Generally if you do not know otherwise, you put it into the middle name field. If you know that is incorrect, just submit the change with your reasoning in the contribution notes.

I for example would have put it in the middle name field because I was not aware that this is not a middle name.

OK. Just noting that I'm not getting any objections and thus that I wasn't wrong about how the db or the software works.

However I am a bit surprised that no one has thought of this before since there are lots of (other) Swedes here and they (we) all should know that Ajvide is not a first name.
To a foreigner it might not at all be as obvious because I think you may have had to live in Sweden for X number of years and understand Swedish names, or something. First of all I guess you need to know how to pronounce it. And after that maybe you can "sense" there is no "first name feeling" to this last name.

Either way, I looked at this man's home page just to make sure and there it is indeed referred to him as [Mr.] Ajvide Lindqvist or simply [Mr.] Ajvide.
It is fairly common in Sweden to address someone by his last name, but not as common as in e.g. the U.S.
However, I have never read anywhere or heard anyone address someone by their middle name.

Quoting TomGaines:

Quote:
Generally if you do not know otherwise, you put it into the middle name field.

Small correction: that what you "generally" do. Many other users are doing the exact opposite. Neither is declared more or less "correct" by Invelos - there is no "right" or "wrong", many parsing threads have ended in a perfectly equal fifty-fifty split, and Invelos will happily accept both variants. And that's exactly what the problem is...

The good news, as KinoNiki already hinted at, is that Ken has indicated that the middle name field is likely to be scrapped in the future.

Quoting TomGaines:

Quote:
Generally if you do not know otherwise, you put it into the middle name field.

With a few exceptions, I think this is generally the accepted approach, even though Invelos has never designated it as the "correct" approach.

I can't seem to find it now... but I thought Ken had stated he made it so parsing didn't matter any more in the program... sometime within the last couple of updates?

I wish I could find it (or think of a name that may have 2 versions in my local to test)... because I thought he said it would ignore the parsing. Now I am not sure if it meant it wouldn't over-write your local parsing... or if it completely ignores parsing all together.

OK Thanks Yves, I was remembering his statement slightly wrong then.