Tweaking QuickCheck Model formats for bibliographic sorting

Dear Editor;

When citing English parish registers, as imaged on, 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 ( : 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 ( : 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.

Submitted byEEon Wed, 10/30/2019 - 10:27

History-Hunter, EE 2.47-2.53 discusses a variety of options for arranging our bibliography / source list. Geographic arrangement is 2.50.  The QuickCheck model for English church records imaged online demonstrates one of the options. It's perfectly fine to choose another.

(My answer is brief. After nearly 20 hours of bad weather and no action from my cloud server, it delivered this just as I was headed out the door to the airport .... )

Dear Editor;

Thank you for your succinct answer. It appears that the "rules" for the construction of Source List Entries for online collections are far more forgiving than I thought. If one includes the collection name in quotes, to make sure the exact source name is captured, one can create a more meaningful hierarchy by which to sort the list.

I trust your trip will be a pleasant one.

Yes, History-Hunter. When we cite a specific database at Ancestry (aka "collection"), we put quotation marks around the exact title of that database. Always. The particular QuickCheck model you mention does not include that field, because that website is owned by the church itself and has only one database. All that has to be cited there is the website. But if you'll thumb back to the QuickStart Guide tipped into the front of EE, you'll see that it's included in the basic pattern.