Question Show shortened scientific title Dr. rer. nat -> Dr.

Dear Comunitiy,I have a question about dealing with scientific titles such as "Dr. rer. nat.". Currently, I enter this information in webtrees as a name prefix (is this correct?). The problem is that this is then displayed in full in the overview, i.e. "Dr. rer. nat. Max Muster". Normally, however, it is only displayed in abbreviated form with "Dr.". How do I get this abbreviated form displayed?

Greetings

Normally we record in genealogy as a name the name that was given to a person just after the birth. A title as "Dr." is not a part of the name (at least nowadays). It is a title and I suggest recording it as a title (GEDCOM tag TITL). See the German webtrees manual . If you record it as the title you can add the date it was acquired. 

I would use 2 names

Birth name - Max Muster

GEDCOM:
1 NAME Max /Muster/
2 TYPE BIRTH
2 GIVN Max
2 SURN Muster

and Also known as - Dr. Max Muster

using a name prefix of just 'Dr.' with a note to record the additional detail.

GEDCOM:
1 NAME Dr. Max /Muster/
2 TYPE AKA
2 NPFX Dr.
2 GIVN Max
2 SURN Muster
2 NOTE Dr. rer. nat. (Doctor rerum naturalium) - Doctor of natural sciences

I wouldn't use an individual attribute of TITL as this refers more to nobilty such as Dukes, Earls, Barons etc. and not professional or occupational name titles. Quoting from the Gedcom standard: TITL - "A formal designation used by an individual in connection with positions of royalty or other social status, such as Grand Duke". A doctor isn't a 'titled' individual.

A name type of AKA (also known as) isn't ideal but I believe a name type of 'professional' may be added in Gedcom 7.

Marky wrote:

TheThe A name type of AKA (also known as) isn't ideal but I believe a name type of 'professional' may be added in Gedcom 7.

The NAME-TYPE "PROFESSIONAL" in GEDCOM 7 describes a name that is used professionally, such as a pen name, screen name or artist name. For me, the NAME-TYPE "AKA" with the name prefix "Dr." is fine.

The best place to document the scientific title such as "Dr. rer. nat." is the GRAD tag (Graduation), in addition to an EDUC tag (Education).

I`m fine with the suggestion of @Marky using a second name record with the type "AKA".

Regarding the GRAD tag: This is an event: "Awarding educational diplomas or degrees to individuals.". It has a date and a location when and where it happened.

Regarding EDUC: This is an attribute to an individual: "Indicator of a level of education attained.". I`m not sure how to use this tag. For me, it is for example “studying mathematics from 2000 to 2005”
 

Thank you for the tips. The AKA sounds good, but it's not really suitable for me. Firstly, only the first name is displayed during selection and then this second block is still there. And secondly, and this is the real problem, all the other data is then redundant except for the title.


The attribute GRAD fits in terms of content, but not in terms of presentation. Why in terms of content? At least in Germany, the "Dr." is the highest academic degree that can be earned at a university (Prof. is "only" an official title such as Regierungsdirektor, Ministerialrat, etc.). Where is the problem in the presentation. Although the doctoral title is not part of the name, it is prefixed to the name (even if there is no entitlement to it in Germany) and can be included in the identity card on application ( www.gesetze-im-internet.de/pa_g_1986/__4.html ). And I would like to have this representation in webtrees as well.

Firstly, only the first name is displayed during selection and then this second block is still there.

I do not understand this sentence. You have to enter two name records. The first one is the name at birth. The second one is a name that was used later (after getting Dr.).

And secondly, and this is the real problem, all the other data is then redundant except for the title.

That is correct, but what is the problem? If a wife marries and is using another name, then you can add (if you like) an additional name record with her married name (using the TYPE MARRIED) and again her first name is redundant. That is how GEDCOM and webtrees are designed.

GRAD and EDUC are events or attributes to a person (you can have several of them in the life of a person, for example, master, Dr., ...). They are presented in the timeline of a person, not when showing the name.

When you are using what was suggested by Marky and sort the name with the AKA and the prefix as the first of the two name records, then the name "Dr. Max Muster" is displayed in all the lists, tables, and reports of webtrees. This should solve your problem.

I do not understand this sentence. You have to enter two name records. The first one is the name at birth. The second one is a name that was used later (after getting Dr.).

I mean the second box with the alternative name, but that's just my sensitivity interfering.

That is correct, but what is the problem? If a wife marries and is using another name, then you can add (if you like) an additional name record with her married name (using the TYPE MARRIED) and again her first name is redundant. That is how GEDCOM and webtrees are designed.

You are right about the name after the marriage. So far I have entered the event of marriage but never added an alternative name. I never thought of it, but it always bothered me that the new surname didn't automatically appear. What would be practical here is a dropdown with info text "Name of x is used" (or something like that) and then "Man", "Woman" or "Both" can be selected so that the system automatically displays the correct name. In the background, of course, the redundancy must then be stored in the Gedcom data. But that should be done by the software, which is supposed to support me in the editing process.

GRAD and EDUC are events or attributes to a person (you can have several of them in the life of a person, for example, master, Dr., ...). They are presented in the timeline of a person, not when showing the name.

You're right about most degrees. But there are simply titles that are used quite normally, that are used when you're at the office or when you're called by the doctor, and that's the Dr., but also the Prof. But that's going too far now. Formally, you're right, especially since there are certainly countries where that's not the case, where perhaps other titles are used quite normally alongside the family name, without them officially belonging to it. Maybe I should try my hand at a plugin myself - but the time ... (is there a good tutorial for this?) 

When you are using what was suggested by Marky and sort the name with the AKA and the prefix as the first of the two name records, then the name "Dr. Max Muster" is displayed in all the lists, tables, and reports of webtrees. This should solve your problem.

How can I sort the names?

Forscher wrote:

How can I sort the names?

Wenn Du Die Schaltfläche "bearbeiten" benutzt, findest Du dort die Subfunktion "Namen neu ordnen".

If you use the "edit" button, you will find the menu item "Re-order names".

Forscher wrote:

Dear Comunitiy,I have a question about dealing with scientific titles such as "Dr. rer. nat.". Currently, I enter this information in webtrees as a name prefix (is this correct?). The problem is that this is then displayed in full in the overview, i.e. "Dr. rer. nat. Max Muster". Normally, however, it is only displayed in abbreviated form with "Dr.". How do I get this abbreviated form displayed?

Greetings
 

No, this is not correct because - at least in Germany - an academic title like Dr. is NOT part of the name.
Unfortunately this topic seems to come up again and again, e. g. in www.webtrees.net/index.php/forum/2-open-...name-structure#95209
For an example explanation of this matter by a German lawyer see www.sprache-werner.info/Anspruch-auf-Anrede.1923.html , but there are many other websites explaining this matter.

Personally and professionally I do not think academic, military, governmental, religious titles like “Dr.”, “captain”, “mayor”, “Reverend”  have a place in names for genealogical purposes.  Yes these bits of trivia are used by the individual and are part of their identity and pride but don’t add anything to their genealogical name profile, but should be added as a fact, such as: (attained the rank of captain in 1941), (was mayor of Happytown from 1832 to 1887), (earned the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in 1957), (As the reverend of the church in town).

So I regularly till my clients and people I instruct not to use these “titles” in their NAME tags.  Most of us can find some kind of a “honorific” to use as a title if we think about it like: Mr., Mrs., Trustee, Conductor, Forman, Club President, (you get the picture) some people put high value on some “honorifics” like Doctor, “My daughter married a Doctor” sound good to say to the ladies at tea!

norwegian_sardines wrote:

... Most of us can find some kind of a “honorific” to use as a title if we think about it like: Mr., Mrs., Trustee, Conductor, Forman, Club President, (you get the picture) ...
 

That reminds me of

• Sugar: I come from this musical family. My mother is a piano teacher and my father was a conductor.
• Joe: Where did he conduct?
• Sugar: On the Baltimore and Ohio.

Sorry, that was off topic.

Ok, I get it, a title like Dr. or Prof. doesn't belong in the name. But explain that to the relatives who are not so much into genealogy but still help with the data entry.

All that matters is that the GEDCOM data is correct. So the Dr. is not part of the name but only an academic degree that was acquired at some point. But how this information is processed visually is a completely different story - isn't it?

PS: @Peter_S: Thank you

> a title like Dr. or Prof. doesn't belong in the name

I disagree and would include it in the name - you're not breaking any gedcom rules if you do. The example from the standard uses a military title but other professional tiles are just as valid.


 

Marky wrote:

> a title like Dr. or Prof. doesn't belong in the name

I disagree and would include it in the name - you're not breaking any gedcom rules if you do. The example from the standard uses a military title but other professional tiles are just as valid.

 

Marky wrote:

> a title like Dr. or Prof. doesn't belong in the name

I disagree and would include it in the name - you're not breaking any gedcom rules if you do. The example from the standard uses a military title but other professional tiles are just as valid.

This has nothing to do with GEDCOM allowing the addition!  This is all about the tradition of genealogists entering a name.  However, you can do whatever you want it is your database.  If your family can’t identify an individual without the honorific then add it, I’m not the name entry police!  

The OP ask about how to enter a Dr. Title and I (as well as others) discourage doing that?  The OP also asked about how to enter  "Dr. rer. nat. Max Muster".  The GEDCOM rule for entering a NAME tag is: “The name value is formed in the manner the name is normally spoken”. This would exclude the “rer. nat.”!