Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
This is a subtrope of Shout-Out, and sister trope to One-Steve Limit. It's not really a matter of audience opinion, because the trope is about a given name itself being a shout-out to a specific character.
Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty
^ But it's got nothing to do with a Shout-Out. The idea is that a character becomes so engrained in public consciousness that it's what everyone thinks of when they think of that name; if I say the name Barbie, one character probably popped up.
It's about perception and the lack of using a character's name in other works, not about intentionally shouting out to a work by using a character's name. Or at least, that's what it seems to be, and I'm not seeing where your version of the trope is coming from.
Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
People in the past have harped on various tropes for being defined in the negative, even taking the matter to TRS. Recently, I think that would be Nobody Over 50 Is Gay.
One Mario Limit is defined in the positive. It isn't that a character's name does not appear in other works. It's that the character's name shows up less often because it has become a Shout-Out. Whether you want to phrase that as the name becoming "engrained in public consciousness" or merely becoming a Shout-Out in its own right... I don't personally see a difference there.
Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty
What you're saying makes sense, but unfortunately this trope is defined in the negative. I just skimmed through the description, and all it talks about is how one character becomes so famous the name gets associated with them; it's the absence of other works using that name. But that's hard to prove, so it'd make sense if a lot of the examples were Shout-Out variations, which can be objectively pointed to.
In other words, I don't think you're wrong about what the trope ought to be, but that's not what it currently seems to be judging by the description and on-page examples. At least, I didn't see anything discussing the Shout-Out part in the description, so if I'm missing something, please point me in the right place.
Well, okay, there's this line:
"and so other writers avoid using the name outside of deliberate shout outs to the original"
But that seems more like it's just pointing out the effect this trope can have, not how the trope itself is meant to play out.
Edited by WarJay77 Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
I agree with OP. This is an audience reaction to a character, and it's not really used within the story except in the absence.
Here are five random work wicks:
- ComicBook.Deathstroke (context: formerly Deathstroke the Terminator): Ran afoul of this when [The Terminator] came out. Early issues often didn't even bother putting the "Deathstroke" part in his name, while these days the opposite is true.: Popularity of another work affects lesser-known work, but not in-universe
- Fanfic.Erika The Radical: There is a sailor student in Kuromorimine's naval division named Obama Kobayakawa, and everyone who meets her for the first time brings up [Barack Obama] in comparison... In-universe comparison to a popular figure named the same
- Series.Thomas The Tank Engine: "The name "Thomas" is forever linked with the series' title character." Audience reaction
- VideoGame.Horace: Judging from their Halloween costumes, Preston and Logan are aware they share names with the protagonists of Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure: Incorrect use; seems like Shout-Out
- WesternAnimation.Arthur: [G]ood luck trying to find any Francines or Busters hanging around. Audience reaction
An alternative could be trivia, for the same reason Baby Name Trend Starter or Names The Same are. But to me YMMV seems the best option since this deals with popularity. Would not be opposed to an eventual TRS trip.
Edited by Synchronicity
^ Add it to the sandbox if you want. This does seem like a TRS-worthy trope.
Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Ah, I see what you mean. I was trying to look at the description on the whole and making sense of what's there.
Is it alright with y'all if I add "Also, this is defined by what's not in the work, implying it is Not a Trope." I feel like a lot of people have been targeting LGBT-related tropes (like Nobody Over 50 Is Gay, Camp Straight, etc.) based on the "defined in the negative" aspect(s) of many of those tropes. It only seems fair to apply to this trope as well.
Edited by WaterBlap Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty
^ Okay with me, but you might need more consensus.
Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
I don't think one should add "Not a Trope" on a page that, for all intents and purposes, currently is a trope, regardless of any discussions that we want to happen.
Regarding LGBT tropes, I think Nobody Over 50 Is Gay was problematic from inception since it was aversions-only but never omnipresent. Regarding Camp Straight, that's probably just due to changing media portrayals and public perceptions. It's the norm now so it does seem like the absence of something, but it was decidedly not in the 80s and 90s (you can look at it as the presence of traits a homophobic society would consider 'normal').
I'm not trying to open a discussion here about the LGBT-related tropes, as that would be off topic for a thread about One Mario Limit. My point, however, was that people have used that as a reason to bring up these other tropes to TRS and at least one was successful.
RE: "Not a Trope" for a page that is a trope. You're presupposing it really is a trope, which would be discussed in TRS. It's fine to say that it's negative definition implies it isn't a trope. Why would it not be fine to say that? I'm not presupposing it isn't a trope. It might be. But the fact it can only be formulated (as-is) in the negative implies it is not a trope. I mean, that's just one more thing to put in the OP whenever the thread gets made.
v LOL it happens.
Edited by WaterBlap Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty
Oh, you mean to the sandbox! Sorry, I thought you meant the main page description. That's fine with me.
I also meant to say 'for all intents and purposes, currently is considered a trope'. Like I said, I'm down for a TRS trip to de-trope it.
I don't know, I think it's unclear. Is it demonstrably true that a name sees less usage after one character makes it iconic? Or is it that fans will automatically associate the name with a more iconic character when it's used later on? The first rationale feels less subjective, but I don't think it's clearly more one or the other.
As someone who edits the page quite frequently, even I am somewhat confused on what it's supposed to be. It says in the description that the name must be "obscure enough to sound distinctive, but common enough that other writers would have thought of it." Yet there are more than a few names on there that are so obscure that pretty much no one else would ever think to use them. And people kept posting aversions and made-up names to the point where a disclaimer was added telling people to stop.
I remember trying to start a TRS topic, but I don't think it ever went anywhere. It really needs an overhaul and is probably more of a Trivia entry or Audience Reaction than an actual trope.
Edited by thecarolinabull01
FTR, I also thought Water Blap was discussing making a change to the trope's page, not the sandbox :P
This could definitely use TRS, once we have the ability to take it there.
Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
No, it should not be YMMV.
^ Why not?
Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
This isn't TRS.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
To me, it should be an YMMV article since it's about audience reactions, when a character. end up so popular in pop culture that their first or last name can't be dissociated from them.
This isn't a writing tool, it cannot be invoked by the author (unless talking about in-universe example, but this isn't what the page was meant for). But it has a "Playing With" page, which I find innaproprate.