Talk:Personal name

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]

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]

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]

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]

I don't have a source to cite, but from personal experience Rwandan naming convention usually uses names that can appear in different orders depending on the context. For example, the president of Rwanda is called Paul Kagame, but is often referred to as Kagame Paul as well (especially in formal or official settings). However this isn't exactly the same as Eastern naming convention, because most Rwandans do not use a family name or a patronymic. Usually they are given a religious (or secular Western) name such as John, Muhammad, or Leonard, followed by a traditional Kinyarwanda name such as Mugisha, Keza, or Habayimana. 41.186.78.91 (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[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]

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]

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]

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 Florida[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]

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]

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]


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]

  • Research required. The article does not offer any citations to reliable sources to establish that "personal name" or "full name" mean what the article says they mean. I suggest finding reliable sources to establish what terminology is correct, then decide what, if anything, to do about the article title. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support: per WP:SUPRISE, I don't understand how this article has stayed at this current title for so long! Personal name definitely sounds like a synonym for given name, as in it is the personal part of one's name, as opposed to the shared element such as surname. I understand that such a justification may not apply universally to all cultures however 'full name' is unambiguous. If someone asks you to "state your full name" you write your whole name down, if someone were to ask for my personal name I would think they meant my first name or even a nickname. It's also worth noting that the first line of given name states " given name (also known as a personal name, Christian name, first name, or forename) reaffirming my point that the current title of this article is at best ambigous and at worst just plain incorrect. Ebonelm (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oppose Well, the article is titled "Personal name" as it's a rather general one about names of persons (in contrast to other things, like places). Wouldn't "Full name" imply a narrower scope? – Uanfala (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to "oppose": renaming the article could be an option only if there's some topic restructuring. At present the article is about the naming of people and the different naming systems there are out there in the world. A "full name" is merely one culture-specific way of selecting/arranging personal names. If there's any ambiguity, I'd support a move to Personal naming or something similar. – Uanfala (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[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]
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]
  • Support. This article is about full names. Since personal name can sometimes (usually? always?) refer to a given name, this should be moved so that the title unambiguously matches the scope. kennethaw88 • talk 07:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – a "personal" name could be confused with with a first name, called a given name. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 22:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: there's a relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Archive 7#"Personal name" versus "given name". – Uanfala (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. 'Full name' is nicely explicit. Rothorpe (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While I understand the confusion with "given name", and also wish there were a better term, I think people here are staring at the problem from too short a distance and assuming context that a general encyclopedia reader doesn't have. Lots of things other than people have names and "full name" seems so broadly vague as to cover them all. The full name of FIFA is Fédération Internationale de Football Association. The full name of the UK is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The full name of Rhode Island is State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. The full name of cout is std::cout. While I'm fine with making "Full name" a redirect, as a primary article title I think it fails WP:PRECISION. I'd bold full name in the lead per MOS:BOLDSYN, but I think the greater specificity of the current title is better.
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]
  • Oppose as too ambiguous. The "full name" of "The Schott" (which could be considered an {{R from short name}}) is the Value City Arena at The Jerome Schottenstein Center (which could be cosidered an {{R from long name}}. That's not a person. Full personal name would be OK with me. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Personal name" is kind of vague. My given name is one of my personal names. My surname is another of my personal names. My middle name is another personal name. I suppose my full personal name is my given name + middle name + surname. Replace my middle name with my middle initial, which is how I form my signature, an you have an "almost full personal name". We could move to full personal name, or just keep the current title and explain these distinctions in the lead section of the article. I do not agree that "personal name definitely sounds like a synonym for given name". – wbm1058 (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Birth name redirect relates to this. Historically, that has redirected to given name, but that redirected to maiden name for the last six months of 2005.
    The lead of Maiden and married names says:
    When a person (traditionally the wife in many cultures) assumes the family name of his or her spouse, that name replaces the person's [[birth name]], which in the case of the wife is called the maiden name.
    No, the wife's given name is not her maiden name. This is all too common a problem on Wikipedia. Editors overlink to everyday words that I'm sure they understand, believing however that others are stupid and need to have a link to the definition. Of course they overlook that everyday words have different meanings in different contexts, and stupidly link to the other article assuming that the context used in the article they're editing will be the context used at the link destination. /soapbox
    There. I fixed it. wbm1058 (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we're not necessarily redirecting to the person's more notable given name. Would it be too politically incorrect to use the traditional term maiden name? No matter, married name and maiden name both redirect to Maiden and married names, so I'll just remove the second ambiguous and redundant link. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So yes, there are some exceptional cases such as John Ono Lennon. As the lead of maiden and married names says, "Birth name" is also used as a gender-neutral or masculine substitute for "maiden name." — wbm1058 (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Tavix moved Template:R from personal name to Template:R from legal name: "renaming to what this template is actually describing, see the articles at legal name and personal name for more info." (permalink) – wbm1058 (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The lead of this article says: "A person's full name usually identifies that person for legal and administrative purposes". That begs the question, what is the difference between a "personal name" and a legal name? Can someone provide examples of people whose personal names and legal names are different? If nobody can, I think we may be in content forking territory here. wbm1058 (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that the Name at birth article was merged to Given name § Née, per this discussion. Does that mean that people aren't "given" middle and surnames at birth, or that their "name at birth" is different than their "personal name", or that their "name at birth" is not their "full name"? – wbm1058 (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Name at birth is another vague term, just like "personal name". It could mean Given name at birth, middle name at birth, surname at birth or "personal name" at birth (see above for what "personal name" could mean). The only thing that "name at birth" definitely does not mean, is name after a name change. Maybe this should just be a broad-concept article into which all ambiguous overlinks can be dumped for definitions of all the nuances and meanings of "personal name". – wbm1058 (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per wbm1058's excellent analysis, and would support any change that would unsort this mess. -- Tavix (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Name § Names of names, the name of a... person is an anthroponym – is that another possible fork of "personal name"? wbm1058 (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A birth name is the name that appears on a birth certificate. That's so obvious that the birth certificate article doesn't even mention the term in the article lead; the term "birth name" appears once in the birth certificate article, buried near the end. But shouldn't we redirect Birth name to birth certificate?" That's better than either given name or maiden name, neither of which is adequate for all uses of the term (we also have redirects from a person's birth name to their pseudonym). Redirecting Birth name to birth certificate might better drop a hint to editors that they just might be WP:OVERLINKing to an everyday term. wbm1058 (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[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]

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]

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]


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]

Naufal farras[edit]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

Japanese, Hungarian, and Philippine Surnames[edit]

I wanna know why Hungarian (European) surnames use Eastern naming conventions similar to Japan,and the Philippines (Asian) using Western naming conventions much like from Europe or perhaps, the USA 119.95.114.132 (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Personal_name&oldid=1218360896"