Adolf.

It's a shame too. It's a nice name.

Well, I'm not sure how this relates to broadsheet or womens issues, but names and theur trends/popularity are a fun topic.

If you want to talk about it, though, you should really do some research on the social security administration's web site, where they track the popularity of baby names since the late 1800s, by state & gender.

You'll see there that David has been one of the 20 most popular boy's names since 1928. It was in the top 10 from 1937 to 1991. So in fact, a lot of people still name their kids david.

See http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/

When you grow up, you'll know older people. For the rest of your life, you'll associate those people's names with "old" people. So will all of your peers.

If you're of a certain age, names such as Mildred, Martha, Betty, or Hazel are thought of as "old" names, so no one in that age group has given those names to their children.

But a generation or two later, women of childbearing age have never known anyone with those names and don't associate them with "old" people. So they start giving them out again.

I'm pushing 50, and had a lot of friends growing up whose mothers were named "Betty." Yet I've only met one person in my age group with that name. My guess is that in another 20 years or so, every Tom, Dick and Harry will be named "Betty" again, so to speak.

In my son's preschool class of 20 there was "David A," "David I," and "David S." We must live in some cultural backwater here in Silicon Valley by not naming our kids things like "Drake," "Mardis," and "Brack."

... but I think some of them are back, retro-style, and have been for a while. I'm 24, and I've recently met two others Judys my age.

In the Hulk TV show (the Bill Bixby one), they named the main character David Banner because the original "Bruce" seemed girly. Bruce Jenner won the decathalon, Bruce Springsteen hit the charts and suddenly it was fashionable again.

We named our little girl Eleanor after my mother and thought we'd given her a name that wouldn't be too common. Fat chance - we run into Ellas and Eleanors everyhere in the under three bracket now.

Names cycle. Even Milton and Homer will come back.

Douty Utter and Sarelda Jones.

I gaurantee you that those names are not coming back. Thought I am considering Sarelda as a middle name, maybe...

I'd be happy to be wrong about that one. Some of my best friends are named Judy!

Check out this online tool (link in name) that shows time series graphs of name popularity over time based on census records. "Bruce" had his heyday back in 1950.

So Bruce, Glenn, Duane, Kent for boys and Nancy, Judy, Barbara, Carol for girls won't be in favor again until the grandchildren or possibly great-grandchildren of those who bear the name (meaning people born in the late 40s and 1950s) are having their own children. By then the names will be old and quaint (as Emily and Adelaide and Owen and Simon are perceived now) rather than old and common. But, ironically, being old and quaint will inevitably lead to their quickly becoming common (as Emily and Adelaide and Owen and Simon are becoming now).

Janet, Janis, are also names on the outs. And I'm glad.

Particularly boys. I have a nephew David, son of David, grandson of David.

My grandmother was Gertrude, and her sisters were Leonora (called Lily) and Mildred. Their parents were very trendy, and their grandchildren are honoring them by using their....initials.

My friend teases his daughters (Betsy and Dewey) that he should have called them Dorcas, one of the the most popular girl's names in Colonial America.

It's funny though. I love some old names that I don't think we'll have again. A trip through my family tree comes up with:

Josiah, Dudley, Selah, and my favorite, Nemeiah.

Mackenzie, Jackson, Tanner, Morgan, Taylor.

or Debra..or Susan..

When I was born, Jason (my name) was top ten or so in popularity. There was not another Jason in any of my classes until I was a senior in high school. I don't what this means, but it seems appropriate.

You know two boys named Seymore? Seriously? Do their parents WANT them to be beaten up every day? It all comes down to The Simpsons. If you name your kid Seymore or Clancy or Ned or Moe you deserve to have your children taken away py CPS.

Some friends of mine, in their mid-20s like myself, want to name their first male child "Rufus". My wife and I are planning on naming our first boy Jack - not John or Jonathan, but Jack.

I like the older names - they seem sturdier, more real. I've never met an Aden in real life, but if I did, I think I'd have trouble taking him seriously.

I'm pretty sure both "Michael" and "David" are always in the top 20 baby names for boys.

What's different now is that it seems people are less likely to call their kids the common nicknames for classic names. Like, if you're named Michael or David or William or Samuel or John or Stephen, your mama calls you Michael or David or William or Samuel or John or Stephen instead of Mike, Dave, Bill, Sam, Jack, or Steve.

Mary, which was #1 female name for close to 50 years, has now dropped to 93rd, according to the Social Security database. Growing up there was always at least one or two other Marys in my classroom. Now, if I encounter another Mary at work or life, I can almost be certain that she, like myself, ain't no spring chicken.

Florence, Homer, Hubert, Eustace, Ezekiel, Hobart, Maude, Ethel, Ernestine, Ernest, Millard, Franklin, Hubert (different one), Mortimer, Percy, Edsel.

One day, though... the Nursing Homes will be filled with Grampa Aidans, Gramma Dakotas, Grandpa Codys, Great Aunt Taylors and so on.

Ranking of the name David:

2007 #12

2006 #13

2005 #14

2004 #14

1990's #12

So, it's never been an unpopular name.

As for Michael, it's been #2 all decade, after being #1 in the 1990's.

On the other hand, Steven was never in the top 10, nor was Kevin.

So, Ms. Harris, can I ask what you are talking about.

(All stats come from NameVoyager, which is the bomb.)