The bulk update request #3606 has been rejected.

Reason: - Changes internal monologue to inner monologue, which should be a slightly more recognizable spelling.
- Generalizes the concept of name dropping in a way that is beneficial for tagging. This is the counterpart tag to character_name.
-- The concept is most useful under this definition, plus the base concept is short and convenient for easy lookups.
-- Name drop refers exclusively to character names.

This concept is well maintained, and ready to have these themes properly established.

EDIT: The bulk update request #3606 (forum #350827) has been rejected by @Cinder.

I see no reason to tag the fact that text contains some character's name, or contains some species name, let alone to separate if it happens in narration or dialog or inner dialog/thoughts, or whether it's shouted or not. And "name dropping" has different connotations in different situations. It can refer to title dropping, or unintentionally saying someone's name, or saying someone's name as a way to call them out.

The bulk update request #3621 is active.

Reason: name_drop is the rightful base for these concepts, but it seems to be causing confusion, and discontent, so it is not included in this revised BUR. title_drop already exists for titles. Name drop isn't used for that purpose, and it is vague enough to cover additional usages even if it did. It is a convenient shortcut tag for the lengthier subtags. (I tried to make them as short as I could)

The primary purpose for these tags is to make sure tags like we will always have a solution on where to place character, and species name tags. The only alternative is that tags like character_name, and species_name get diluted, and I don't want those tags to be diluted when we have satisfactory methods to avoid it.

Name usage is important in narrative storytelling. In many situations it can drive the context, and it is important that the context is preserved. These tags will, and already doing work in overcoming the shortfalls of existing communicative tags.

Note: We could call it character_name_drop, but I feel that moniker does not align with real life terminology where personal names are simply referred to as names. It is something that is open to discussion.
Note 2: Species names are used in a similar manner as character names, but I am not comfortable claiming that they belong in the name drop group yet. These tags treat them as separate entities, and the species themes can be based under a species_name_drop concept yet to be constructed.

EDIT: The bulk update request #3621 (forum #351023) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #3606 (forum #350827) has been rejected by @Cinder.

The bulk update request #7734 is pending approval.

remove implication name_in_inner_monologue (251) -> inner_monologue (3735)
remove implication name_in_narration (106) -> narration (1519)

Reason: I do not believe that anyone besides Fluffball cares about the differences between these tags.
So, I think that they should just all be aliased away to name_drop.

Unfortunately, some implications need to be removed first.
Follow-up BUR:

alias name_in_dialogue -> name_drop
alias name_in_inner_monologue -> name_drop
alias name_in_narration -> name_drop
alias name_shout -> name_drop
alias name_stutter -> name_drop
alias name_in_message -> name_drop

cinder said:
So, I think that they should just all be aliased away to name_drop.

I think even that should be aliased away. "Name" is ambiguous, it can refer to a title (a movie or comic name), a character name, or a species name, any of which would be incredibly common in anything that includes dialog. "Name drop" as a term also comes with connotations of a character nonchalantly calling out the movie or series title through the fourth wall (having a line of dialog that includes the movie name in a "he said the thing! " kinda way), or coming clean to rat someone out as the cause behind something.

I'm not really sure I understand what the point of the name_drop tag in general. like, when are we going to need to know that a character said another character's name? is that only for when a character is otherwise unidentifiable? I mean, even then that's not really useful.

maybe I could see use for some stuff like saying_partner's_name or saying_wrong_name, but just a tag for characters saying a name with no context seems pointless.

I don't mind the very basic character_name tag. It's not entirely redundant to point out that the character's name was used in the background (mostly model sheets or portraits) or integrated into the visuals (usually a product brand).

name_drop feels a bit more pointless than those uses. Just another in a very long line of tags where I think "who cares" and have to struggle to justify why the average user should bother searching, tagging, or even thinking about it.

Also, calling every narrative use of a name a "name drop" seems very forced and very untrue to the spirit of its concept. People who are familiar with how the term is normally used won't use it how the wiki instructs, which is why we should avoid attempts to hijack the meaning of things that exist outside furrydom... because that is very likely to fail.

Wikipedia's summary does a good job IMO

Name-dropping (or name-checking) is the practice of naming or alluding to important or famous people and institutions within a conversation, story, song, online identity, or other communication in order to subtly indicate one's association with them. The term often connotes an attempt to impress others; it is usually regarded negatively, and under certain circumstances may constitute a breach of professional ethics. When used as part of a logical argument it can be an example of the false authority fallacy.

I would add that naming a character in a story before they are introduced, the first time the reader "meets" them, or perhaps just when they aren't present are also name drops.

The original definition and use would be a lot more interesting than what we currently have. Who cares that a character refers to John Furry by his first name when he's present or every time the narration identifies John as John?