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

Yes, I think WikiTree should eliminate its Middle Name field. Middle names could go in a first name field.

Comments

Yes, I think it's silly that e.g., English and Dutch records are handled differently. Although it's claimed that "Dutch names don't use middle names", I think it's more of a terminology difference than any real difference in practice.

---

I am voting YES to merging all given names together. In my country, people that have more than one given name, often use other names than the first one as primary name. For example, my father, Harry Ossi Waldemar always used primarily Ossi as his ’identifying name’. When these fields are combined, maybe we should encourage users to highlight the preferred name in some way (bold/italic). Also, there are other issues to think over if this happens. Coming from a Nordic country, with long traditions of patronymics and matronymics used, I would really like to see a separate field for this ”name” type, which is very useful, as it contains the name of a parent. Patronymics cannot IMHO be treated as family names, so they do not belong in that field.

---

comment deleted and moved to no

---

I'd also like to see field[s] for preferred name and/or nickname.  A disproportionate number of my family tree used a name other than their given names

---

How will that affect a search when searching other sites like ancestry, familysearch, etc. using the Research tab, would it make any difference?

I have noticed when people import, it puts the middle name in the 1st name field so it would take care of that problem. How many records are imported vs. entered?

Personally, I like them in separate fields.

---

I could go either way, but if it eliminates the bother of having to go back and check the "no middle name" box about half the time, then YES. Although the reasons given for No are reasonable, the one that stands out is my German lines who often have three given names.

---

Makes sense to me.  One forename field containing one or more forenames. This can be treated as required according to GDPR and privacy settings (just a bit of logic needed, but that's what programmers do).

---

re: commented Nov 30 by -- Bento

You have voted to remove it!!!!

Chris covered your point in the original question. First name would become First nameS.

---

Just to make this even more fun, the U.S. Social Security Administration says: "A middle name or suffix is not considered part of the legal name."

Yep, you read that right. Even in the U.S., which is Middle Name Central, middle names are legally irrelevant. Having a separate field for them is nonsensical.

---

Many people have he same first and last names. I agree with a square for All forenames but to get rid of middle names entirely is to end up with hundreds of John Smiths with no identifiable way to tell one from another except dates which are surprisingly duplicated more than you would think.

Answer 2

No, I think we should keep the Middle Name field.

Comments

I vote no! Leave it as it is. British culture used middle names from the mid 1800’s which are based primarily on the surname of ancestors, this practise has given genealogy a huge ability to research families back further generations with great success.   Please leave it as it is, thanks so much.

---

I voted No, but I have reservations and an alternative suggestion regarding relabeling our name fields.  Please see my separate answer for a slightly different suggestion that I think would vastly improve our naming fields.

---

Please keep the middle name field. It does help provide context as to who the person is, and their connections to their past. I would like to provide an example.

Without coordination, three of my grandmother’s descendants three generations later all were given the middle name that was my grandmother’s first name. It’s a wonderful spontaneous thing that happened, and this special item would be lost for future Wikitreers if the middle name field is removed.

In a similar way, I also see where an immediate descendant is given the middle name (or a related name) of one of their parents. This would be lost if the field is removed.

Additionally, changing Wikitree existing fields should only be taken with the utmost care.

---

I vote no. The middle name field adds more flexibility, and in the coming years, more and more flexibility will be required. (In my case, both our kids have two middle names, the second one being the other parent's last name.) Also, having just one field adds confusion with regard to compound names.

---

I vote no. In England, the middle name was often another surname, not a second forename.

---

no just change the middle name field label to other given names or middle names etc ?

---

Suggest: "Focus on the User (meaning reader)."

I realize this is closed now. But this comment here is perhaps the clearest illustration of the problem:

"British culture used middle names from the mid 1800’s which are based primarily on the surname of ancestors, this practise has given genealogy a huge ability to research families back further generations with great success."

There are so many issues. It is respectfully not true the "primary" purpose of middle names is preserving ancestral surnames. Even within "British culture" whatever that is; but especially beyond that obvious limitation or bias. This is simply not a British website. Nor American. Nor for and by only these users or ancestors. It's WikiTree! This is self-evident in that even "British culture" is massively diverse and admixed with dozens or hundreds of non-British names and origins. Always was. Always will be.

So:

Many families use middle names exclusively for extra given (not sur) names. Others to preserve ancestral given (not sur) names; or immediate de facto patronyms, matronyms, or skip-generation "collateral" matrrnal-line patronyms all with given names (not sur). Yet others but especially Catholics concatenate Saint names, in ways that have nothing to do with genealogy pedigree.

Ultimately the "objective" answer to the technical question probably inhabits a more "subjective " arena, not code but rather rules: protocol & hygiene policy, for we logged-in users?

My own personal preference is: WikiTree probably wants more and more-structured database fields and data-entry name field forms in the editing interface, capable of perpetually storing different types of narrowly defined (ie discretized, unlike) middle names. Which vary and multiply by the # of cultural tradition. There will be more not fewer as the site attracts global users from more cultures, and they do their work on the universal tree. But this comes at the cost of forcing every user of the site to suffer thru scrolling thru more awkwardly complicated UX/UI, and being forced to repeatedly make decisions where to type what;  complexity increases errors. The more fields or rules we have the MORE wrong-ness we harvest, not less. So  what kind of problem do we prefer? Quality control cleanup labor hours, or technical simplifications which risk or actually do destroy meaning and useful nuance?

There is no one perfect solution. No one database storage & data entry regime for "Middle" names will elegantly accommodate both Welsh or say Nordic patronyms, Spanish matronyms, post-medieval manorial or noble placenames and/or French dit-names; while also effortlessly handling Catholic, German or pre-American compound given names with or without hyphens. It is just irreducibly complicated. Trying to over-simplify means creating new errors or failure modes.

Lastly the seemingly best choice is of course all a "function" of which centuries, cultures, and countries one ie we are working in. Not just personal preference, but research habits and context. For my own work here, due to my ancestry, I routinely have to teleport between centuries, cultures, languages and naming conventions. So I see lots of problems in site usage or data quality, but am also not suffering the exact same problems constantly; which I assume some folks here are, due to the nature of their personal research context. Overall  I think we are better off with more not less: more discretization of name fields rather than merging information previously, intentionally separated.

But that comes at cost of "activist" use-policy and therefore ultimately the major project teams end up needing to make these decisions for themselves, or arguing to resolution between themselves. The database as "substrate" for the major project teams has to weigh irreconcilable preferences of multiple very large groups of users. It may be impossible to optimize a decision like this (middle names) without stating a larger goal and having accurate data on progress towards that goal compared to site usage and growth stars. For example, do we want to prioritize recruiting more new users ; retaining existing superusers ; adding more living family groups ; or correctly data quality problems at the "end of the line" from malplacements and GED upload fictions ingested a decade ago. Those prioritizations slice thru and confound the seemingly simple question about middle names and a large number of similar questions.

End of the day, we should do what's best for our readers. Not our editors. It's OK for the work of using the site to be slightly harder or even sub optimal, if the results are improved for posterity.

"Focus on the user."

Respectfully,

---

Using the language field as a discriminator is an excellent suggestion! Thank you B_Williams.

Ultimately, the success (or failure) of whatever is decided will be a function on how well you can educate the users. Many users are no longer participants, and will not be "correcting" their data entries. Your solution(s) must be able to accept existing data.

---

Why not just do the second half of proposal 3?

---

Hi Mateo. Substantial changes were made on about 24 March 2023, giving members options whether to use middle names on profiles or not. See

https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1556781/did-you-notice-the-middle-name-field-changes

Answer 3

I would absolutely HATE to lose this field, and have voted "no" to the removal.

One reason I fell in love with WikiTree was because it did not model itself after other genealogical sites or programs. We focus on sources and written narratives. The love I have for WikiTree also includes the availability of the Middle Name field.

In FamilySearch, for example, it is hard to tell what a middle name versus a compound name is since they only have First and Last Name fields. In WikiTree on the other hand it is very straightforward.

In my own research, middle names have often played a vital role in identifying persons and reconstructing families. There are numerous searches and investigations into families where a middle name (or even initial) has been crucial.

Imagine having to search for John Smith and weeding through millions of possible records, versus searching for a John Xavier Smith? Of course, our John may still be listed in a record as simply 'John Smith' with no middle name, but that one matching John Xavier Smith record can open tons of new research possibilities and hints into how to best narrow down your future searches; turning millions of records into thousands.

In my own family, we now have 5 generations of the same Middle Name for first-born males. It has very deep significance and meaning in our family. This may be a unique situation, but it is not all that uncommon. My wife is the third generation with her Middle Name, and my daughter the fourth generation...

While this may not be the norm for all names, cultures, or time periods, I firmly believe that Middle Names are a vital piece of information in the 'here and now' when it is available.

A couple quick links for those interested:

• GenealogyBank - Guide to Ancestor Middle Name Research for Genealogy
• MyHeritage - Why Do We Have Middle Names?

While I do understand Middle Names are not included in the GEDCOM 7.0 standard - GEDCOM X does include name part qualifiers that will help to alleviate this burden.

GEDCOM X does not specify whether each given name or family name should be separated into its own distinct instance of NamePart or whether the value of a single name part should provide the entire sequence of given names or family names.

I would even bet a few dollars that as more sites adopt support for GEDCOM X, we could see more name part fields being added to sites and genealogy programs, such as those for Middle Names. But we could always look back and see that WikiTree was a front-runner in that technology.

Comments

But if they won't accept imports in that format, or let you export (or even access their API), does it really matter what their internal data structure is?

Edit: I suspect the reason it is in that format is because they were pushing for GEDCOM X around the same time they were working on the new Family Tree. I'm guessing it's still in that format because it would be difficult to change.

---

Gedcom... isn't it decided already that it is a an ancient and not useful way of exchanging information?

The reason you might love having a middle name field is the same reason others hate having it.

---

We would still have an opportunity to tell compound names apart from middle names via the “preferred name” field. For example, whether “Betty Jo” appears in this field or just “Betty”.

---

I disagree. I have enumerable ancestors and relatives whose preferred names were contractions of a first, e.g. Etta from Lauretta, or of a middle name. A preferred name of Betty could be for a first name of either Betty, middle name Jo or of first name Betty Jo.

Technically, removing the field means adding a lot of parsing to search and presentation code to reliably determine what the middle initial should be, i.e., is “Betty Jo Marie Doe” “Betty J Doe” or “Betty Jo M Doe”?

As far as compatibility with other sites, inter process communication is an area where I have some experience - see my profile -The format of the message is independent of the format of the data at either end, The logic to “select” or to “upsert”. The extraction logic to create the message parses the source into the message. The insertion logic to create the upsert parses the message into the format of the destination.

Crude analogies: Morse Code, Navy flag and light signaling, cryptography… all have translations at both ends. Or think of diplomatic correspondence where each side has their own translators.

GEDCOM should really just define the format of what I’ve called the message. There’s only one reason it should impact either source or destination - to eliminate or reduce the need for a translation step in inter process communication. That logic is probably very similar to the logic to implement a new data base model.

/s/jr

---

@Valerie, not necessarily. The names have changed, but based on a true person in my family...

• Proper First Name: Betty Jean
• Preferred Name: Bea
• Other Nicknames: Bug
• Last Name at Birth: Doe
• Current Last Name: Smith

Is Betty Jean a compound first name, or is Jean a middle name?

---

Definitely NO, on no account.  Losing middle names would complicate the database catastrophically.  In Anglo cultures, the middle name is sometimes just decorative, sometimes a salute to some relative, or in-law, or godparent;  but it is also often a helpful 'finding-aid'.  In Hispanic cultures, what might look like a middle name is actually the father's surname, or official family name, e.g.: Juan Gomez Gonzalez;  and what looks like the surname (that is, the 'last name') is actually the mother's maiden name!   And that does not hold good for Portugese or Brazilian naming rules, where the above is reversed!  Do NOT tinker with this till you have studied, understood and devised a real answer that caters for multiple cultures!  Or you will never have a World Family Tree....

---

I'd MUCH rather we kept it separate.  Many people in my tree were given their mother's maiden name as a middle name (NEVER a first name).  I don't need to explain how helpful that is. It's important to flag middle names as middle names.

---

"does the Middle Name interfere with work on WikiTree? Does that field cause issues when adding or finding people? If not, I would say the work to remove it would be a waste of development resources. If it does, I would say the easier solution is to stop that field from interfering rather than removing it completely."

THIS ^

---

In the digital age there can be a myriad of surviving photos so it’s important to be able to identify the person - “Smithy” on his 90th birthday has forever been known by his surname, therefore I like Stevens approach. I am called by my second name, John is regularly know as Jack to distinguish him from his father (and his grandfather). Joe has been called that for years but it has no relationship to any of his legal names. Other people note country and religion differences that have to be accommodated. How will all these people appear in a family history written several generations in the future ?.

An interesting challenge for WikiTree, but I agree they must all appear together, not separately.

---

Well said Steven!  Middle name repetition in my own family runs right into today.   It's totally possible that the reason each generation has been given this family surname for the last 150 might be a mystery to do me but to me it has led me through this genealogical research with comfort and ease

Year's back during the early days of researching with the LDS one was able to research with middle name only and pull up all individuals in a certain county given a certain middle name, what a bonus that was.  

Yes again, it is very valuable indeed.

Answer 4

I vote YES. My lineage, whether through my husband or my own family does not use middle names, or they are quite rare and only used ceremoniously. Sadly the second part of our compound name gets turned into a middle name in the United States. And what is frustrating is that every time I import a name that is compounded gets auto added as a middle name from Family Search. I'm sure there is a vocal group of people whose cultures use a middle name but I think having just a middle initial should suffice. And given the discussion of WT being a narrative based platform, then use the narrative to expand on the middle name.

Comments

And given the discussion of WT being a narrative based platform, then use the narrative to expand on the middle name.

I know brought the narrative-based site into play, so I want to respond to that. The narrative is in addition to facts (such as Location, Date, and Name Fields). Explaining a Middle Name in the narrative would be a tough thing to do versus compound names. Would we then need to do that for thousands upon thousands of existing profiles that use the Middle Name field?

I'm sure there is a vocal group of people whose cultures use a middle name but I think having just a middle initial should suffice.

But I don't have a Middle Initial, I have a full Middle Name. A simple initial would not suffice.

My lineage, whether through my husband or my own family does not use middle names, or they are quite rare and only used ceremoniously. Sadly the second part of our compound name gets turned into a middle name in the United States. And what is frustrating is that every time I import a name that is compounded gets auto added as a middle name from Family Search.

I would pose the same questions I asked of Melanie:

Does the Middle Name interfere with work on WikiTree? Does that field cause issues when adding or finding people? If not, I would say the work to remove it would be a waste of development resources. If it does, I would say the easier solution is to stop that field from interfering rather than removing it completely.

---

The only fun thing about the middle name is that I can use to up my contribution count by moving the data inside it to the correct location :)

---

@Michel, I am sure if this was approved, the changes would be automated (not requiring users to do anything).

---

@steven DataDoctor 749 Middle Name used in Netherlands: move name to first name field

---

About only a middle initial. Won’t work. Too many people have the same first and last names and middle initials. They can only be differentiated by full middle name. This is already mentioned by others.

/s/jr

---

@Michel, that is for current fields and operations. This discussion could change that. If this was adopted, I am sure the Tech Team would shoulder the burden of automating this change (moving Middle Names to Proper First Name fields for all profiles).

Otherwise, there would have to be a grace period allowing people to move the data themselves before X date, and then the field is dropped - which doesn't make sense.

Answer 5

No.  Having the middle name separate is helpful.  I would like to see the middle name moved up on the page with between the first and last names however.  It would be even easier to type it in instead of having to go so far down the page to find it.

Comments

I like this idea!

---

I agree. Having all three boxes next to each other would help in determining which names to put in which places. I have family members with no middle name, two first names, two middle names, hyphenated names, and everything in between. I have no problem dividing their names up into the appropriate boxes. I would miss the middle name box.

---

Brilliant Idea having the middle name moved closer to the First and Last names.

---

I agree!

---

We've been working on a new Add Person form, and the middle name field is being moved up (along with the locations).

---

This is exactly the option I’ve been wishing for especially if there was a modification tied into eliminating matches that have a completely different middle name when adding a new profile.

Even without that modification it would still be preferable in my opinion.

---

Agreed. Skip it if it's not useful and fill it in if it is but definitely move it up between the First and Last names.

---

Everyone in my family history since the mid 1800s has a second name, several of them have 3 names before their family name. 

The current field is called middle name and is not a good description. It needs to be renamed. 2nd name. 

I understand that many cultures have different naming traditions, a personal name and a family name appear in many cultures, how the names are organised on a formal document differs widely. 

I worked for 8 years with a primarily SriLankan work force and was educated by them on their naming customs. 

But for those of us who have official legal 2nd, 3rd and perhaps 4th names before the family name, or other variations there needs to be a place to put those names. Spaces for those names should be at the top of the create a new profile page.

A 2x great uncle's name is Ethelbert Leopold Horatio Wright, the whole name is on his birth certificate, he often used "Bert' as a preferred name, but the whole thing is found on some docs. I put Ethelbert as his first name and Leopold Horatio as his 'middle name'. 

I also have 2 great aunts, they were cousins-with exactly the same name, 1st name, 2nd name and last name, the only way to tell them apart is one did not marry and they were not born in the same place, close but different places. 

Jamie's comment  makes a lot of sense "We've been working on a new Add Person form, and the middle name field is being moved up (along with the locations)."

---

This is absolutely the right answer!! I definitely want to keep the middle name field, but I've wondered many times why it's further down the page.

---

Something else to make people happy: we are also adding the "no middle name" status to the field on the add page as well.

Obviously both the position and status won't matter if the middle name field is removed, but the new form is supposed to go live in a couple of weeks so keep an eye out for it :)

---

Full middle name, not just initial, is what is critical in distinguishing persons.  In addition, it is important to distinguish a COMPOUND name -- e.g. Mary Ellen, unhyphenated -- from a first and middle name where only one name is used.

What can be confusing and difficult for family research is the custom of prefacing all given names with 'Mary/Maria' or 'Joseph' at baptism, and then using the middle name to call the child by.  In some families, especially when the first name is in honour of a living relative, a child is called by his/her middle name always.

Having distinct First and Middle name fields allows better distinctions.  Middle name can ALWAYS be left BLANK.  Some of my early Irish relations had no middle name.  On the CON side, it does make for more work when uploading GEDCOM trees.

The most important feature is for WikiTree to display middle names, and to have its Search feature cover compound and first+middle names -- which I think it does already.

I see some advantages with separate first and middle name fields.  As the other techies have stated, we can't just switch back and forth because that is a database redesign, not just a screen visual change.  Parsing on a blank separating names is one way of converting db data, but will obliterate the distinction between compound and middle names.

---

I agree with Chris, the name boxes should be consecutive.  It would be much easier when adding new people.  I have had my fair share of trying to add new people and having to try to correct it when I got it wrong.

As far as I am aware my family on both sides have two given names.  Nearly all of them for some reason are called by their middle name.  Because my name is so long, Patsy Jeanette Goodman, I was nicknamed Jan by a friend.  She did me a favor, I'm now Patsy Jeanette Goodman/Rubenkoenig.

Answer 6

Chris Miller just introduced what I think is an excellent idea. Move the middle name up between the first and last name fields. Makes perfect sense. For those who do not have middle names the field can be skipped. For those of us whose families have had middle names for many decades, it is a useful field.

Comments

Wikitree BEE already gives you that option.

---

Stu, not everyone uses the BEE extension

Answer 7

I vote to keep it. A lot of my family (Past and present) only go by their middle name except for legal documentation of course. For instance my Uncle is William Micheal. He has always went by Mike. If we removed the Middle name and put Mike in the preferred name field then there is no rationale as to why he is “Mike”.

Comments

I don't think anyone's suggesting removing the name "Michael" from the profile.  It would be added to William.  First Name(s): "William Michael".

---

In this case why wouldn't you just enter

Proper name(s): "William Michael"

Preferred name(s): "Mike"?

---

That would be fine if option 2 was chosen.

---

I think the terminology would be changed to:

Given Name(s): "William Michael

---

I understand it as Jamie wrote. And then it would be the same as for multiple first names.

For example, this is how I entered my Italian great grandfather:
Proper first name: Giuseppe Vincenzo Romanino
Preferred name: Romanino

Answer 8

No, do not remove the middle name field, please.  Too many people only go by their middle name.  I would not even be able to find my own brothers and definitely not my extended family.  Plus a few minutes ago I added a family member to my cc7 that I only ever knew him by one name and it turns out that it was his middle name.

Comments

It would be wrong to remove the middle name fields at this stage of the game. Some of us have hundreds, if not thousands of profiles with middle names. No one wants to go into each profile and put the middle names in the bio text just to preserve the information.

In fact WikiTree should expand the use of middle names in searches. Now we use first and last names. To narrow the search space, we should be able to specify a middle name as well.

---

Pretty sure they would just combine the fields, rather than delete the middle name, but I see no reason to not offer the option of more than one name in the first names field whilst keeping a middle names field.  Surely the point is to give people options that work with the cultural thinking both national and family cultures have subtleties that can be thoughtfully included when there are more options...

Answer 9

Question, how would names be displayed?  Taking mine, if a preferred or nickname is available such as Cindy, would Cindy be used as the default presentation (I think that is how it is used now)?  Cynthia Lohmann is too long and too personal to be seen by everyone.  Often middle names are used as password clues (or used to be more often).

Comments

Whatever is in the "Preferred Name" would be displayed. So if you just put "Cindy" in there it would display as "Cindy", or if you really wanted your middle initial displayed you could type "Cindy L.".

---

I just tested a couple of European royal profiles that often have multiple given names.

This is an example with all given names in proper first name field and Elisabeth in preferred name field

And this is her brother Felix with Felix in proper first name field and preferred name field, and all other names in middle name field

They display almost identically (disregard some of the other name fields that need to be changed from English to German)

---

I tried it out on my own profile and like having the middle name combined into the Proper Name.  It eliminates the initial which looks funny when used with my nickname.  So Cindy Cooper formerly Bourque shows instead of Cindy L. Cooper formerly Bourque.  A little simpler and less informative to others for identity protection.  I like it!

Answer 10

Hi working on Volga German's their names can consist of more then one middle name: Example  Anna Maria Elisabeth Geist could be their baptismal name.  Then their preferred name might be Elisabeth on census records.  Now I'm splitting up the name having Anna in the first field, then Maria Elisabeth in the middle name field.  With Elisabeth in the preferred name field.   So if there isn't a limitation on having 3 names put into the proper name field, that could work.

Comments

I can understand this.  Several of my family members, including my new great, great granddaughter have 3 names plus the surname.

---

Germany Project naming guidelines address this issue. We don't use middle names. See: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Germany_Project_Name_Field_Guidelines#Middle_Name

---

Thank you for the link Traci, it is very helpful.

Answer 11

I think we should get rid of it.

I don't think there is any benefit to having a separate middle name field as opposed to just including the middle name as part of the given names. But I can think of multiple drawbacks to having a separate middle name field.

I don't know of any other genealogy website that has a separate middle name field. The GEDCOM standard (5.5.1 and 7) doesn't have anything to handle middle names, so when importing GEDCOM data the system has to take a guess whether the given names after the first one are middle names or not. And when exporting, we either have to combine the given name with the middle name (losing the context that it was a middle name), or do what we currently do and export it in a custom field that is ignored by all other genealogy programs.

Even for people living in countries that have a concept of middle names, it can make data entry awkward.

For example, take a (fictional) member John William Smith. Maybe he likes to go by a nickname for his middle name, Bill. So he uses "John" in the proper first name field, "William" in the middle name field, and "Bill" in the preferred name field. His name is going to display as "Bill W. Smith". With the way names are currently handled, Bill would have to remove his middle name from the middle name field if he didn't want that awkward initial.

It's also awkward with people who changed their middle names. There are fields for birth and preferred first and last names, but no similar field for middle name. So you have to document one or both of those middle names in either the proper or preferred name fields to have it show up in the data section.

For those saying that some records contain a separate field for middle names so we should keep it -- yes, some more recent documents may separate out the middle name field. But many do not. For example, my birth certificate has a separate field for my middle name, but my other official government documents (Social Security card, driver's license, passport, etc.) do not. And most of the historical documents don't separate out the middle name so we just have to guess whether a name is a middle name or a second given name/compound name.

Having a separate field doesn't help with searches at all. There isn't a way to just search for a middle name, and when you enter a middle name in the search box it compares it to the other given name fields. It also makes searching complex. It's just one more field that needs to be checked against the other name fields.

Getting rid of the field would also allow us to get rid of the "Disable Middle Name Warning for First Name fields" setting and warnings, and it would make it so we wouldn't have to worry about the "No middle name" status.

There are probably other things I'll think of later.

Comments

I think I responded to a bit of this in a previous comment (while you were writing). See here: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1500397/should-we-remove-the-middle-name-field?show=1500468#c1500468

But a quick recap:

I don't know of any other genealogy website that has a separate middle name field.

Correct, because they try mimic the GEDCOM specification as close as possible. But what if the GEDCOM spec changes and allows for name parts? That would mean GEDCOM and other sites could fully support it... So are we shooting ourselves in the foot by removing it now to conform with others?

The GEDCOM standard (5.5.1 and 7) doesn't have anything to handle middle names, so when importing GEDCOM data the system has to take a guess whether the given names after the first one are middle names or not. And when exporting, we either have to combine the given name with the middle name (losing the context that it was a middle name), or do what we currently do and export it in a custom field that is ignored by all other genealogy programs.

I hate to say it, but if we relied on other sites for inspiration and conformance, would WikiTree still be WikiTree?

Wouldn't the easier solution be to stop that field from interfering rather than removing it completely?

---

Correct, because they try mimic the GEDCOM specification as close as possible.

Are you sure that's why? It could be that most sites don't have a separate middle name field because it makes the most logical sense.

Does it really matter if the "Ann" in "Mary Ann" is a middle name or if it's part of a compound name? It's not going to aid in finding records because no sites are indexing by middle name.

Answer 12

I Vote No.

We should keep the middle name field.  In my family lines, for some reason, Sr and Jr is not used because they instead change the middle name.  So John William Bonner would have a son John Samuel Bonner and it would continue swapping back-and-forth for generations (and brothers using the same name for their children with common dates and locations).   This is very common for the Southern United States in the 1800's and into the 1900's. (Do a search for John Craig or John Bonner) 

Like Steve mentioned above, my family also has a tradition to carry the middle name down through the generations including both female and male.  Admittedly, this is more sentimental than technical but interesting to see it displayed through the lines.

Whether a separate field or included in the first name field having the full middle name is such a benefit to prevent duplicates and/or conflated profiles.

Comments

Sounds like you're thinking the name will be eliminated rather than just the extra field to put it in? No one wants to eliminate the name itself, just put all forenames in one given name data field, like at Family Search. It would still display correctly.

Answer 13

The only time I see the need for a middle name is when an adult woman choses to use her LNAB for a middle name but that does not really apply on Wikitree's profiles, but it could be a factor in research. So yes, remove it. Us American's will probably need some guidance though since it is a field on most forms we fill out.

Comments

SSA.gov does eliminate a female's middle name and makes her LNAB as her middle name then her married name becomes her current last name.

example: born as Loretta Charlene Leger, when I turn 65 I suddenly became Loretta Leger Corbin. I wasn't asked, that is what I got! :(

---

I already changed my maiden name to my middle name when I married but many companies think it is a combined last name.  I hope I don't become First Name / Maiden Name / Last Name-Maiden Name! 

---

Interesting. I'll have to check my SSA records.

Answer 14

Middle names are very common on my extended tree and often give clues to ancestors, as names are passed down in the family. Thus, they are helpful in guiding a sort of possible relationship candidates and privileging the most likely, which aids the research process.

I vote we keep the field.

Answer 15

This is a question, not a vote.

When this is implemented, and we have existing profiles in the data base for which the subject did use a middle name, and that middle name is the preferred name, how will the name(s) be displayed in the various long-name/short-name/tree-name displays described here?

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

There was a long-standing problem with the name displays on private profiles where the middle name is preferred name.  I don't think it was ever resolved.  For example, my grandfather was one of five brothers, four of whom used the middle name as preferred name (e.g., Samuel Glenn Barton went by Glenn, William Elvin Barton went by Elvin).  When those profiles were private, the names displayed as Glenn G. Barton and Elvin E. Barton rather than the correct forms, S. Glenn and W. Elvin.  Neither first name nor initial got displayed.  The problem resolved itself when the profiles became Public or Open, but I have seen the same complaint from other members several times since, so I'm guessing there was never a resolution.

Now I guess the basic question is how would the data be entered and displayed such that a reader would understand that the person had a first name and a middle name, but he went by his middle name throughout his lifetime?  Like it or not, that was a fairly common practice, at least in the U.S.

Comments

As I understand it, we have the problem with "Glenn G. Barton" right now - but the problem would be solved by removing the separate "middle name" field: "Samuel Glenn" will be put into "first Names", and what ever you decide to put into "preferred First Names" will be displayed for him, if his profile is private: If you put "Glenn" into preferred, it will Show him as "Glenn Barton", if you put "S. Glenn" it will show him as "S. Glenn Barton". And if you don't change it it will be "Samuel Glenn Barton". Well, you can also test it right now already by ignoring the middle name field.

---

I would be satisfied with what you describe, or possibly with other options, as long as some combination of names and initials were displayed correctly, and in correct order, regardless of privacy level.  Based on current policy for name displays ("They're Compromises"), as described in that help page I linked, I'm not sure that's what is being proposed here.  And so far nobody has confirmed your interpretation.

---

Dennis, not really wanting to speak for Jamie, but... I think when she says this -

For example, take a (fictional) member John William Smith. Maybe he likes to go by a nickname for his middle name, Bill. So he uses "John" in the proper first name field, "William" in the middle name field, and "Bill" in the preferred name field. His name is going to display as "Bill W. Smith". With the way names are currently handled, Bill would have to remove his middle name from the middle name field if he didn't want that awkward initial.

- she's implying that the new way will not have that problem.

---

Thanks Ian, and yes, I would interpret that the same way you do, and agree that it implies the "awkward initial" problem will go away.  But when I look at that help page I linked I see:

"We want our name displays to work as well as possible for any person, in any culture and language, at any time in history. We want them to work for all members, and we want them to enable all members to work together. Our privacy rules mean that we can't display Formal First Names or full Middle Names for private people unless you are on the Trusted List. Certain display contexts on WikiTree have limited space while others do not. And adding to the complication, we try to optimize our profiles as cousin bait in external search engines such as Google.

Therefore, it's important to understand that name displays will not be ideal for every person on WikiTree. The name display forms described below are compromises."

So I think I'm really asking if that philosophy still applies and how we'll reconcile that philosophy with elimination of the middle name field?  At the moment I'm not really satisfied that we have a clear answer and understanding of that.  Perhaps I'm just slow to catch on??

Answer 16

I vote NO. My kids and grandkids use their middle names. I have ancestors that I only know by middle names. We need to keep the middle name section. I wish that the other sites had a middle name section.

Comments

Exactly. We should not copy other web sites that use less information than we do. These sites should upgrade and copy Wikitree's structure, not the other way around.

Answer 17

Yes please!

Answer 18

I think the arguments are:

Keep the middle name field, because:

• the majority of current (mostly American) members are used to it and think it's normal.

vs.

Remove the middle name field, because:

• most of the actual world does not share the concept of a middle name and it causes confusion for many members
• most documents, especially historical documents, don't distinguish between 'middle name' and just 'name' 
• technical aspects of WikiTree and GEDCOM formats don't really support middle names.

I think too many people here seem to be thinking that the suggestion is to remove people's middle names from their profiles and not allow middle names to be included on profiles in the future.  The idea is simply to include all given names (including 'middle' names) together in the one field. That's not a difficult concept. The fact that some people use middle names as their preferred name or pass them down through generations doesn't really enter into it. That won't change when the names are included in one field. The names will still be viewable on the profile. 

Comments

Why can't we have Name field #1_____ Name field #2 ____ Name field #3 _____  and Surname _____ We do not have to name the field as Middle name.

Why wouldn't that work?

---

But why would you want to make it more complicated? What's wrong with putting the given names in the same field? It's the standard way in most of the world, in most historical documents, and in most software. I suspect many people would be wondering why you need so many fields for a name. "My name is Jean Luc. I have only one name.  I do not need to split it up!" (for example).  I think Jamie's explained the technical benefits of removing this extra field quite well.

---

I don't see it as being more complicated, I see it as having options for all. Example, my son's given name has too many characters for most programs, so when he fills out forms online, his name gets cut off, he will never forgive me for that. How many characters would be necessary to combine Given and middle names into one field without cutting some short?

---

I've never heard of character limits being a problem for names on WikiTree. There must be a limit on the current First and Middle name fields, but I don't know what they are. Whatever they are, I'm sure these limits could be combined, so...

---

John Atkinson gave this example of multiple  names in the first name field. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Habsburg-Lorraine-8. It works fine. There surely aren't many with a greater number of given names.

The world record holder  with 26 given names and an extraordinarily long surname might present a challenge

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Blaine_Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff_Sr.

---

Maybe I am incorrect in my thinking but this is much ado about absolutely nothing of true importance.

In science and math we are taught to break everything down to it's smallest unit. I see combining the name fields into one field as a step backwards not forwards. I do agree the placement of the fields would make better sense if they were re-ordered.

I also don't see this as a US vs the World issue. It is a programing issue, nothing more. Find a standard and stick to it.

Let's focus more on the real issues on WT, not these made-up problems.

---

Many Canadians who are non-French Canadians have middle names too. I have two. For French Canadians, it is generally all part of the “first name”. For example, my ex’s grandmother was Marie Françoise Philomène Claire Cayouette. They consider her to have no middle name and she went by Claire so I put all of her names in the First Name field.

---

In the Latin world, especially Hispanic and Italian, multiple middle names are common. Even some Irish people have multiple middle names. I have seen more than two middle names for Spanish nobles and dignitaries. We should expand the middle name fields to allow as many middle names as are necessary and it should be under the control of the profile manager to determine how many middle names to display.

---

In Germany many people have/had more than 3 given names. There is no limit on the number of given names in Germany.

---

• most of the actual world does not share the concept of a middle name and it causes confusion for many members

I don't think this is a valid argument.

A middle name is not limited in it's usage (e.g., as Americans would use it). In fact, it may be better to rename this field and let PM's use it as needed for the specific culture they are working with.

In Denmark, Sweden, and Norway the middle name is most often an additional surname that is not part of the bearer's surname. Similar in concept to a patronym.

There are plenty of other cultures that use this as well, although they may not yet have widespread usage in WikiTree yet; such as Vietnamese, Filipino names.

Perhaps the main concern is over the labeling "Middle Name", when we could essentially rename this field and extend it's usage?

Answer 19

No, do not eliminate it. My husbandʻs family is full of common surnames and given names. I doubt I would have found his particular line had it not been for an unusual ʻmiddle nameʻ handed down to sons (for several generations) from a female ancestorʻs LNAB.

I really do not care where the field is, but I really donʻt think it should be lost. If folks donʻt - use, have, like, or need middle names they can skip the field.

The more identifiers we have the better we can get the research and connections we need.

PS  my father in law and brother in law had no clue where their middle name came from, nor did they know the grampa had that name because he just used the initial.

 Save the middle name field.

Comments

Kristina, just to clarify: are you worried that middle names will be eliminated from the database? If so, don't be :-) The middle name field would be removed, but not the data in it.

The proposal is to move all given names into a single field, not to discard or lose existing middle names. See point number 2 of the three numbered points in the original question. All those points go together: they are not alternative options.

---

 I was not worried about the names leaving the data base.

I don't think it would work as a single field. In my mind it needs to be in a separate space so it can be seen by itself. If embedded with the first name it does not seem to me that it would be searchable on its own.  

I guess I just donʻt understand the need for the change, as I said before - if you donʻt want to use the middle name field - donʻt use it.  If you want both names in the first name field - put them there.

And what do you do with the very real name "Ivy My Love", middle name "Anne", who also had a surname.

Based on my past experiences here, I tend to be a trouble maker, so ignore me.

---

The whole world extept USA gets by perfectly fine without a separate middle name. Here in Norway, for instance, every person register has only two name fields: Given name(s), and surname.

My own second given name, Biberg, is for all intents and purposes a middle name, but I'm perfectly fine with seeing it as a second given name. When I signed up at Wikitree, I quickly decided that I would put it in the "Proper First Name" field. I tried putting it in the Middle Name field, but then I became just another "Leif B. Kristensen" which I don't like at all. My full name is unique, and that is how I want it displayed.

Answer 20

No. In some groups, such as German-Americans, the first name is a religious name which disappears after christening. So after he is christened John George German would go by George German the rest of his days. No idea how you handle that without the middle name field.

http://www.kerchner.com/germname.htm

Comments

You could have John George in the Given Name(s) at Birth field and George in the Preferred/Current Given Name(s) field.

---

Zachariah is right. See: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Germany_Project_Name_Field_Guidelines#Middle_Name

---

This question is really a non question because you don't have to use the Middle name field, you can put as many given names in the Proper name field as you like. 

Because WT uses the family name as an index it must stay. However we only need "given names" for all the other names. Other fields may be needed to get the display correct such as nickname and called. 

---

The problem with some non-European profiles has been that well-meaning folk will come along and remove all names except one from the "first name" field and put them, instead, in the "middle name" field, which frequently goes against cultural custom.  Removing the field should prevent such occurrences.