Should we remove the Middle Name field? [closed]

Question

16 Dec 2022: I am closing this proposal. New points have
been raised against it, and the support for a change of this magnitude should be overwhelming. However, I do expect that we will be making a number of small changes to further de-emphasize the Middle Name field.

WikiTreers,

Since the start of WikiTree 14 years ago, we have had a Middle Name database field for profiles. And for 14 years, there have been complaints about it. :-) Most genealogy tools and websites don't separate out the middle name and many cultures don't use them at all.

We could:

1. Change our Proper First Name field to "Proper First Name(s)", then
2. Move existing middle names into the Proper First Name(s) field, then
3. Eliminate the Middle Name field and include them in the Proper First Name(s) field in the future.

This would improve interoperability with other websites and make many international members happy.

Part of the rationale for keeping the Middle Name field is less important than it used to be. We promise to keep the Middle Name private on private profiles and only reveal the middle initial. This middle initial is valuable for identifying people. For example, if I saw that there was a Chris Whitten on WikiTree I'd wonder if it was me. If I saw it was Chris X. Whitten I'd know it wasn't me and I wouldn't bother the Profile Manager. The middle initial narrows down matches and search results significantly, and we can't display a middle initial if we don't have a Middle Name field. However, post-GDPR, we have fewer private profiles. Many of them are now Unlisted, so they can't be found regardless. We still have millions of member account profiles and profiles of recently-deceased family members, but if we were to eliminate the Middle Name field we could encourage members to include a middle initial in with the Preferred First Name so that it could be displayed and help with identification.

What do you think?

I'm posting "Yes" and "No" answers to facilitate the discussion. Please vote up your preference and comment with any explanation. (Comments at the top here will be hidden after they are read once.) Of course, you are also welcome to post other answers or make your own proposal.

Thanks,

Chris

Answer 1

The middle name is used as the place for patronymic name in many countries. It would require a lot of work to update these profiles if the data in today's middle name moves to First names because patronymic is not a first or given name.

Maybe it's a good solution anyway, I don't think a simple solution without a lot of work for us all exist anymore.

Comments

For Scandinavian profiles in particular it is recommended to place the patronym in the LNAB field, unless another "real" surname is recorded at birth. Soldier names, farm names, etc. should go in the Current Last Name or Other Last Names fields.

---

Well, the problem Axel refers to is that we have quite a lot of people in Old Sweden using a patronymic in combination with a real family name.

---

Yes, in Sweden the patronymic is only placed in the Middle name if the person is born with for example a nobility name.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Given_names_in_Sweden#Middle_Names_.3F

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Patronymics_in_Sweden#Where_to_put_patronymics

In Finland it is the Middle name that is the place for patronymic.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Finnish_names#Name_fields

Middle name is the place for patronymic for European Aristocrats:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Name_Fields_for_European_Aristocrats

These are only a few examples. The Middle Name-field is used for different things in different countries and or different circumstances. I don't think one simple fix exist any more. I also think a change might be necessary.

---

In an ideal genealogy world, there ought to be a dedicated field for patronyms. But as long as genealogy software is ruled by Americans entrenched in their Gedcom standard made by and for 20th century Americans, it seems impossible to get implemented.

As long as there is no such field, placing patronyms in American genealogy software is like banging round pegs into square holes.

Answer 2

This seems like a good step forward.  In the process however, it would be good to begin abandoning the phrase "first name" and refer instead to ":given name".  

This could be followed by changing references to "last name": to "surname" or "family name": another parallel word that links to the "LNAB".

As a global site aspiring to a single global family tree, WikiTree must acknowledge in its terms that many cultures do not place the surname or family name in the first position;  in East Asian cultures, for instance, it comes in first place.  I recognize that this issue will be difficult to address, but referring to the "given name" as "first name" is a part of the problem, and progress could be made if while making the proposed change, both "first" and "middle": name references could be abandoned!

Comments

In patronymic cultures like pre-modern Scandinavia (and actually still in Iceland), surnames or family names were mostly non-existent. While I certainly see that "last mame" may be misleading in many parts of the world, "surname" or "family name" may be equally misleading in other parts.

Answer 3

I would prefer the middle name field stay just as it is, but perhaps move it to be next to (or just under) the first name field. I also think the middle name should remain a separate field, as in some cases people go by their middle names. A separate field makes the name searchable.

Answer 4

Yes but! It depends on how searches on the first/given names field are performed and what control users have over the search.

E.g. can I choose to search for 'Mary Jane' but not 'Mary', or '* Jane', 'Mary-Jane', etc

Comments

As it works at present if you enter "Mary Jane" in the firstname field when creating a profile you get matches with either Mary or Jane (or any of their variants included in the name database) in ANY combination as given name. Including names like "Miriam Margaret" and "Janet Jessie".

You don't get all that variation when you do a Search and use the Exact Name" option.

Answer 5

If first and middle names are brought together, will it still be possible to search for a first name and get profiles with that first name regardless of the middle name? Or will every possible combination of first and middle name have to be searched for separately? I think there are many cases where a middle name may exist but is not included in all sources.

I am an Englishman living in Slovakia, where middle names are not usual. People often get confused by my middle name and interpret it as my surname. However, some of Slovakia's most notable historical personalities had middle names.

I am doubtful about merging first and middle names, but might be persuaded.

Martin Clifford Styan

Answer 6

I don't have a middle name; I do have a confirmation name (Catholic tradition).

In this case, I say keep the middle name field.

Answer 7

Keep the middle name field for clarity but combine first and middle names when exporting Gedcoms and split first name out when importing Gedcoms to make it easy to sync online and offline records.

Answer 8

I think it should be left alone. Sometimes I can't find people without the middle name.

Answer 9

The rationale for distinction in name  entry still persists. This is a function decision, not one of preference. Combining distinct information is much easier than separating conglomerates. The notion of culture centricity is an implication of bias when in fact it is simply the most versatile approach. How hard is it to leave a field you don’t understand blank?

Answer 10

Perhaps something less drastic such as renaming the field to Middle/2nd Name to help with those that do not use a middle name. This would be the simplest solution. But the field should definitely stay. I can foresee all kinds of potential issues... What if they forget a space? What if they decide it should be hyphenated?

Answer 11

I( agree, merging them would make creating a profile easier, as we would not have to do an immediate edit to press the "No middle name" button.

Answer 12

Yes, combine the first and middle names. It's combined in my culture.

Answer 13

Keep the middle name. Some cultures don’t have it, but many do.  It helps us identify our ancestors more precisely. The bigger reason, as a computer programmer and longtime database administrator, is the pain a programmer must go through to break names apart when they’re combined. Names just aren’t all fixed length.  I’d say add more name fields, to support Hispanic and other cultures with different naming practices.

Answer 14

Yes, I am all for consolidating the given names. The only thing I want beyond that is that the "Preferred name" field remain untouched. Since it wasn't mentioned I assume that is the intent here. Everything else is just a matter of semantics and presentation as far as searching and normal usage goes. I used to work in databases professionally and I don't think this will bring on anything like a chaotic apocalypse of confusion, assuming all the existing usage is carefully considered and prepared for properly before the rollout day.

Answer 15

Yes, it would be much smoother with a single given-name entry.  Thanks!

Answer 16

Yes, remove the middle name field, combine the first names fields and also it would be nice to have the place of birth anbd death next to the dates of birth and death, just saying.

Comments

The places for birth/death are already right next to the appropriate dates in the edit screen. The only place they are not adjacent is in the initial entry (add profile) screens. I expect that is for a good reason (unknown to me) they are after duplicate candidates portion of the addition screens.

Answer 17

I totally agree with moving the middle name to the first name and removing the middle name in the future. Too often I've been forced to do this manually due to interoperability issues.

Answer 18

Great idea!

Answer 19

Yes, please collapse them.

Answer 20

Eliminate the middle name box. Put the middle name with the first name.