First sentence - middle name - young age[edit]

The term "middle name" seems somewhat Western/Eurocentric. There are plenty of cultures where people have only 2 names (or one, or many, in all sorts of different orders, and that's just for starters). Second, some names (see Burmese names) are given at any point in adulthood. Suggested rewrite:

"A personal name (often called full name) typically comprises an individual's given name (bestowed at birth or at a young age) plus their middle name(s) and family name (surname)." -> "A personal name (often called full name) typically, but not always, comprises an individual's given name or names (bestowed at birth or at a later age) and often a family name." Huseyx2 (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strangely Ethnocentric[edit]

A substantial number of people do not have patronymics, matronymics or family names and many have a variable number of name components. The Indonesian president for example, but the examplar for his class of people is apparently an American comedian with NFN as a kind of administrative first name. 124.188.147.73 (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the cases of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Teller are different. The first was born without a surname and adopted one, and the second was born with a first name and abandoned it. I wouldn't call this ethnocentric, although the target audience is native English speakers. Tinynanorobots (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

African use of eastern name order[edit]

In the name order section of this article, it's claimed that besides Hungary and the Far East, some African countries and/or cultures also use the eastern name order. I'm just curious as to what cultures use it, since I have yet to encounter any African who uses that name order. Can anybody give examples of cultures that do? Nederbörd (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm also sceptical about this, I've been researching a list to use as part of a name coding program and none of the African countries seem to use this order. 73.172.12.116 (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sentence fragment[edit]

It is nearly universal for a human to have a name; feral children growing up in isolation, or infants orphaned by natural disaster of whom no written record survives.

The second half, after the semicolon, seems to be an incomplete, fragmented sentence. Masterius2011 (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Romania[edit]

Is it true that in Romania the official order is surname - given name? It may be like in italy where the official order is given name - surname but, for bureaucratic influence, many people tend to use the order surname - given name (although not considered correct).--Carnby (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brazilian "Middle" Names[edit]

What is written about Brazilian names in the introduction is not correct at all or - at best - is overly, yet still incorrectly, simplified to couch Brazilian naming standards within American naming convention. A Brazilian has one (or more) first names, followed by their mother's "maiden name" (the maternal grandfather's father's father's [ad nauseum] last name) and the father's father's [ad nauseum] last name.

So, if a hypothetical mother's name is Rosana di Paolo Tanaka and the father's name is Nelson Kowalski Rodrigues, their hypothetical children's full names might be Vaneusa Tanaka Rodrigues and Pedro Enrique Tanaka Rodrigues.

Tanaka is not a middle name in the American sense, it's part of the legal last name, coming from Rosana's father (maternal grandfather of the kids). If anything might be considered a "middle name" in the American sense it might be "Enrique" for the male child, though the Brazilian view would neither see it nor treat it in that sense for documentation or other purposes. Rather, his first name would be "Pedro Enrique" and his last names are Tanaka Rodrigues. When our hypothetical Vaneusa has children with a man named, say, "Stanislaus Carvalho Zimmerstein" their son might be named, João Rodrigues Zimmerstein.

66.176.113.94 (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Tom in South FloridaReply[reply]

Possible move of this article being discussed[edit]

The possibility of moving this article to a different name is being discussed at WT:WikiProject Anthroponymy#"Personal name" versus "given name". Jc3s5h (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are using two different definitions of "personal name" in the lede alone[edit]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy#So... what is the meaning of "personal name"? for details... In a nutshell, our lede has "A personal name or full name refers to the set of names by which an individual is known..." and then later in the lede says In Western culture, nearly all individuals possess at least one given name (also known as a personal name, first name, forename, or Christian name), together with a surname ..." emphasis added.

My research seems to show that "personal name" has three meanings: 1) full name, 2) only the first name, and 3) each term in the name (that is, "John Jacob Smith" has three personal names). I propose to edit the lede to that effect, absent counsel otherwise. Herostratus (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 8 November 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Several editors suggested that there could be some restructuring of this and other related articles. That idea might merit further discussion, but at this time there is no consensus for the proposed renaming of this article as it currently stands. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Personal name → Full name – Less confusion with given name which is sometimes also referred to as personal name. Glovacki (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Uanfala, I fail to see your reasoing why do you think that 'full name' is culturally specific? And which culture do you think this is specific to? An article on full names would still retain all the information about name ordering which is currently has. Western names tend to follow given name then surname, while Asian names tend to follow the rule of surname first then given name, etc. In both my examples those are still full names, and so both would still be explained in this article (as would the many other name ordering forms). I fail to see how a change in title to 'full name' would stop the article carrying out this explanatory function. Ebonelm (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ebonelm, I can't imagine opening an anthropology journal and finding a paper entitled "Full names among the Ugabuga". The concept of "full name" implies that an individual has several names and that there is a practice of using these names in a certain sequence in order to identify/refer to this individual in a certain context. This is not a universal. And even in the cultures where it's used, it doesn't cover the whole scope of anthroponymy. Take nicknames for example, they aren't normally considered part of the full name, are they? But the article has to cover them as well. At any rate, I support choosing a less ambiguous title, but not at the cost of narrowing the scope. – Uanfala (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Put another way, "personal name" is narrower than we'd like, and implies the exclusion of family names. "Full name" has the opposite problem, and is too broad, implying subject matter far beyond people. Neither is as good a title as I'd wish for, but I think the former is less bad. It's easier to explain (and makes more sense) that we're interpreting it in the broader sense than to justify limiting "Full name" to people. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


Requested move 25 November 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NO CONSENSUS —UY Scuti Talk 16:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personal name → Personal naming – Prevent confusion with "given name". As discussed before "full name" is too ambiguous, but still we need to do something with current name of the article. User:Uanfala suggested Personal naming, I think that it would be good choice. Glovacki (talk) 08:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

diffuse into meaninglessness[edit]

when a plurality of names occur, some are specific to the individual, distinguishing them from related individuals (e.g., John Adams and John Quincy Adams), while other names indicate the person's relationship to or membership in a family, clan, or other social structure (as for Charles Philip Arthur George and one of his namesakes), or even to unrelated others (e.g., as for Leonardo DiCaprio and his namesake).

Chuck's names include Philip because of his father, but one has no way of knowing, from the name alone, which (if any) is his father's; and so it does not indicate anything. And what relationship between the actor and the painter is indicated by their shared name?

Why doesn't this sentence explicitly contrast given names to family names? —Tamfang (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Polynesian culture; Object/Concept naming[edit]

There is no citation that I can find for the line about needing to rename a object/concept after a member of leadership bearing that name has died. I am also looking for a term that describes the given name based on stereotypical Native American "Sitting Bull" style after objects/concepts. 72.182.148.220 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Naufal farras[edit]

Artinya Nfarras2 (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tamil names[edit]

2know4power Please add citations for the content you’ve added under Tamil names section. This is original research. — DaxServer (mobile) (t · m · c) 14:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello DaxServer,

Thank you very much for all of your contributions to WP. Articles's Personal_name#Tamil_names is now cleaned up by adding references & a table via edit 1 and edit 2

Thanks, by contributor 2know4power (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mittal is my first name[edit]

Hii 👋🏻 Mittal is not only surnames my first name is Mittal , and full name is Mittal Shaktawat. 49.36.234.216 (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Mittal! Nice to meet you. However, this talk page is to discuss about the article, not about the topic of the article. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

patronymic surnames[edit]

In earlier times, Scandinavian countries followed patronymic naming, with people effectively called "X's son/daughter" .... When people of this name convert to standards of other cultures, the phrase is often condensed into one word, creating last names like Jacobsen (Jacob's Son).

Is there any Scandinavian culture where this name is (or was) written as two words?? —Tamfang (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories