Sunday Summary 12.13.15I had to look at the calendar twice to be sure – this is really the fiftieth week of the year! But of course, it must be! I’ve already run my Best Celebrity Baby Names of 2015, and reviewed last year’s predictions, too. That just leaves predictions for 2016 – coming up this Friday – and a look back at the most popular posts of the year, plus my revised name watch list.

And then … 2016!

For now, let’s take a look at the baby name news, some seasonal and year-ending, but most of it just plain fun:

That’s all for this week! As always, thank you for reading – and have a great week!

About Abby Sandel

Whether you're naming a baby, or just all about names, you've come to the right place! Appellation Mountain is a haven for lovers of obscure gems and enduring classics alike.

You May Also Like:

What do you think?


  1. Storm Desmond is better than what they actually picked! The sad thing is that every single article I read headlined (in so many words) I Know Better Than the Wests What to Name Their Kid was correct – everyone did a better job than the actual parents. I do think they painted themselves into a corner with North though, as meaning (to them) “the best” – the next one will have to be Messiah, which is now almost boring.

    Loved the article by Logan Hill, so clever and correct for his own name, but I don’t think Logan 40 years ago and Saint now are comparable.

  2. I agree with Duana but was surprised she didn’t discuss the history of the name Sioux. Even though the name has somewhat tangled origins, it still seems awfully presumptuous for parents not belonging to the Sioux nations to name their child that (and I assume if they did belong, they would mention it). It’s not like naming a child with a name from France when you’re not French, or even after a country like Holland–the history of interaction between American Indians and almost all other Americans is just too bloody. I’m even more troubled by it because they don’t seem to have even considered this aspect of the name. It’s almost as if they wanted to name a white American child Hiroshima–not in any attempt to pay tribute the the dead there, but because it’s got a nice sound. Given the protests around using native names and likenesses for sports teams and mascots, we also know that a great many American Indians feel deeply belittled by having their names used in ways they don’t control. So I say if they must name their boy Sue, they need to just go ahead name him Sue (or Sux, or Su, or Sou or Oliver-Sue), and not try to give it masculine plausible deniability (it’s not deniable) by appropriating the name of people who had generations of their children systematically stolen in an attempt to eradicate their culture.

    1. It’s a good point, Borealis. Given the popularity of Cheyenne & Dakota, I’m not surprised to see another tribal name under consideration. And it does add yet another layer of controversy. “Your name is Sue?” “Yeah, but it’s S-I-O-U-X, like the Native American tribe.” “Oh! Are you Sioux?” “No …”

      FWIW, my first thought was Siouxie Sioux.

  3. Wasn’t Jacob Marley a hateful miser? Even though he points Scrooge towards his path of redemption, I think he’s a terrible namesake, Christmastime or no.

    1. You might be right – though I think his efforts to save his friend from the same fate could be seen as redemptive. Then again, I referred to Jacob Marley as “Bob Marley” before the play started. So I’d guess *most* people would assume that name referenced the musician, not the holiday …