"Source Citation" or "Original Data" when both appear equivalent?

History-Hunter, neither cluster of details is appropriate to simply copy. Multiple modifications are needed in both cases before either would resemble a reference note or a source list entry—regardless of which style manual one uses.

History-Hunter,

There are so many issues with simply copying one of those two options that I hardly know where to begin. I’ll focus on these four.

Order of elements (EE 3.3)

When citing manuscripts, we either start with the smallest and work up to the largest (U.S. style) or start with the largest and work down to the smallest (most common international style).  Both Ancestry options illogically go in all directions. In the example you present above, the identification includes six elements. If we start with the smallest and work up to the largest, those six are 1-Compiler, 2-Collection, 3-Archive, 4-City, 5-Province, 6-Country. However,

• Ancestry’s “Source Citation” uses 3, 4, 5, 6, 2, 1.
• Ancestry’s “Original Data” uses 1, 2, 4,5,6,3.

Citing what we used

Ancestry subdivides the Drouin Collection into six different databases. I could not find your example at any of them. In each case, however, Ancestry identifies the database and the specific set of records that is included in that database.

When we use one of Ancestry’s databases from the Drouin Collection, we are not using the whole collection. The Drouin Collection is not simply "hosted on Ancestry." Ancestry has made it's subdivisions and presents them within the organizational scheme that Ancestry chose. We may be eyeballing individual pages (when we cite the original rather than the database entry), but we are still using Ancestry’s database with images. The example you give above is a generic citation to the whole collection that disregards Ancestry entirely. It also leaves your readers with no idea of what kind of material you have used or where it would be found within the original collection you say you've used.

Distinction between published and unpublished material (2.22, 2.68)

In it’s “Source Identification” for each database, Ancestry puts the name of the manuscript collection in italics.  For example:

​

That tells users that the Drouin Collection is a publication. It isn’t.  Italics tell the reader: "This is a stand-alone publications: a book, a website, a magazine, a newspaper, an individually published map, etc." When we cite manuscript collections, we use plain roman type for their title, to inform our readers that the material is not published. 

(Side Note: There does exist a published version of the Drouin Collection, published on microfilm. EE uses that for an example at 7.37. But Ancestry does not cite that microfilm publication as its source. it cites the original records at the Institute itself.)

Distinction between a standalone publication & one small part of it (2.22, 2.68)

In each "source identification” for each database, Ancestry uses italics for its own database name. For example:

​

That also misleads. When we cite an individual part of a larger, stand-alone publication—such as a chapter in a book, an article in a magazine, a database at a website—the title of that individual part is copied exactly and placed in quotation marks. Italics identify for our users or readers the title of the larger, standalone publication. Quotation marks tell our users or readers that this is only a part of the bigger whole and they must locate and access the bigger in order to drill down to the smaller.

History-Hunter, the "remedial" action that EE would advise is to write our own citation.