like [name]Brayden[/name] and the such will definitely be dated. And of course, it seems every [name]Aiden[/name] was born in the past decade. But names like [name]Ella[/name], well, they’ve been here before and they’ll probably continue. They aren’t nearly as exclusive.
Oh, and for the record, my mother’s name is [name]Jennifer[/name]. She was born in 1961.
[name]Glad[/name] to know a bunch of you feel that [name]Ella[/name] names probably won’t feel too dated years from now. The names are super cute [name]IMO[/name].
Yes, the [name]Ella[/name] names are classic names at least (unlike the names that sound made up). Those names seem to be experiencing a huge surge in recent years. Does a big surge and then fade out of even classic names have a simliar effect?
I think while it may have a similar effect, it is not the same effect. A classic name may be somewhat “dated”, but it will most likely always be accepted. Twenty years from now, no one will think twice about a baby [name]Ella[/name], although they may knwo many 25 year olds with the same name. [name]Imagine[/name] a baby girl now named [name]Debbie[/name]. See how it’s different? It seems like [name]Debbie[/name]'s will only ever be from the 70s.
I most definitely think that the [name]Ella[/name] names will be immediately thought of as the 2000s kids. The names are just so ridiculously popular, that people will probably assume what years they were born.
About the [name]Jennifer[/name] thing, I was talking to my teacher the other day, who was born in the late 70s but all his friends are youner than him. Anyway, he was talking about his friends back home, and he mentioned 2 Jennifers, one [name]Jen[/name], and his girlfriend [name]Jenny[/name]. I immediately knew they were all born in the 80s.
So, yes, I do think the [name]Ella[/name] names are going to be associated with the 2000s, as well as last name-names for boys and sometimes girls.
Thanks for the comment. I am trying to follow your reasoning - do you consider [name]Deborah[/name]/[name]Debbie[/name] dated due to how commonly it was used in the 70s? I agree that it is. However, [name]Deborah[/name] (nn [name]Debbie[/name]) is an old testament name making it what I would consider a form of “classic” name. So your example leads me to think that, yes, even a “classic” name, like ella names, can become dated if overused.
The only confusing thing is that it seems like you are making the exact opposite point - that classic names (including ella names) will remain “accepted” even when overused in a short time…? Then why not [name]Deborah[/name] (nn [name]Debbie[/name])? Maybe they only seem different because it is currently 2010, not 1970?? 
Thanks for your comments rachelmarie. This is what my gut is telling me too, which is why I am steering myself away from ella names (even though they sound awfully cute at present).
Yes. And it doesn’t matter. All names have the potential to date an individual to a particular era. The tides can change at any time… names that seem timeless and uber common to us now, like [name]William[/name] or [name]Elizabeth[/name], could go out of style in the blink of an eye.
[quote=“elymayday”]
Thanks for the comment. I am trying to follow your reasoning - do you consider [name]Deborah[/name]/[name]Debbie[/name] dated due to how commonly it was used in the 70s? I agree that it is. However, [name]Deborah[/name] (nn [name]Debbie[/name]) is an old testament name making it what I would consider a form of “classic” name. So your example leads me to think that, yes, even a “classic” name, like ella names, can become dated if overused.
The only confusing thing is that it seems like you are making the exact opposite point - that classic names (including ella names) will remain “accepted” even when overused in a short time…? Then why not [name]Deborah[/name] (nn [name]Debbie[/name])? Maybe they only seem different because it is currently 2010, not 1970?? :)[/quote]
You may very well be right about my flawed reasoning. However, I consider a name classic if it is like [name]Elizabeth[/name]. [name]Elizabeth[/name] has always been common and it still is. [name]Deborah[/name] and [name]Jennifer[/name] were not at all frequently used until they sky-rocketed. [name]Ella[/name] and its variants were used not exactly frequently, but would have been accepted in say, the 30s, whereas I don’t think [name]Deborah[/name] or [name]Jennifer[/name] would. But, who knows! I could be completely wrong!
Thanks so much to all of you for sharing your ideas. Now if I can only remember where I left my crystal ball!!! 
Thx again!