I didn't see the other half of the top part via that link from Dave, perhaps ancestry missed it out?
Though Kings Norton does "appear" one way or another on the images on either side.
I get the feeling that this dataset was not Ancestry's finest hour :-) You are not (ever as it stands) going to be able to navigate back/forward to find all the parts of each huge page (as I am used to doing e.g. in the Diocese of Durham BTs on FS)
Ancestry do not seem to have grasped that the images of all the sections of each page belong to the same parish - no, I have no idea why - its hardly rocket science
Look at each of the images
1 the image linked to the first result I found which Dave originally posted starts part way down the page
at the top it says parish is 'not stated' and we are looking at image 15610 of 30280
2 the image linked to the second result I found
that says its King Norton Parish and its image 127 of 224
I am not about to check each image in each database but a quick 'spot check' of 10 random numbered images from each set leads me to believe its quite possible that Ancestry have only included the section of the page that includes the Parish name as belonging to the parish and all other sections (which may be a few from each page) are lumped together as 'unknown' parishes :-(
so for Worcestershire BTs on Ancestry there are 'potentially' 30280 images which are reported in the results as being an unknown Parish somewhere in Worcestershire.
Boo