Unidentified Register

Hendrickson, your good instincts are kicking in on both points.

1. The descriptor Unidentified Register would definitely be preferable to Untitled Register. The set of images show that you're using a bound register with the cover intact, and the odds are slim of any church recording their sacramental acts in a set of bound registers that carry no individual titles to distinguish one from the other. The issue here is that the provider of the images did not image the cover or the inside "title page."  Beyond that: when we make up a substitute for a title, we don't put our words in quotation marks because we are not quoting anything. (EE 2.22)

2. Identifying the register is ideal, if possible from available information. However, if your identification comes from elsewhere, you should not mix your own identification into what the images provide. You would need to add a separate statement saying that the register appears to be … [Thus-and-Such, as per Whatever]. Your suggestion of adding Parish of Battersea, Baptisms, 1901–1906 as a descriptor in that title field (again without quotation marks) is the usual approach. In this case, however, it would create redundancy, given that those pieces of data are also waypoints in the path you lay out in your second layer.

One way to omit the redundancy while maintaining clarity—given the structure of this particular database—would be to eliminate the first layer of your citation and begin the citation with the database:

“London, England, Church of England Births and Baptisms, 1813-1917,” database with images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com : 30 June 2018) > Wandsworth > St. Mary, Battersea > 1901-1906 > image 25, being p. 49, entry 386 for Charles William John Coe, baptized 6 July 1902; citing "Board of Guardian Records and Church of England Parish Registers. London Metropolitan Archives; London, England”; Reference Number: P70/MRY2/024.

You’ll notice that I also added “p.” in front of the phrase “49, entry 386,” in keeping with EE 2.14: “Citing Page Numbers, Etc. … If a publication or manuscript contains other numbered elements to be cited—as with column, entry, or note numbers—we should explicitly identify each numbered part (e.g., page 2, note 3; or p. 2, no. 3).”

It's interesting, because if you go to the London Metropolitan Archives website and search their catalogue, it actually says that ref P70/MRY2/024 is a Baptism Register described as:

Date of Creation: 1896 Jan-1901 Jun

Reference Code: P70/MRY2/024

From Collection: SAINT MARY, BATTERSEA: BATTERSEA CHURCH ROAD, WANDSWORTH

https://tinyurl.com/y9zqsmoy

P70/MRY2/025 - seems to be a better fit for the dates in your register.

Date of Creation: 1901 Jun-1908 May

Reference Code: P70/MRY2/025

From Collection: SAINT MARY, BATTERSEA: BATTERSEA CHURCH ROAD, WANDSWORTH

Good sleuthing, Hendrickson. This fits the statement under my no. 2, above:

If your identification comes from elsewhere, you should not mix your own identification into what the images provide. You would need to add a separate statement saying that the register appears to be … [Thus-and-Such, as per Whatever].

Online cataloging descriptions are wonderful, to help us understand the source. On the other hand, they often do not report the exact title of a manuscript volume, as seems to be the case above. (I cannot use the TinyURL you provided, because the site is asking for a history card number and password.) Online catalogs that are created as databases will have a certain set of fields designed for the whole collection. Then, the details of an individual manuscript have to be fit into those fields regardless of the original title or other unique details.

Bottom line: if you wish to add another sentence to include information you found about the register elsewhere, citation principles do not discourage doing so. In your working notes, you can add anything else that helps you understand the source and evaluate its information.

Hendrickson, the world of historical research would definitely be a lot easier if we had a "rule of thumb" for every issue. Historical research cannot be governed by a rule for every situation and every record because the vagaries are endless. To summarize EE 2.1: We learn certain basic principles, then we adapt them to fit the situation. That adaptation calls for us to make judgments. We may feel uncomfortable making judgments, but everything we do as researchers call for personal judgments.

Question 1:

You ask: "Are waypoints necessary?"  No. You have two approaches: (a)  the one you started out with, that featured the original register [for which you lacked adequate information to identify it] or (2) featuring the online database, then using waypoints to burrow down to the image. The choice is yours.

Question 2:

You ask: Are you over-complicating things by starting with the image? No. I would not call it "over-complicating." It does make the citation longer, with duplication that can be avoided, but if you feel that other considerations override the need to eliminate duplication, then you are applying your judgment. If you eventually publish part of your work in a journal or a book financed by a publisher, the editor will then apply his or her judgment—which you can then argue against if you feel there are overriding considerations.

As for the QuickSheets, because they are so condensed, because they must cover many examples in very little space, they will not cover all options.

As for websites, they will continue to develop new structures that will force us to continue to rethink what we're using and how it can most clearly be cited.

As for digital image vs. page number: They are two different things. When both exist, both are usually essential.

• The digital image is an aspect of the website. It's usable only at that website. It's included in the part of the citation in which we identify the website.
• The page number of a volume is an aspect of that original volume. It applies only to that volume. We use it in the part of the citation that identifies the original volume.

As researchers, when we create the citation, our one mandate on this point is to not confuse page numbers with image numbers. We make it clear what each cited number represents by attaching it to the appropriate part of the citation and by using the identifier "page" or "image."

As for layers, both of the approaches we have discussed uses layers.

• Your initial approach requires three layers: (1) ID of the original register, page, and specific item; (2) ID of the database, website, and image; and (3) source-of-the-source data.
• The path/waypoints approach uses just two layers: (1) ID of the database, website, image, and specific item; and (2) source-of-the-source data

The lack of an identified church register has me confused. What would you suggest as the Subsequent Note for the suggested First Reference Note (as replicated below)?

“London, England, Church of England Births and Baptisms, 1813-1917,” database with images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com : 30 June 2018) > Wandsworth > St. Mary, Battersea > 1901-1906 > image 25, being p. 49, entry 386 for Charles William John Coe, baptized 6 July 1902; citing "Board of Guardian Records and Church of England Parish Registers. London Metropolitan Archives; London, England”; Reference Number: P70/MRY2/024.

Would it be something like the following, or is there a better way to handle this?

“London, England, Church of England Births and Baptisms, 1813-1917,” Parish of Saint Mary, Battersea (Wandsworth, London, England), p. 49, entry 386 for Charles William John Coe, baptized 6 July 1902.