Talk:Ireland Civil Registration Indexes - FamilySearch Historical Records
I've been questioned on how complete this collection really is and wonder if it might be appropriate to add a table or maybe three, one each for birth, marriage and death. I propose that the table include:
- GS film number
- DGS number
- Event (birth, marriage or death)
- Image count
- Record count
I already have part of the data and perhaps we can entice some members of the genealogical community to check the Family History Library Catalog for the films listed and provide the missing details. This will allow users to see exactly what years are included and evaluate for themselves, if desired, how complete the collection is and whether they may need to look at the originals rather than settle with just the digital collection. Gellilwcca 02:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll post a querry on facebook and see if we get any volunteers. In the meantime you are welcome to start a chart and put what information you have into it. If you would like a sample of a coverage table to use as a guideline look at the one in the wiki article: Ireland Vital Records Index at
I have noticed that there are gaps on the FamilySearch website in my Fitzhenry/ Fitzharris BMDs which should have been present in the Civil Registrations (I am very grateful to FamilySearch that there are any extractions available at all and this is in no way a criticism).
I am going to extract the Fitzhenry/Fitzharris entries directly from the GRO indexes in Dublin and will compare them with what is available on Familysearch.
If any other surname researcher has done a similar comparison, would they please make their findings known.
Jo Fitz-Henry (Fitz(-)henry one name study)
Today I added a table listing the microfilms & DGS (Digital Genealogical Society numbers) for deaths which shows that all death indexes for these years should be included in the historical records collection for Ireland Civil Registration Indexes. If this table works for identifying exactly what is included in the collection let me know and I will add similar tables listing the microfilms included for births and marriages. If there are other data elements to include or consider please point them out here on the discussion page so we can make this a wiki page a model for specifying collection content and coverage in a way that will benefit all family historians. Gellilwcca 23:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Gaps in the Transcript of Ireland Civil Registration Indexes, 1864-1870[edit source]
The tables below are for entries found in the microfilmed index registers or at the registrar office but not found in the FamilySearch index of those index microfilms. Always search the original registers if the name you expect to find is not in the online database.
|1866||Douge||Deniss||63||Rathdrum||7||814||A search just for Rathdrum only returns entries for 1864-1865 and it seems unlikely that the district would have no deaths for 1866-1870. Gellilwcca|
Availability of Northern Ireland Films[edit source]
Quote . . .
"Northern Ireland from 1922-1959 HAS NOT BEEN INDEXED on familysearch.org under the Historical Records Portion as of 2011. Plans for this being indexed are not known.
There are film indexes and actual records 1922-1959 on microfilm Births, Marriages, deaths. These microfilm can be viewed at the Family History Library or ordered into a Family History Center."
However, any Northern Ireland films of Indexes or Registers are marked on the FHL Catalogue as "No circulation to family history centers".
Corrections to Citation Example[edit source]
Thanks for your input. I'll look at the citation example.
If you look up Ellen in this index today you will see the information cited below, plus an automatically generated citation:
"Ireland, Civil Registration Indexes, 1845-1958," index, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/FTKH-2N1 : accessed 25 June 2012), Ellen Donlevy, 1860.
This citation is the first step towards generating full automatic citations, an endeavor that FamilySearch is currently working towards.
There are many opinions about how citations for the collection, and these citations, for a record found in the collection should look. We have changed our format several times after input from citation experts.
The newest format that we are using in the Historical Records wiki articles is:
“[Title of collection],” [index and images, images or index], FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/: accessed [date collection accessed]),[page number equivalent, including name of principals and date of event]; citing [Creator, Jurisdiction, or Institution][ (Optional location)], [Name or title of series, volume, or record type – archival title], [further record identification when needed], [Archive name], [City, State of archive]. [Citation to the original – FHL microfilm number].
This example is intended to encourage genealogists to cite their sources. I don't expect novices to go these lengths. It would be good if they wrote down enough information so that they or someone else could find the person's record again.
Often the film number is helpful in looking up the cataloging information of the microfilms when the digital image came from a microfilm, so it is usually listed in the citation when available.
Once the automatically generated citations are fully developed we will probably remove the example citations from the Historical Records wiki articles.
HoranDM 14:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Quote . . .
"Examples of Source Citations for a Record in This Collection:
"Ireland, Civil Registration Indexes, 1845-1958." index, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org): accessed 11 March 2011, entry for Ellen Donlevy. age at death: 74; citing Civil Records, FHL microfilm 101,739; General Register Office, Belfast, Ireland"
This example, in my opinion, is (a) factually incorrect in one respect and (b) is missing vital data pertinent to such a citation.
Additionally, by following a proscribed hierarchal structure with careful use of quotation marks, colons, semi-colons, italics (not evident in the pasted copy above) and commas - creates a citation that the normal genealogy hobbyist would have difficulty deciphering its academic meaning. I believe that a much more relaxed view of citations should be encouraged that is understandable by the common person without an advanced university education.
But . . . to the errors . . .
(a) this film, being from Sligo and covering 1932 (no where evident in the structured citation . . . as it should be . . . see(b)) cannot have come from the GRO in Belfast which is in Northern Ireland.
(b) in creating citations for BMD indexes in Ireland (same system in England & Wales), key to the citation is the filing/location system used which utilises the Quarter, Year, District, Volume and Page . . . these are not mentioned in this example . . . but the age is although completely irrelevant to the citation location of the data . . . the date accessed has absolutly no meaning or usefulness in describing this record.
Taking into account my prejudices against the formalised structured citation quoted, my alternative to this citation would be as follows:
FamilySearch.org transcriptions, Ireland BMD Indexes, Death of Ellen Donlevy, Sep, 1932,Sligo, vol 2, page 93 (aged 74); citing FHL Film 101739,Index of Deaths 1932-34, General Register Office, Roscommon, Ireland.
I agree that this example is confusing and ineffective. FamilySearch should replace this example with actual citations for each record, accessible while viewing the record.
Regarding your objection to academic standards: It is reasonable for genealogists to know high school level English punctuation rules and the basic citation format for published works.
Since we were taught not to use "seconedary sources" it is not surprising that most people have forgotten the "quoted in" citation format that is so important for genealogy's derivative sources. I think it is reasonable to expect genealogists to learn or relearn this simple standard:
<ORIGINAL>; quoted in <DERIVATIVE>
<DERIVATIVE>; citing <ORIGINAL>
The citation to the original is the responsibility of the publisher because it requires a knowledge of the arrangement of the original records.
Done correctly, academic citations are easy to use and have advantages over non-standard approaches. Robert 16:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Why Send Users to Film?[edit source]
Do I understand correctly that there is no additional information on the microfilms? If so, why include the instructions on how to find the films? Robert 16:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
We are working for the future. Future new workers, new film, and even new ways to do the work. Preparing the way and the structure to be filled by others,each adiation making it more complete. Sandralpond 13:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Post-1922 Northern Ireland BMDs[edit source]
Have the Northern Ireland BMDs from 1922 onwards now been added to this dataset? If one does a search for a surname such as Murray there are post-1922 hits in Belfast for example. How complete is the Northern Ireland coverage in the database at present? DebbieKennett 11:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
This infobox is inappropriate because of the flag displayed in it.
The flag of the Republic of Ireland only became officially adopted and internationally recognised after 1920.
As the records include both a long period before 1920, the flag is not representative of the island of Ireland. The records also include a period after 1920, but include the whole of the island. The flag of the Republic of Ireland does not cover the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland. So, for both periods of time, the flag is inappropriate and, in fact, offensive.
I would suggest use of the flag of the Republic of Ireland be confined to any record collections and articles that deal solely with the Reublic of Ireland after 1920. For post-1920 records, the flag of Northern Ireland should be used for any collections that might be specific to that country.
A more appropriate flag for the whole island would be the flag of St Patrick (or St Patrick saltire).
I'll try to work out how to change the infobox, which seems to be th source for the flag inclusion. Or perhaps create another infobox.
Please do not make any changes to the infobox. Creating and maintaining infoboxes for Historical Records collections are the responsibility of the FamilySearch User Guidance team. Any changes made by users outside of that group will be removed. SvareJM 14:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)