Duplicate Trope: The Nameless

This is entirely my fault, as I made The Nameless, but it turns out it's a Duplicate of No Need for Names (which was so poorly wicked I had never heard of it). At their base, they're "A character has no name," though No Need for Names is a slightly more positive spin on it, as it's basically "The Nameless and proud of it." Either way, they're close enough to each other that they should be merged.

I'm not sure which page is better. The Nameless has more wicks, No Need for Names has more inbounds.

One issue with The Nameless is that it still gets used as a synonym for No Name Given. No Need for Names is certainly clearer and less likely to be misused... but it's also more likely to be underused.

Thoughts?

As much as I don't like many tropes starting with a "the", I think The Nameless is the best name of the three.

And No Name Given is for characters who presumably have a name but the audience is never informed of it (like The Doctor). Which means the page image isn't a good one as it's depicting something more like Nominal Importance.

edited 21st Feb '14 8:24:57 AM by Stratadrake

No Need for Names to me sounds like it makes a point about the name being unnecessary, though.

Yeah, No Name Given is clearly distinct from the other two. However, The Nameless was, at some point in time, a redirect to No Name Given so some people still use it as such.

Well, let's break these down by definition.

• No Name Given: Character is always referred to by a title, nickname, or Only One Name. In other words, they have a name but it's never stated in the work.
• The Nameless: Character has no name.
• No Need for Names: Character has no name.

Personally I'm inclined to merge No Need for Names into The Nameless: I agree with it being a better name.

Clock is set.

agreed

• No Need for Names: A character explicitly in the work doesn't see a reason for names. They may be given a name by other characters anyway.

Example: Hudson in Gargoyles states that he doesn't need a name because the clouds don't have names, nor does the river. He's then informed that the river's name is Hudson so he decides "Then I will be Hudson, like the river."

• The Nameless: A character has lost or forgotten their name.

Example: In his backstory, Hancock lost his memory and with it, his name. He eventually adopted the name "Hancock" after someone asked for his signature (his "John Hancock") and assumed it was his name.

These are two distinct items. One is a character reaction. One sometimes that's experienced when viewing the work.

edited 21st Mar '14 11:48:57 AM by shimaspawn

Your definition for The Nameless is No Name Given.

Ah, so it is.

The Nameless: A character doesn't have a name because it's been forgotten or lost, or destroyed and is generally referred to as some variation of Nameless or sometimes takes on the name of another.

If you look at the examples on The Nameless and No Need for Names you'll see that the attitude about names is different. The Nameless has a forgotten history. No Need for Names is an attitude where the character just doesn't see the point of them.

edited 21st Mar '14 11:48:06 AM by shimaspawn

I think ideally what we want is:

• The Nameless: Supertrope for all characters who don't have a name explicitly.
• No Need for Names: Subtrope for characters who don't see the point of names.
• Lost Name (Actual name TBD): Subtrope for a character has lost or forgotten their original name for some reason.

edited 21st Mar '14 11:53:32 AM by shimaspawn

I suggest The Nameless be an index-only supertrope, because its such a snappy and easy to remember title that tropers are likely to wick it when they mean a subtrope.

I like Shima and samaritan's ideas, combined.

I see a real difference between "Has lost or forgotten their name", "has a name but it's never revealed or used", and "doesn't see any reason to have a name" in what they generally say about the character.

We can probably even add in other tropes as subtropes like Everyone Calls Him "Barkeep".

edited 21st Mar '14 4:50:53 PM by shimaspawn

Sure. I just wanted it as part of the definition that The Nameless had no examples ("all examples go into one of the following subtropes").

I usually don't advocate that, but this time I think the name is too easy to misuse as one of the subtropes, whereas it is a set of specific Naming Conventions.

edited 21st Mar '14 4:56:13 PM by crazysamaritan

That's completely fair. Example-less supertrope isn't a bad thing.

This is a major enough change, we should probably do a crowner, single prop okay?

"Change The Nameless to an exampleless supertrope about not having a personal name"

The thread has been around for a month, and got clocked, so I don't think we'll see many competing suggestions.

Sounds like a plan.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/crowner.php/SingleProposition/TheNameless?open=all#arec2wjt

The Nameless even as-is is about a lack of name. So it should be a supertrope, and thusly I voted that option up.

Bumping for votes; "Change The Nameless to an exampleless supertrope about not having a personal name. And move the current definition about having lost or forgotten your name to a new trope." is at 13-0 yea/nay now.

Calling crowner at 16 to 0.

edited 5th Jun '14 6:49:18 PM by shimaspawn

What to be done now?

We need to find descriptions for each trope, and some suggestions for a new name.

Supertrope: The Nameless, Playing With Nominal Importance.

• No Need for Names — A character or group of characters have no names, and don't see the point in having them.
• Nameless Narrative — Characters are identified by traits instead of names.
• No Name Given — A character's personal name is never used.
• Everyone Calls Him "Barkeep" — A character's title is used in place of a name.
• Forgotten Name — character doesn't recall their own name.
• Refuasal Of Names — character refuses to share their name with others.
• Names Ungiven — a character never had a name.

Here's a start.