Do you layer Source List Entries & Subsequent Reference Notes

Thanks for the kind words, Jessica. 

To answer your basic question: Yes, we can create two Source List Entries for a layered citation. There are many instances in which we would want our Source List to reflect both (a) the original record that we used via online images; and (b) the database and website that provide those images.

In this case, your need is likely to confuse readers because you are actually citing two different databases--one for an American record and one for a US record.

To sort through all the issues involved, I’ve added some subheads and indentations to your posting so that our less-experienced readers can better follow our discussion. Let’s focus first on the American record, for which you present

• 2 Source List Entries; and
• 1 First (Full) Reference Note
• 1 Subsequent Reference Note

I confess I’m confused on two points:

1. Why would both Source List Entries start with the same database name?
2. Why would the first Full Reference Note have two citations to Ancestry and two URLs?  Two URLs in the same ref note would signal to your readers that you are citing two entirely different sources.

Possibly, the confusion lies in the core explanation of what a layered citation represents. We typically use this format to cite an original record that has been imaged online, in which case the most basic point is this:

• If Layer 1 is a citation to the original document, then
• Layer 2 is a full citation to the database & website that provides the images, and
• Layer 3 reports whatever source-of-the-source information the website provides.

To extend that logic: if we create two Source List Entries for that citation, then

• Source List Entry no. 1 would cite the original document.
• Source List Entry no. 2 would cite the database.

For the source you’ve used, your Full Reference Note might take one of two approaches. Below, I am using color to separate the three layers—black, red, and brown. I've also added a few details in boldface that I'll subsequently discuss.

Citation to the exact URL:

1. “Salem Monthly Meeting, N.J., Births & Deaths, 1686 [1674]–1798,” p. 5, entry for Henry Jennings, 1677 arrival and family registration in Salem, West Jersey, of births beginning 1642, County Surry, England; imaged in  “U.S., Quaker Meeting Records, 1681–1935,” database with images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/2189/images/31906_284105-00329 : accessed 6 June 2022), image 7 of 68; citing (generically) Quaker monthly meeting records archived at Guilford College (North Carolina), Earlham College (Indiana), and Haverford and Swarthmore Colleges, Pennsylvania.

Citation to the Collection’s URL, plus waypoints:

1. “Salem Monthly Meeting, N.J., Births & Deaths, 1686 [1674]–1798,” p. 5, entry for Henry Jennings, 1677 arrival and family registration in Salem, West Jersey, of births beginning 1642, County Surry, England; imaged in  “U.S., Quaker Meeting Records, 1681–1935,” database with images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/2189/ : accessed 6 June 2022) > New Jersey > Union > Rahway and Plainfield Monthly Meetings > Births and Deaths, 1686–1798, image 7 of 68; citing (generically) Quaker monthly meeting records archived at Guilford College (North Carolina), Earlham College (Indiana), and Haverford and Swarthmore Colleges, Pennsylvania.

Now, when we begin to create the Source List Entries, we see a new issue. 

• In Layer 2, we have sufficient data to create a full citation to the database and website.
• In Layer 1, we do not have sufficient data to create a full citation to the original document. We have an image of a book that carries a typed label but our website provider does not tell us where that book is located. The provider’s source-of-our-source information is much too generic. 

Therefore, our citation to the original—instead of citing the repository where the original is found, which we would typically do with an original register—must cite the database in order for users of our work to be able to access the record from that Source List Entry. The results would be this:

                Source List Entries:

“Salem Monthly Meeting, N.J., Births & Deaths, 1686 [1674]–1798.” Original register. Imaged as “U.S., Quaker Meeting Records, 1681–1935.” Database with images. Ancestry. https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/2189/. 2022.

“U.S., Quaker Meeting Records, 1681–1935.” Database with images. Ancestry. https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/2189/. 2022.

OTHER ISSUES:

Date of the register:

The dates on the typescript label for the book state “1686–1798,” while you state that the Jennings entry is dated 1677. This will puzzle your readers. To address the issue in our citation, we would use square editorial brackets in the book's title to correct the date.

Fuller identification of the Henry Jennings entry:

If our citation only says “1677 Salem, West Jersey,” given that the book’s title is “Births & Deaths” the reader of our citation will again be puzzled. Does 1677 represent a birth or a death? When we examine the register, we see that 1677 does not represent either. Instead, according to p. 4 of the register, it represents the date of the family’s arrival and registration.

Length of citation:

You’ll note that EE’s citation is somewhat shorter in Layer 3. Ancestry’s record identifications/descriptions (which are not actual citations) give us far more information than a citation needs to include. Copying word for word a long description with extraneous details with make our citation so wordy that the essential pieces of data get lost in the sea of words.

With regard to the UK record, do you feel you need to reconsider it, based on our discussion above?