Browsable Images @ FamilySearch

Robyn, trying to work out one stable pattern from one of the world's largest databases, which organizes images in all sorts of ways, is definitely a challenge!

FamilySearch's "Information" tab, under the image, suggests this citation:

"England, Devon Bishop's Transcripts, 1558-1887," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QSQ-G9QP-15L3?cc=2515875&wc=QZ1P-1FJ%3A1589444608 : 16 February 2016), 005882803 > image 1 of 288; Devon Record Office, Exeter.

However, that citation omits a critical piece of information: The fact that these are records from Harberton Parish.  Family Search identifies the parish, under the "Information" tab, but not in the suggested citation.

Your Draft 1 adds that information to the title of the database, by putting the catalog description in the field where the collection title goes; but that won't work because anyone going to FamilySearch's website, where they search the master list of "Collections," will not find a collection by that title.  At FamilySearch, there is a major difference between Collection titles and Catalog descriptions. We cannot substitute one for the other. (EE 2.27)

Your Draft 2 begins to follow the EE pattern for citing a church or courthouse register, but then hits a pot hole.  The standard pattern is this:

Name of Church or Office (Jurisdiction/Location), "Exact Title of Register," page number, specific item.

If that register is imaged at a website, we would add a layer to identify the source where we accessed the register:

; accessed as "Collection Title," database with images, Title of Website (URL : date), image number.

or

; imaged, Title of Website (URL : date) > waypoint > waypoint > image number.

However, your Draft 2 does this in Layer 1:

Name of Church (Jurisdiction/Location), FHL Collection Title without quote marks indicating that you have created your own set of words to ID it, descriptor, Title of Website (URL : date) > image number

and adds this in Layer 2:

"Title of book in quotation marks, although image collection does not provide a title," pagination statement, specific item

Then it adds a Layer 3:

Source of the website's image.

If we go back to the basic format in which

• the original record is cited in Layer 1;
• the website provider is cited in Layer 2.

 then a colorization of your Option 2 would look like this:

Harberton Parish (Devon, England), Bishop's Transcripts, 1597-1812, browsable images, FamilySearch  (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QSQ-G9QP-15L3? : accessed 15 January 2022), image 9 of 288; "Christenings 1608," unnumbered entries in chronological order, Elizabeth ye daughter of John Trist of Hernaford, 9 June; FHL microfilm 005882803.

Green, blue, green, blue.  Apples and oranges are being mixed here. Well, more precisely, limes and blueberries.

Your Layer 1 was derailed by the fact that FamilySearch's images do not include the cover of the register with an explicit title. But if  you identify the register by FHL cataloging data (which is typically a generic description), then anyone in the UK who attempted to locate that volume in the records of Harberton Parish would find no volume there with that title.

So what do we do?

Solution:

Although no register cover is filmed, with an explicit title, the first filmed page identifies what we are using. The images suggest this is not a bound register. Rather it looks like an unbound "folio" of sheets of paper loosely stitched together. In the fashion for that era, the first sheet identifies the folio:

"Transcript of the register of the Buryalls wedings & Christenings within the parish of Harberton ..."

If we want to follow the standard format that identifies the original "register" in Layer 1 and then the website provider in Layer 2, then we would have this:

      1. Harberton Parish (Devon, England), "Transcript of the register of the Buryalls wedings & Christenings within the parish of Harberton ... ," unpaginated 9th page, list labeled "Christenings 1608," entry for "Elizabeth, the daughter of John Trist of Hernaford, June 9"; imaged, "England, Devon Bishop's Transcripts, 1558–1887," database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-L9QP-15KF?i=8&cc=2515875 : 15 January 2022), image 9 of 288; citing  FHL digital film 5882803, imaged at Devon Record Office.

This adheres to Evidence Style's Velcro Principle: What belongs together should stick together. In other words:
⦁    all details that identify the original record stay together in Layer 1.
⦁    all details that relate to the website stay together in Layer 2.
⦁    all details for the source of the website's images stay together in Layer 3.

In red, within EE's suggested citation, you'll notice four things:

1. Rather than using "unnumbered entries in chronological order," EE suggests identifying the contents of this page as a list. Your wording is not wrong. However, within church registers as a category, most "entries" for christenings are lengthier, stand-alone entries, with more data. Identifying this as a "list" conveys to the reader of your citation a more-precise understanding of what you're working with.
2. Rather than "ye," EE follows the transcription school that recognizes the obsolete alphabet letter thorn, which was used in that period to represent the "th" sound—i.e., thuh, rather than yee.
3. The FHL film is actually digital film rather than microfilm. No microfilm seems to exist for this collection. You'll note that the catalog entry, under the heading "film number" identifies this as "DGS" film. The D is for digital.
4. EE's suggested format adds the identification of the holder of the original records—which FamilySearch includes in its citation. This is especially important given that every imaged page carries an irremovable overlay identifying ownership of the record.