patronym

Wait till you get into some Dutch surnames "van der Kleij", "van den Bosch", "de Jager" which are not patronyms. They would still fit into "first name, last name" pattern.

You probably don’t need to know if someone has a patronymn or a kunya or whatever. Base what you store on what you need.

That's not the case with patronyms, so this usage has never developed. In Iceland you'd never use just the patronym.

Surnames developed around the 13th century in Britain, before that it was patronyms meaning we could recognise people via association. This is still common in rural areas, my wife's grandfather likes to travel to car shows, he's told people down in the US to just ask for him by name.

I read a ton of articles that routinely use a persons first name, why suddenly should proper formality be artificially upheld in context of a culture that uses patronyms? They use first names as names, and in the context of an article they can use a first name without it getting confusing.

For instance, you mentioned accommodating Cyrillic letters, but you didn't know you'd need to include a field for patronym, which is not the same thing as a middle name and can't just be included in the first name field without causing potential problems.

I think this is similar to, say, a history of Malcom X which covers the historical period when he was still called by his slave name of Little, or of "many young women [in the feminist movement of the 1960s who] changed their patronyms to more descriptive ones or dropped them altogether", quoting from Jo Freemen's description of her movement name Joreen.