The thing is, from my 80s school days, 'Sharon and Tracey' carry massive connotations and it's impossible to read 'names like these' without that 'white stilleto archetype' being the first thing that comes to mind. It wasn't just about people with these names but that the term 'Sharons and Traceys' or 'she's a bit of a Sharon' 'that's a bit Sharony' were widely used and understood. Of course that was snobby but that doesn't stop it from being true. Those names burned themselves out through association, as well as overuse.
On the other hand, the popular names at the same time (so born in 70s) that peaked, then dropped, were Sarah, Rachel, Clare, Alison and Nicola. Also Louise (much used as a second name) and Julie.
In my mother's generation, 1940s/50s, it was all Janets and Susans.
I think Debbie and Jackie were of the 60s.
The 90s gave us many Chloes and Harry and Josh.
My impression of the 00s is Ruby, Lily, Mia, Jake and Zac.
This is really interesting, without being judgemental about those names at all. How is that so many people alight on the same name as the obvious one for their child? There's always a sense of avoiding the most popular and moving on to the next thing but, as with fashion, there is a zeitgeist that somehow steers everyone in the same direction. There's also a conscious choice to return to the names of a previous era, so knowing what those were is helpful.
I'm part of this too. I've had names in my head for about 15 years which were quite unusual at the time but most of which have become much more popular recently. Because I've left til now to have children, I'm either going to have to drop a long-standing favourite, or accept that there will be three others in their year at school.