When citing English parish registers, as imaged on Ancestry.com, I've tried to use the "QuickCheck Model," "IMAGE COPIES: DIGITIZED ONLINE." (Yes; I'm still fine-tuning my style for various citations and learning more about the subject as I go.)
On Ancestry, the subject collection is “Surrey, England, Church of England Burials, 1813-1987.” The image comes from [parish] "Petersham, St Peter and All Saints" > [date range] "1870-1958."
As you can see, Ancestry has all the Surrey Church of England burials grouped in a single collection.
Many of my ancestors come from one or two counties, so...
A) Would it be correct to deviate from the model and set up the "Source Entry List" as follows, so that in my bibliography it sorts geographically?
England. Surrey. Church of England. Burials. “Surrey, England, Church of England Burials, 1813-1987.” Database with Images. Ancestry (https://search.ancestry.ca/search/db.aspx?dbid=4786 : 2019)
B) Could I then revert to the model, in my "First Reference Note," as follows?
St Peter and All Saints Parish (Petersham, Surrey, England), Register of Burials, 1870-1958, p. 43, entry for Arthur Colborne (age 59, buried 8 January 1902); image, “Surrey, England, Church of England Burials, 1813-1987,” Ancestry (https://search.ancestry.ca/search/db.aspx?dbid=4786 : accessed 12 October 2019); citing reference 3191/7, Surrey Church of England Parish Registers, Surrey History Centre, Woking, Surrey, England. The specific entry bears a marginal note, “21,” “W-V,” “son of,” “See 299.” Entry 229 is for Arthur Colborne (age 81, buried 9 December 1896,) presumably his father. That entry bears a marginal note, “21,” “U.” The series of register images also include appended loose certificates of mixed dates.
I should note that I appended the source-of-the-source, which was a bit hard to figure out. I assume the model example didn't include one since the source was the church itself. I also tend to add some explanatory notes for unusual cases, such as this one, in which they may be significant.