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

If middle name field is removed we will need better handeling of double barreled last names. Lots of ex. scandinavians have 2 last names with a space between. Currently the only way to get them displayed correctly is by using the middlename - or risk that they do not show up in search.

Comments

Just searched for an unhyphenated double barrelled name (Parry Okeden) . I didn't use an underscore in the search box. There isn't one in the profile  display but there is one in the wikitree id number. I assume the system adds it when creating the profile.   https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/PARRYOKEDEN

---

Right, Helen. I don't understand what problem there is with surnames including spaces. There are many many existing examples. Here's another one: Bernard Jacobus van der Berg at Van_der_Berg-141 or

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Van_der_Berg-141

The spaces appears as actual spaces in the LNAB and CLN, and are represented by underscores in the WikiTree ID and URL.

---

If I search for first name: "Bernard" and last name: "Berg" or "der Berg" your Bernard Jacobus van der Berg do not show up among the results. Neither on the list of existing profiles it I try to create a Bernard Jacobus Berg born 1935.

So yes last name with spaces can be created - but unless you know the name combination they are difficult to find.

Answer 2

I vote yes

Answer 3

I’m going to vote yes but maybe not for the reason you’d expect.

For a while now, I’ve been a supporter of the idea of having two middle name fields: at birth and current/preferred, just like the other two name fields. This is because there’s a few cases when somebody’s middle name at birth maybe be different to their middle name later in life, for example:

• parents of a child become divorced/separated, and one parents decides to rename the child
• transgender person who changes both their first and middle names
• historical person who had a different spelling of their middle name at some point in time

For clarification, the above are not hypotheticals; they are all examples of situations I have come across for unlisted, private, and open profiles. To resolve these issues, I thought the best solution was to add an additional middle name field. However, as I believed was discussed during the updates to Sex and Gender earlier this year, the WikiTree team wants to avoid adding new fields due to complication for new users and the added strain it places on the database/servers. As such, I never made a big point of it publicly.

However, I’d never considered going the opposite direction and remove the middle name field. This change would resolve all of the above issues, and as some other users have pointed out, resolve inconsistencies between other genealogical websites.

I also know that record databases that I use such as the Tasmanian Names Index, Ryerson Index, NSW BDM Search, Victoria Family History Search, Queensland Family History Research Service, ScotlandsPeople, FreeBMD; none of them use a seperate middle name field either.

So for those above reasons, I vote yes to remove the middle name field. I did see somebody talking about unhyphenated double-barrelled surnames and how many historic Scandinavian surnames use the middle name field for the first half of the surname, so something should be sorted regarding that. I would assume they could use an underscore rather than a space for URL purposes, but I’ve never tried doing that so I don’t know if it would work; I assume it doesn’t or the underscore is displayed in the name views, hence the arguably awkward workaround.

Comments

Spaces in surnames are already ok. There is no need to use the existing middle name field. See this comment.

Answer 4

Our "beloved" Find A Grave website uses a "Middle" Name(s) field.  Will removing the Middle Names field on WikiTree make it more difficult to match against memorials on Find a Grave if WikiTree does away with the Middle Name field?

This question is addressed to the programmers:  YES or NO

Comments

Thanks for pointing out another site that uses a middle name field.

Answer 5

I am somewhat neutral on this one, but I am pretty sure some of these folks might not love this idea:

Martin Luther King

Edgar Allan Poe

Jackie Joyner-Kersey

John Wilkes Booth

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Billy Jean King

Lee Harvey Oswald

AND, avoiding even a middle initial might irritate the likes of John F. Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt (plus like twenty other US Presidents).

Just saying that it can become part of some folk's identities and separate them from the pack in some instances.

Comments

It's been pointed out a few times already, but no-one is trying to abolish middle names - just the middle name field.  All the given names will go in one field, so "Billie Jean" King, "Martin Luther" King, and even "B.B." King will have nothing to worry about.

---

Did you notice that those are all people of Anglican-originated countries (sorry if that is not true English)? Against that stand a bunch of Dutch Roman Catholics (a whole generation between 1900 and now) with three of four given names who will love the idea of leaving middle names out, as they would not have an idea which of their names would be the middle name.....

---

The list I made was mostly satirical in nature and composed of individuals in the only country in which I have lived. It was not in any way meant to be presumptuous of what those in other parts of the world or in other cultures would feel about the topic. I do understand your point of view, as I myself am a life long Roman Catholic, and thus can see the validity in pointing out stark cultural differences from that of other religious derivatives culminating after the English Reformation.

I believe your post illustrates the most beneficial aspect of these forums; in that they allow everyone to learn and hopefully understand vastly different points of views from vastly different parts of the world about every topic imaginable!

Answer 6

I voted yes. I want all given names into one field. That's easier than when I always have to think "What profile am I working on now? German. Ok, I can put all the names in one field and the call name into the Preferred Name field." or "Hey, you are in English speaking Canada/USA, you have to use the Middle Name field." If the Middle Name field is eliminated it's simply "Names: They come here."

Answer 7

I don't have much of a voice here, but here is my observation:

In Family Search, when searching for someone, they want the first and middle name in the same filed:  David Earl...Draper  

Find A Grave want all 3 names separated into different fields when doing a search. David...Earl...Draper

When I do a WikiTree search...is much more difficult than Family Search or Find A Grave. I really hate WikiTree search.  Its easier to just ADD NEW PERSON and see what pops up as already profiled!  (My little rant, sorry!)

If eliminating the middle name screws up the search process, then I vote NO!

Otherwise, matching the format of Family Search ( first and middle name in the same field) would be nice.

Comments

The reason you probably find it easier to find duplicates in the "Add New Person" screen is because this screen will search with only the name you put in the "First Name at Birth Field" (ie. it only searches for "David Draper" not "David Earl Draper"). It does not consider the middle name at all. You can replicate the same results in the "Search Person" screen by only searching for "David Draper".

If you put both the first and middle name in the search, it searches for results including either name and you will get results including "David Draper" and "Earl Draper". It would be nice if any results matching both names "David Earl Draper" would appear at the top, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way at the moment.

Answer 8

Rather than eliminate the database field, couldn't the name fields just be relabeled to apply more universally?

Possibilities:

1. First name or forename #1
2. Middle name(s) or additional forename(s)

or

1. Given name #1
2. Additional given names

"Last name" at birth might also benefit from relabeling as many Asian cultures use the names in reverse order from western societies.  Perhaps surname, patronymic, and/or family name at birth?

Comments

But in some cultures (for instance here in France), all given names have the exact same legal status. That's why we put all given names in the "proper first name" field. IMO your solution doesn't really make this more "universal."

I do agree with your stance on "last name" though. It would also be nice to be able to pick in which order the full name should be displayed.

---

My idea is not to rank order the forenames, but allow them to have an entry in the database.  Someone may have a better idea than "forename #1" as I don't intend for it to indicate primacy.  When someone writes a database in countries that use multiple forenames, do they put all the forenames in one field, or do they separate them out, forename #1, forename #2, etc.?

---

We put them all in the same field, that's what I just said and that's also what is being suggested here

Answer 9

Everyone,

Or at least most of you. You’re confusing what you see with what is in the data model. In technical terms, they are completely different. Consider: The “private” profile view shows the complete middle name, whereas the “public” view only shows only the middle initial. So, do you want to change the data model, i.e., how the data is stored? Or just the presentation model, i.e., what you see and how you enter it?

Personally, I feel the current design provides excellent flexibility for all use-cases. For those of us who culturally expect and need middle names, the field is there, for those who don’t, it can be ignored and marked as not applicable. For what it’s worth, I’m not a fan of the FS implementation. Too many editors ignore the drop down so there are multiple “birth name”s

/s/jr

Comments

"All use cases"??

The one, single person in my entire family who actually had a middle name was my dad, after naturalization. However, I cannot use the middle name field for him, because then he ends up displayed as Csaba Csaba Palotay.

So I will continue to never use the Middle Name field on WikiTree, and I would be very happy for it to go away forever.

Answer 10

I voted yes.

If you choose to keep it, then please add all official names from the Netherlands as separate database fields so we can finally add names to the correct location.

• Doopnaam
• Roepnaam
• Gegeven naam
• Patroniem

(next to LNAB: Achternaam, Married Last Name (only 20th century) and adopted name (when applicable)).

Thanks.

Comments

Michael,

I’m making some assumptions about the willingness and legal ability of WT to modify the presentation layer-screens, but I’ll bet that what you see is all you care about. If so, then the screen you want could likely be created without making any changes to the data model. Assume we have 3 fields in the database and we map the 4? 5? Fields you want Into those 3. When you enter fields, they go into fields on the screen you expect. When the software updates the database, it puts the fields together in the way they’ve been mapped. This theoretically could be done for every culture/language that uses a different name structure. But they would all use the same database.

Technically, it’s not that easy but it is doable.

/s/jr

---

Hey Jerry,

What you describe is the ideal world: a separate view, database model and code (MVC). As the core code is closed source, but most of the data model can be viewed, we only know that it is very difficult to do. If it was possible, it would have been done. The base software was never made to use MVC, but it actually was created to do something completely new (Wiki stylle).

My point being: these are only the official name fields in the Netherlands (I even forgot the whole discussion on the "tussenvoegsel" that should not be part of the last name). So what about all other languages in the World? Why have an American field, and not all others?

---

Michel,

I didn’t mean to exclude others. Your example was simply easy pickings. Given time and money  every cultural variant could be implemented.

It seems the extension team’s plug-in comes very close to creating a new ‘view’ to use with the existing model/controller . If that’s true then that’s how all the cultures could have their own view. I know no details, but in the MVC world, all the V component needs is access to the MC API, probably only the C. For WT+ and the extension to work, that or most of it, must be public.

We know the C component can query the client for implementation details. In response it could provide the required plugin. Yes, I’m aware of the security issues but believe they can be overcome.

Going on midnight here. Gotta be done for tonight.

:s/jr

And what, exactly is Wiki style and why doesn’t it follow MVC or ISO or SNA architecture? All of those wisely separate data model from presentation. Memory tells me Sun Microsystems took a similar approach to their interrupt handlers.

---

The extension will be optional and limited to a certain number of browsers. So that is no option for official field assignments unfortunately.

---

Today. No reason that has to be true tomorrow - well, $$$, but technically, none

/s/jr

Answer 11

I don't have a strong opinion either way. But having read through this whole thread, most of the comments come down to "I don't like it because it's not used in my culture" or Everybody I enter has a middle name therefore we need to use it." Both of those to be seem somewhat specious. If you don't need a middle field, just put both names in the first name field. If you need the middle name field use it, otherwise ignore it.

The thing that rules should be how difficult does it make operations within the database. I've never done a GEDCOM import, and have no intention to ever do one, but from what I read, having the middle name field complicates that. Therefore, perhaps it should be eliminated.

The desktop software I use does not have a middle name field and I've been entering names full names in there forever, but in WikiTree, I use the middle name field routinely.

Just as a point of reference, everyone born in the United States in the last 200 years or so has been expected to have a middle name. When I was in the US Navy way back in the last Millennium, if you didn't have a middle name you were listed as John NMN Smith in your official record.

Answer 12

Most of the arguments against this seem to be afraid that the middle name would go away.  It would simply become part of the first name field, which would be renamed to "names".

This is the same standard GEDCOM uses.  

You can still do FAG searches.  Familysearch searches would be easier.

I votes "yes" by the way.

Answer 13

Yes please. The "middle name" is really a specificity of English speaking countries (and even there, a lot of profiles pre-1800 don't have one, more use the middle name as preferred name, which makes some name displays problematic).  The proposed solution:

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

makes perfect sense.

It would also eliminate the need to check the "No middle name" status button. I'm sure our French members would be happy with this simplification.

(edited for typo)

Comments

Sure they would. No more "No middle name" button to check. Trop bien!

---

Multiple middle names are common in countries where the language is Spanish or Italian.

Answer 14

I'm definitely opposed to removing the middle name field as it is a US cultural thing for certain and affects other countries as well. However, there might be a workaround if you're willing to put in the work for it. We say the issue is with the name display as well as the database for the field itself. Why not leave a radio button (I don't care where) either on our profiles or on the profile of the person we're working with that says "Middle Names? (Y/N)" and if you select "Y", it displays a Middle Name field for data entry and if not, it doesn't.

Now that, in theory would solve everyone's concern about "my culture is being disrespected because you either 'do' or 'don't' use a Middle Name field". However, in the database, combine the data into a single field, and peel out the parts after the "First Name" to "show" a "Middle Name". The database gets happy, those wanting to eliminate the Middle Name get happy, and those wanting to keep the Middle Name get happy.

I'm very sick with the flu right now, so there might be a flaw in here somewhere, but this seems to be the best of both worlds. I have a vested interest as MY proper name is my MIDDLE NAME. But it's not my first name. That's my Dad's name. So it is very weird when I see things substitute "Dennis Fulkerson" instead of "Scott Fulkerson". I do get that by manipulating fields, you can get what you want, but my feeling is that a database field is intended for the purpose you set it out there for, and by twisting and tweaking if you manage to get the outcome you wanted, you may end up breaking something in the process.

Any possibility this might work?

Comments

This sounds like a great idea Scott! I'm tech-ignorant but I'd love to hear some team/tech response to your suggestion.

Hope you feel better soon!

---

Scott - I really like your idea. It keeps the database field and allows for presentation to suppress the "middle name" (or whatever it is called). This probably makes the most sense on the profile, as it would be applicable based on the cultural norm.

---

I second the motions. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Feel better soon, Scott.

Answer 15

I would leave the middle name. Even though not all cultures use a middle name, some do! Plus, for Western European cultures, I have found that the middle name for both men and women can lead to the maternal LNAB! This has been a real boon to identifying maternal line ancestors. As genealogists, we should try to capture as much information as possible and the middle name in some cultures can assist with this.

And if you merge the middle name with the first name, people will also gripe about this change. Furthermore, some people will just list the first name, then move on! And then we lose potentially important information!

I think eliminating the middle name field would be a bad move!

Answer 16

Just to offer a little levity to this issue, in the South (USA), if your mother calls you by your first, middle and last name, you KNOW you are in BIG trouble. lol

Comments

That is NOT specific to the US.  

---

I guess some things are universal. lol Good to know, Thanks, Mel!

Answer 17

I'm not sure how I vote. However, I am one of those "fictitious" members (mentioned in another comment/answer) whose Nickname is based on their middle name. I'm a Jr, but my Dad went by his first name, while I go by my nickname. Thus, to see my name displayed as Mack M Morrison, Jr is not really correct, since my Dad did not go by this name. I'd like to have an option to choose how I want my public name displayed. In my case, I'd leave out the middle initial and suffix.

Answer 18

Yes, please eliminate. Compliancy is better! By the way: batism and funeral date/place are possible , too in GEDCOM!

Answer 19

Yes, it should be eliminated.

Answer 20

I vote yes, it should be removed