Over at the Yahoo!Answers baby naming board, it’s amazing how often the comment “give your kid a normal name” will come up.

What’s more dazzling is that this critical comment can be in response to nearly any name – from a chart topper like Ava or Aiden, to something classic like Henry or Beatrice to a name, okay, yeah, unusual enough to earn praise here at ApMtn.

And yet, I’d like to put forward a simple tenet of baby naming: there is no such thing as normal.

After all, the textbook definition of normal is regular; conforming to the common type. The best measure of this then, must be the Top 20 – or perhaps 50 – names, and thanks to the Social Security Administration, data on “normal” names is readily available. Scan it for a few minutes, and I’m sure you’ll agree: just like hemlines have always varied, baby names have come in and out of vogue. With the exception of a very few names – mostly for boys – the Top 50 are far from a stable list.

In 1906, the following names were “normal.”

• For girls, Mildred (#9), Ethel (#11), Gladys (#16), Gertrude (#22), Bertha (#25), Thelma (#31) and Myrtle (#37).
• For boys, Walter (#12), Willie (#13 no, not William – just Willie!), Clarence (#18), Fred (#20), Roy (#24), Ernest (#28) and Elmer (#42).

No fair, you say? That’s too wayback to find a true measure of normal? Let’s try 1926, then. After all, plenty of octogenarians are still with us, wearing names like:

• For girls, Betty (#3), Doris (#7), Phyllis (#33), Gladys (#35) and Ethel (#41).
• For boys, Albert (#21), Eugene (#23), Ralph (#24), Norman (#39) and Stanley (#43).

Even in 1946 – a year some of us can remember – plenty of the favorite names are eye-poppingly strange by today’s standards:

• For girls, Shirley (#18), Beverly (#30) and Connie (#45).
• For boys, Larry (#11), Gary (#12), Terry (#26) and Bruce (#32).

Even 1966’s list features some names that would be awkward to bestow on a child born circa 2008:

• For girls, Lori (#21), Tina (#23), Dawn (#24) and Rhonda (#39).
• For boys, Rodney (#35), Randy (#45) and Troy (#48).

By 1986, the names sound more familiar, and either more palatable or less appealing to our ears, depending on our generation. But there are still some extremely trendy entrants on the list, including:

• For girls, Ashley (#2), Brittany (#8), Amber (#13) and Crystal (#25).
• For boys, Justin (#14), Dustin (#42), Jesse (#48) and Travis (#49).

And so little wonder that by 2006, the Top 50 had changed dramatically again.

• For girls, Madison (#3), Brianna (#20), Taylor (#22), Savannah (#30), Destiny (#37) and Nevaeh (#43).
• For boys, Tyler (#18), Austin (#41) and Jayden (#50).

The bottom line is that the Top 50 – the most commonly bestowed names in the US – are quite the changeable lot.

It’s also interesting to note that the Social Security Administration lists only the Top 1000 names. This represents about 75% of the population. So even a name that ranks at a relatively obscure #1000 (In ‘06, that was Jarvis) or #998 (Thaddeus) is shared by about 180 children.

Plenty of “normal” names – enduring classics like Beatrice – can be found hanging out in the upper ranks of those listings. Beatrice came in at #966 in 2006, with a mere 266 girls christened with that lovely name that year.

Some European nations maintain a registry of acceptable names, strictly limited to exclude such fanciful entrants as Misty (a Top 50 name for girls in the 1970s) or Dale (a Top 50 name for boys in the 1960s). Would it be possible to compile a list of 300 or 500 names and force every parent to choose from the list? Perhaps. But inevitably, the same thing would happen – even in that small sea, certain names would be more popular; others neglected.

We at ApMtn firmly believe there is such a thing as a bad baby name. (See our growing Seven Deadlies list, if you like.) But we’re not so sure there’s any such thing as a normal one – and that’s a good thing.