textpart and repository help please

michael fike

Hello from the US,

My goal is to use the repository place in the bibliography format of a source … but just the city, county, and state.  So, I am employing “textpart”.  However, I cannot get it to work.

Below is an image of what I am using for the textpart syntax with the repository place.  The part at the beginning of the format using textpart with the jurisdiction is working perfect.  The source à repo à plac at the end is not.

As you can see from my repository records image that I have sources linked to each repository.  I decided to use the “Sources for Repository” query downloaded from the knowledge base as a place to start debugging my textpart syntax but the query returns zero sources for either repository.

As a further test I added “repository” “repository place” and “repository name” as column fields to the source records tab.  No repositories are listed.

My custom query to list all repositories with place and name works.

I must be doing something basic wrong for me not to get repository information to not show in the source records tab or for the downloaded query to return zero results.  Being new to format coding I fully expect to have an error in the syntax I am using.

Any advice on these items would be greatly appreciated.

As a note this is all from a copy of my working database that I am using to test before using.  This should explain the test “delete me” record or other oddities you may see.


(Fike, Friend, Umbel, Thomas)
(Gabryszak, Majewski, Mazurkiewicz, Kondracki)

Mike Tate

Hi Michael,

What you misunderstand is the difference between the standard GEDCOM Generic Source Repository field and a Templated Source {Repository} field.


The former has the data ref SOUR.REPO which is what is listed in the Records Window and the Query.


The latter has the data ref SOUR.~RP-REPOSITORY similar to your {Jurisdiction} data ref.


So you need data ref %SOUR.~RP-REPOSITORY>_PLAC% in the =TextPart(…) function.


I have for some time suspected that having {Repository} template fields when standard Repository fields are just as good would lead to confusion.



michael fike

On Sun, Feb 5, 2023 at 05:59 AM, Mike Tate wrote:
Mike thank you for the explanation.  Late last night I read through the help ... again ... and was wondering if the difference between .REPO and ~RP syntax was the issue.  But I still could not wrap my head around each, maybe it was the late time of night.  Between your reply, the data ref syntax provided, and the help I now know "what" is happening.  My template is now working as are my queries.

It is the "why" I don't understand, which you hinted at in your last sentence.  Why have two type of repository fields?  I did not see that explanation in the help, or I missed it.  Maybe knowing the why will help understand the "how" in applying the fields.

I appreciate the help as I am off and running again.
(Fike, Friend, Umbel, Thomas)
(Gabryszak, Majewski, Mazurkiewicz, Kondracki)

Mike Tate

The GEDCOM specification defines all the generic Source record fields.

FH is compliant with the GEDCOM specification, similar to many other products.

So for many decades the SOUR.REPO fields have been widely supported and still are.


FH V7 introduced Source Templates and several templates define the {Repository} field.

I suspect CP decided to do that to avoid mixing both templated and generic fields in the definitions.

You could report the lack of explanation about Repository fields to CP and see what they say.

However, the generic Source Citation fields such as Text From Source, Notes, Media, Where Within, and Assessment are retained.


When exporting from FH to another product the Source Templates and associated templated fields will not be recognised, because they are extensions to the GEDCOM specification, so the Export Gedcom File plugin converts {Repository} fields to generic SOUR.REPO fields such that they are recognised by other products.