* Repositories

[Baboon281]

Is there a standard query to be able to print off either a list of repositories, or a single repository record that includes which sources are linked to that repository.
I have come across an article which mentions that in the notes section of the repository property box you can add notes that state which sources are linked to that repository. Is this necessary or are, or can, sources automatically linked.
Thanks

[tatewise]

See how_to:finding_where_records_are_used|> Finding where Records are used.

For one Repository record the simplest way is to use the View > Record Links command.

Alternatively, select the Repository records of interest and run the Where Used Record Links Plugin.

I suggest you do NOT keep a manual list of Source records in the Repository Note field, because you will never remember to keep it up-to-date.

Anyway, why do you need to know?
Usually you are starting from a Source record and want to know the Repository where the original is stored.
Why do you need to know your list of Sources you happened to find in any particular Repository?

[Jane]

They are not standard ones, but both of these are very easy to write and are attached.

You can easily customise to add or remove columns as you want.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Why do you need to know your list of Sources you happened to find in any particular Repository?

One obvious answer is if you're going to visit that repository online or physically and want to know what you might want to consult if you've still got work to do with that source.

[Baboon281]

Helen,

You hit the nail on the head. Jane thanks for the info I’ll give them a go.

[ColeValleyGirl]

To be fair to Mike, it's easy to fall into the trap of expecting everyone to work as you do... whereas I'd just programmed Research Planner to include the possibility to search for tasks linked via one or more sources to a particular repository, so it came immediately to mind.

[tatewise]

I'd rashly assumed that if a Source with its Repository had been committed to the Project then research on that source was complete, but can see that it might not be so.

[davidf]

Splitter's assumption?

[tatewise]

Well yes, but 'lumped' Source records don't really have the problem, because they either would not bother with a Repository or there would be very few Source records per Repository, and knowing the Source 'lump' does not help much with the research required.

Note that I refer to 'lumped' Sources and not 'lumper' users, as it should not be a binary choice.
Each type of Source should be 'lumped' or 'split' depending on well documented criteria.
I would be rare for a user to have all 'lumped' or all 'split' sources.

However, we don't want to get into that debate here, so if necessary start another thread.

[ColeValleyGirl]

'Lumped' sources would would absolutely have the problem e.g Bishops Transcripts Salisbury (Stalbridge Parish). For which the Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre are the repository, and if you're doing a one place or one surname study... but have only surveyed the first 100 years... (Says she, who will have to go back eventually and do the rest of the records.)

There are of course a huge number of other sources at Chippenham... and when I make my next visit, I will want o know what else to look at.

Mike, you can't dictate who would not bother with a repository!

Each type of Source should be 'lumped' or 'split' depending on well documented criteria.

I'm afraid IMO this is rubbish -- you might split when you have a specific reference to support a singular fact, and lump when what you intend is more general research.

I'm a splitter when I can pinpoint the exact text in a source and a lumper when I know I've more general work to do.

[Baboon281]

Jane

The sources linked to a repository is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you