I would also like to know the answer to this question.
Edit; I think it’s “their name is Trevor”

They’re named Trevor.

“Their names are Trevor.”

Trevor're their names.

We are all Trevor

And Trevor is his name-o

On this blessed day

Are you specifically pointing out that both of their names are Trevor? Just because you know two Trevor, are you talking about both them?

Both don't sound right as they are ambiguous. "Their name is Trevor," sounds like it is talking about a single person. "Their names are Trevor" feels incomplete. "They are both named Trevor" or "Their names are Trevor and Trevor" solves that ambiguity.

If you are referring to only one of the two, it is "their name is Trevor". If you are introducing both of them at once (possible, but less likely), you would say "(both of) their names are Trevor". Sometimes people also pluralise the name, e.g. "I'm friends with five Alices" or "I know two Bobs at work"

I would just say "They're both named Trevor."

As somebody who worked in a place with 5 Dougs, I would say their names are Doug. Beyond that, they get descriptors. Angry Doug, Cool Doug, Vac-Former Doug, Smiley Doug, and Doug 2.

Add one vote for "are".

Their names is Trevor

The name has no plural here because it is the same: Their name is Trevor.

I Went To School With 27 Jennifers

I present: THE TREVORS

"These are the trevors"

"These are Trevors one and two"

I used to know 3 guys named Cody. Eventually their names evolved into Co-one, Co-two, and Co-three any time we were referring to them outside of individual.

“Their names are Trevor and Also-Trevor”.

who is Doug 1?

If the pair together have a name, the pair's name "is Trevor" but if they're each individually named Trevor, their names "are Trevor."

"A Trevor trove of flavour lies within".

"Who's Trevor?".

A treasure truase of flaasuure lies within

Doug 2 was technically Doug 5. But we didn't have a descriptor for him. Well, we could have called him "Blood Pressure Doug" but that's kind of insensitive. And he wasn't around long enough to figure out a better one.

The second, I believe, but both will cause questions.

The sentence that comes to mind is “both of their names are Trevor.”

For your question, this conveniently reduces to “their names are Trevor.”

So there’s your answer.

Speak for yourself

Did the blood pressure get him then? sad sad end for Doug (2 | 5)

No! He just hated the job. Thank you for that, I got a good laugh. He came from a very structured place, where he had a very specific job. We were much smaller, and the scope of our positions covered a lot more, and our workflow was not what he was accustomed to.

They both have a name and that name is Trevor.

"They're both named Trevor."

I am all Trevor

They're names' Trevor.

Yaharr, thar be Trevors!

They're Trevor.

A lot of posts but no-one has yet to say.

They're named Trevors

Clears the whole thing up.

No one has said that because it wouldn't be correct. They are (both) named Trevor.

Trevarrs

Who's this guy, Trevor?

It is weird to say it that way, but there is only one name so I lean toward "Their name is Trevor" for good subject-verb agreement.

If they were apples and they were red, we would say: "their color is red", or "each of them is red", or "they are red". Note that in the first case the subject is one color, in the second case the subject is one apple, and in the third case the subject is two apples. It's just a little strange to do this with names because it's more like an identity than an attribute maybe?

They both have the same one name so it's the former. Unless you want to say 'their respective names'

They're named Trevors

It's clearly plural

As others have said, neither is good English.

That being said, you're referring to two people, so are is the less incorrect version in that specific example. I'm way too long out of grammar classes to remember the right terminology for the underlying "rule", but it comes down to what the target is.

They are Trevor is a more compact version of they are both Trevor, which is again the short version of they are both named Trevor.

So, it comes down to sticking as close to that as possible. Their names are Trevor, because there's a single name, but plural people. Both people possess the name Trevor. Trevor is their name.

That's usually the way to figure out the least wrong/closest correct way to say something. You shift the wording until you get something that scans right to your brain, and most of the time you're as close as you'll get with conjugation of "to be"

And it's weird as fuck that "to be" is so transformed. Is, am, was, were, are, been, being, and even weird shit like "be going to" and "going to be". Like, wtf English? Why you gotta bring extra words to the party like that? You really need a second verb to conjugate a verb?

There's some weird etymology shit going on there somewhere between old English and it's roots. Hell, the fact that "to be" is even necessary is a little weird. Like "ser" in Spanish. It means the same thing, but lacks the weirdness of to as a butt buddy. Mind you, that shit conjugates weird too! Yo soy muy mindfucked by Spanish too, and I bet tu eres mindfucked tambien. Like, really, go look up the conjugation of ser. It isn't as wonky as to be, but it's getting there, especially in the imperfect tenses.

I don't even speak Spanish worth a damn, much less any other languages, but I bet every language has some fuckery like that in it. I'm just really gobsmacked at the verbal gymnastics of the two I'm familiar with. But the English version of the underlying idea is just an extra layer of tomfoolery.

That's not how it works or each would be named Trevors.

Trevor. Trevor. Simple as

What? If you saw them walking down the street together would you say

There go the Trevors

Or there go the Trevor?

Both their names are Trevor

Different contexts. 'There go the Trevors' would be correct as you're referring to a group comprised of two people named Trevor. You're essentially saying 'there goes the people whose name is Trevor.'

Saying 'they're named Trevors' is incorrect as neither individual is named Trevors. You're taking about the singular name that each possesses. A singular name doesn't become plural.

You wouldn't say, for example, of two blue cars, 'both cars are painted blues.' You would say 'there goes the two blues' or 'the blues.'

You could use some Irish English, then you could be saying "Themmuns are called Trevor" that way there's zero ambiguity