For how long are the records classified?
I would like to look into 102974093 [Baptisms, IASu, F. 451, 8, 1 Jan 1819-31 Dec 1921 (Subotica-Szabadka)].
Since it has been more than 100 years since the record was written, I was wondering if the classification will be lifted and the record made available to the public? If not, for how long will the classification remain?
This looks like a catalog-and-permissions error: judging by the coverage of other films (and the size of the city), I'm nearly certain that "1921" should actually say "1821". (Either that, or 1819 should be 1919, but then it would be way out of sequence.)
I believe Szabadka's RC records are also on the Kalocsa archbishopric's e-archive, which is subscription-based but quite reasonably priced. There's also baptismal indexes at https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/2748214 that may be able to fill some gaps.1
Thank you for the answer Julia!
I have heard of the Kalocsa Archdiocese's e-archive. However, my Hungarian is not very good. Of the languages listed on the website I can understand English and Croatian. What kind of information could I have access to through this e-archive, that is not already available at FamilySearch?0
@N Tychonievich Is film 102974093 something you can have checked, please? Thanks!0
For Szabadka, what Kalocsa primarily has that FS doesn't is the old indexes (marriage from 1718, baptism from 1687, death from 1718). There's a detailed spreadsheet that you can check without a subscription; it's linked at the top of the coverage page that I linked previously.1
@TI87 Assuming the dates are correct in the catalog for DGS 102974093, it is not unreasonable for the camera icon to be missing. The last records were created in Dec 1921. So, assuming the privacy period is 100 year, FamilySearch would just now be starting re-negotiation for rights to display the images. That on top of the lock in the catalog would make me assume that you aren't going to see this change until the new catalog publishes later this year. I will, however, see if I can get someone to double-check the dates on it.0
@N Tychonievich, I am basically certain that "1921" is a typo, and the records actually end a century earlier than that, because that fits the sequence: the following film is 102974094, with a range of 1 Jan 1821 to 31 Dec 1824, and the one after that is 102974095, with a range of 1 Jan 1824 to 31 Dec 1827, and so forth and so on. A range on 102974093 of 1 Jan 1819 to 31 Dec 1821 would make perfect sense in this pattern. 1921 doesn't.1