Citing Norway Church Books on DigitalArkivet (arkivverket.no)

Brad, you say you are "trying" to learn. It looks to us like you're succeeding, not just "trying"!

Question 1:
For square brackets, you could put them inside or outside, given that square brackets mean that this is an editorial addition. Sometimes, the choice will depend upon the context and what would be clearest to the reader.

Question 2:
Parentheses are more ambiguous than square brackets. If the parentheses are there in the original, EE would retain them and place the parenthetical word within the quote.

Question 3:
If the archives' own title or label has no punctuation, we might simply replicate what we see or we might choose to punctuate it for clarity.  Your choice!

A thumbs-up, Dannyandkate.  (Our website guru needs to give us that option, no?)

Brad, as I understand it, your question relates to the second layer of the citation, which you have revised to include the name of the database in which the image is found. Yes? 

If so, I would make one suggestion. That second layer should be introduced by a phrase such as "imaged at ...," so that readers of your citation do not assume that the first part of your citation (the part before the semicolon) relates to one source while the part after the semicolon relates to another source. The revision blurs that point.  Now that you have identified the database, EE’s second layer would be:

...; imaged as "Digitized Parish Registers," database with images, National Archives of Norway, Digitalarkivet  (http://www.arkivverket.no/URN:kb_read?idx_kildeid=5886&idx_id=5886&uid=ny&idx_side=-268 : accessed 9 February 2015).

However …

You have also revised the first layer of your citation as well, adding a wee bit of punctuation that has led to opening a can of worms. Your first layer initially read:

Lier Parish (Lier, Buskerud, Norway), Parish Register (official) number 14 1875-1882, "C. Ægteviede [Marriage]," p. 318, no. 24, 29 June 1877;

It now reads:

Lier Parish (Lier, Buskerud, Norway), Parish Register “(official)” number 14 (1875-1882), "C. Ægteviede [Marriage]," p. 318, no. 24, 29 June 1877;

Question: Why are you using both quotation marks and parentheses to set off that word official?

Parentheses indicate thaht we are inserting some kind of explanation. Quotation marks mean that we are actually quoting something. But rarely would we quote just one word of a record unless it has some peculiar significance. Logically, we might use “official number 14 (1875-1882)” if we are quoting exactly from the title of the book. However, common practice when citing a record series by its number (as opposed to citing the exact title of an individual register) would be just to say Register 14 (1875-1882).

My effort to figure out what is special about the word “official” led me to use your link to examine the record. That’s when the can of worms opened up and 3 puzzlers crawled out:

• Where did you get the information that this was Register 14 for the parish?
• Your phrase “C. Ægteviede [Marriage]” represents the section of the book but, without telling the reader that, the logical supposition is that this is the title of the book.
• Frame 1 of that digitized film gives us the title of the individual book:

Ministerial-Bog, Lies Praestegjeld, Askers Provstie; Begynbt dan 4^th? Januar 1875; Glattet den 31 Deiember 1882.

So, back to your phrasing:  Parish Register “(official)” number 14 ...

Given that this phrase doesn’t appear on the title page, and the number 14 doesn’t appear there,  are you perhaps taking this from a descriptor that the database itself supplies?

Brad, you're a superb analyst.  Below, I’ll comment on some of your observations and do one last bit of tinkering with your citation:

"When standing alone, the sections of the book's title are separated by semicolons rather than commas.  This could be confusing when we are also using the semicolon to separate layers of the citation.  Perhaps the title can be shortened."

EE would not shorten the title of the register because each piece of data is essential. The way to avoid “confusing” anyone is to follow the principle of using quotation marks around the titles of manuscripts or unpublished registers. (To put it another way: When we copy a title exactly, we use the quote marks because we are quoting.  If we generically cite the series—say, Parish register no. 14—then we don’t use quotation marks unless that exact phrase appear on the cover or title page.)

"Since the entire website is created by the National Archives of Norway, perhaps it is not necessary to include the creator."

It is essential to cite the creator of the website when the website name contains no clue to the identity of the creator. But, we would not site NAN twice, as creator of the database and as creator of the website.

"I notice that when citations are complex, sometimes words such as 'imaged as' or 'citing' are used following the semicolon that divides the layers.  I am not sure when to use these words nor do I understand the best words to use for a given situation.

Each of those two phrases “imaged as” or “citing” means exactly what the word or phrase says.  When we cite an original document that is imaged online, after our citation to the record we end it with a semicolon and start the next layer with “imaged as ….” or "imaged in" (which is more precise when we're citing a database that contains the image). When  we cite a database and that database itself cites its own source, then close out our citation to the database with a semicolon and start the third layer saying that what we have just identified is “citing [whatever]."

Lier Parish (Lier, Buskerud, Norway), Ministerial-Bog, Lier Præstegjeld, Askers Provstie 1875-1882, section "C. Ægteviede [Marriage]," p. 318, line 24; imaged as "Digitized Parish Registers," database and digital images, Digitalarkivet (http://www.arkivverket.no/URN:kb_read?idx_kildeid=5886&idx_id=5886&uid=ny&idx_side=-268 : accessed 9 February 2015), English language path: Buskerud > Lier > 1875-1882, Parish register (official), image 318; citing Regional State Archives of Kongsberg.

As an aside here, when I go back to the title page of the book (http://www.arkivverket.no/URN:kb_read?idx_side=1&show=269&uid=141344&urnread_imagesize=medium&hode=nei&ls=1) I’m reading the ID of the parish as “Liers,” rather than Lier. The location today seems to be “Lier,” but when we copy the name of the book straight from the title page, we need to copy exactly. Also, that title page gives exact starting and ending date. EE's citation (using red to flag differences between yours and ours) would be:

Lier Parish (Lier, Buskerud, Norway), “Ministerial-Bog for Liers Præstegjeld, Askers Provstie … 4 Januar 1875 [to]  31 Deiember 1882,” section "C. Ægteviede [Marriage]," p. 318, entry 24; imaged in "Digitized Parish Registers," database and digital images, Digitalarkivet (http://www.arkivverket.no/URN:kb_read?idx_kildeid=5886&idx_id=5886&uid=ny&idx_side=-268 : accessed 9 February 2015), English language path: Buskerud > Lier > 1875-1882, Parish register (official), image 318; citing Regional State Archives of Kongsberg.

Incidentally, in case you're wondering why EE would change your word "line" to "entry," it's because the numbers on that register page don't represent lines. The registration entry you're interested in actually has four lines.  (And no, nobody will take away your license to do genealogy over a point like this. But you obviously are trying to learn all the reasoning behind each practice, so I'll cover this nit as well.)

Brad, I might also add that whatever we submit to the editor of a good, peer-reviewed journal can never be "exactly how it will be done" if it is accepted for publication. We can't even assume that after we do whatever revisions the peer-review justifies, that what we supply is "exactly how it will be done." Good journals have good editors. They edit.