One subject, in depth · bridged to FuelFacts
NameCurve
Girls' name · 22,778 recorded births

Tamika

22,760 US births on record

Where Tamika stands

United States register · 1880–2025

22,760US births · 1951–2025

Tamika has been registered 22,760 times in the United States since 1951. It did not clear the 5-birth reporting floor in 2025, so the SSA published no figure for it that year.

peak 1975 · 2,159188019532025

Its moment was 1975, when 2,159 babies were given it. In 10 of the years between, the name fell under the 5-birth floor and the registrar published nothing — those years are the marks along the base of the chart, not gaps in the name's use.

SOURCE·US Social Security Administration, national baby-name data·Public domain. retrieved from the Internet Archive's 2026 snapshot of ssa.gov (ssa.gov refuses automated requests); files unmodified. SSA lists a name only if it was given to at least 5 babies of that sex that year.·REVIEWED JUL 2026

<5US births in 2025 — below the reporting floor, so not published
#130its best US rank, in 1975
1975peak year — 2,159 births
22,760US births since 1951
18E&W births, 2019–2025
Saved in this browser only — no account, nothing sent anywhere.

How Tamika's figures are worked out

  1. Counts come straight from the registrars: the US Social Security Administration (1880–2025) and the New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs (1900–2025). Nothing is scraped from another names site. The SSA files are the agency's own, retrieved from the Internet Archive's 2026 snapshot of ssa.gov (ssa.gov refuses automated requests); files unmodified.
  2. Ranks are computed against every name in that year's file, not just the ones this site publishes pages for — otherwise a rank would flatter every name we happen to list.
  3. The curve is drawn on births per 100,000 of that sex, not raw counts. Raw counts across eras are misleading: far more births were registered in 1957 than in 1890, so a flat count is a falling share.
  4. The reporting floor. Each registrar publishes a name only once it clears a threshold — 5 births of that sex in the US, 10 in New Zealand. Expressed as a share that threshold is itself a curve, and it is drawn on every chart here as the shaded band along the base.
  5. A missing year is a suppressed value, never a zero. Where the registrar published nothing, this site prints “below floor” or “<5”, the curve is broken rather than drawn across the gap, and the missing years are marked on the floor line. Tamika was under the floor in 10 years of its US record.
share per 100,000 = births ÷ all births of that sex that year × 100,000
reporting floor (share) = 5 ÷ all births of that sex that year × 100,000

Full methodology →

Tamika in the United States

188019001920194019601980200020200.074148
Births per 100,000 of that sex, so eras compare fairly. The shaded band is the 5-birth reporting floor — under it the registrar publishes nothing, so a line that stops has left the record, not fallen to zero. Tamika in the United States, 1880–2025

Between 2013 and 2022 the name has been falling — down 41% as a share of girls' births.

SOURCE·US Social Security Administration, national baby-name data·Public domain. retrieved from the Internet Archive's 2026 snapshot of ssa.gov (ssa.gov refuses automated requests); files unmodified. SSA lists a name only if it was given to at least 5 babies of that sex that year.·REVIEWED JUL 2026

Tamika in New Zealand

Tamika never reached 10 births in a single year in New Zealand, so it does not appear in the DIA file. That is a reporting floor, not a zero — the name may still have been registered here, just never ten times in one year.

SOURCE·NZ Department of Internal Affairs, births by first name·CC BY 4.0. DIA lists a name only if it was given to at least 10 babies of that sex that year.·REVIEWED JUL 2026

Tamika in England & Wales

In England and Wales, Tamika was registered 18 times between 2019 and 2025, peaking in 2020 with 5 births. It did not clear the ONS reporting floor of 3 in 2025.

2020NOT PUBLISHED — BELOW THE 3-BIRTH FLOOR0.00.91.9
Births per 100,000 of that sex, so eras compare fairly. The shaded band is the 3-birth reporting floor — under it the registrar publishes nothing, so a line that stops has left the record, not fallen to zero. Tamika in England and Wales, 2019–2025

Seven years is a window, not a history. Unlike the American and New Zealand series this one cannot show you a name's arrival or its long decline — ONS publishes the full list only from 2019. England and Wales only: Scotland and Northern Ireland publish separately and are not counted here.

SOURCE·Office for National Statistics, baby names in England and Wales·Open Government Licence v3.0. ONS redacts any name given to 2 or fewer babies of that sex that year, under s40 of the Freedom of Information Act.·REVIEWED JUL 2026

Decade by decade in the US

US rank and births at each decade markSSA · JUL 2026
YearRankBirths
1960below floor<5
1970#635259
1980#2021,279
1990#573405
2000#2,27768
2010#6,38220
2020#8,95311

<5 = the SSA published no figure for that year. It is a suppressed value, not a zero.

Where in the United States

The states that registered Tamika most often since 1951. These are lifetime totals, so they track state population as much as local taste — a name common in Wyoming will never out-count California.

StateBirths
New York2,233
Pennsylvania1,627
Illinois1,605
Michigan1,543
Georgia1,210
California1,182
Texas1,140
New Jersey1,086
Ohio1,031
Florida1,005

Questions about Tamika

How popular is the name Tamika?

Tamika did not clear the 5-birth reporting floor in 2025, so no figure was published for it that year. Its best US rank was #130 in 1975.

When was Tamika most popular?

Tamika peaked in 1975, when 2,159 babies in the United States were given the name.

Is Tamika rising or falling?

Measured as a share of all girls' births, Tamika has been falling between 2013 and 2022 (-41%).

Same sex, peaking within a few years of 1975, at a comparable scale. Not a taste engine — this is arithmetic on peak years, which is why it will occasionally hand you something unfashionable that is nonetheless exactly of the period.

SOURCE·US SSA (1880–2025) + NZ DIA (1900–2025) birth registrations·ranks and shares computed from the source files, see method·REVIEWED JUL 2026

See what every site in this family answers

Published by

Amit Sharma

Auckland real-estate agent and marketer. Builds free, sourced data tools.