That it says Woodville is because that’s where it’s registered. Ancestry have already (in theory) extrapolated the folio number for you, to the district. But Woodville is a very long way from Gore, if that’s where (I presume) the Old Gore Cemetery is. But to explain things a bit more: The Registrar of BDMs originally (and still do in libraries) had indeces by year on microfiche, the folio was a reference to the district, but there were no parents’ named. Ancestry.com has transcribed those for their site. Registrar of BDM then computerised their records, allocating new reference numbers, dropping the place of registration (who knows why?) but adding the parents' Christian names. ergo: ancestry have one set of registrations, familysearch has the other. Most details should match; many don’t! So, ancestry knows you’re looking for Charles Stacey, and have given you a hint (please note… it is *not* a fact) that the Charles Stacey they have records for, *maybe* your man. On familysearch the Woodville registration also has a matching burial in Woodville. J On 21/11/2018, at 12:09 PM, new-zealand-request@rootsweb.com wrote: Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 10:05:28 +1100 From: ChrisK <ckealy@ozemail.com.au <mailto:ckealy@ozemail.com.au>> Subject: [nz]Re: Death Charles Stacey 1911 Palmerston Nth To: <new-zealand@rootsweb.com <mailto:new-zealand@rootsweb.com>> Message-ID: <ECE76AEDF2A14D9EAEFC0D02105356FA@inteldesktop> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Yes I agree that some trees have rather incorrect/inaccurate information which is frustrating. But in this case it was a hint to Ancestry database death records and the folio number was quoted. I assume that the folio number relates to the district where birth was registered. Perhaps listers can clarify folio 277- where this is please? Chris

Hi Julie, I appreciate the explanations for the respective databases. His death on Ancestry is a *maybe* I have since found a death notice in the Woodville Examiner for 6/12 1911 with his death a few days before. It looks like a previous lister might have discovered his bdm registration under a different name. Will await a reply from Registry. The old Gore cemetery is where he and his wife Rachel are buried. I think they died in Palmerston North. Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Julie Collins (Skellern)" <jools@maxnet.co.nz> To: <new-zealand@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 10:29 AM Subject: [nz]Re: NEW-ZEALAND Digest, Vol 13, Issue 360 > That it says Woodville is because that’s where it’s registered. Ancestry > have already (in theory) extrapolated the folio number for you, to the > district. But Woodville is a very long way from Gore, if that’s where (I > presume) the Old Gore Cemetery is. > > But to explain things a bit more: > > The Registrar of BDMs originally (and still do in libraries) had indeces > by year on microfiche, the folio was a reference to the district, but > there were no parents’ named. Ancestry.com has transcribed those for > their site. Registrar of BDM then computerised their records, allocating > new reference numbers, dropping the place of registration (who knows why?) > but adding the parents' Christian names. > > ergo: ancestry have one set of registrations, familysearch has the other. > Most details should match; many don’t! > > So, ancestry knows you’re looking for Charles Stacey, and have given you a > hint (please note… it is *not* a fact) that the Charles Stacey they have > records for, *maybe* your man. > > On familysearch the Woodville registration also has a matching burial in > Woodville. > > J > > On 21/11/2018, at 12:09 PM, new-zealand-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 10:05:28 +1100 > From: ChrisK <ckealy@ozemail.com.au <mailto:ckealy@ozemail.com.au>> > Subject: [nz]Re: Death Charles Stacey 1911 Palmerston Nth > To: <new-zealand@rootsweb.com <mailto:new-zealand@rootsweb.com>> > Message-ID: <ECE76AEDF2A14D9EAEFC0D02105356FA@inteldesktop> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Yes I agree that some trees have rather incorrect/inaccurate information > which is frustrating. But in this case it was a hint to Ancestry database > death records and the folio number was quoted. I assume that the folio > number relates to the district where birth was registered. > Perhaps listers can clarify folio 277- where this is please? > > Chris > > > _______________________________________________ > > The List Guidelines > > http://new-zealand-l.blogspot.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/new-zealand@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community >