Citation Issues

Hi! I'm uncertain about which location to cite for homestead records. Dennie submitted his application for land in Oklahoma Territory. By the time he "proved up," the area was part of Kiowa County. Shortly thereafter, it became Tillman County. Which do you think is most appropriate?

I have read several older posts concerning this subject, but failed to see what I view as a possible solution.  I have several pension files, both of the soldier and his widow, ordered by mail from NARA.  As noted in the other posts, no documentation was included.  Yes, you can cite the index, but this doesn't provide the details of where the file itself is located.  Would it not be acceptable practice to cite these copies as an "artifact", in my possession, with a note describing when and where they were obtained?  

I’m trying to cite an online image at FamilySearch of a Rhode Island Town Record (Birth, Marriage Deaths).

The image in question is: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-6QRW-1W3?i=69&cc=2297208&cat=125060

Dear EE,

I have requested several death certificates from state vital records offices, and I received certified image copies of the originals.  I can tell they are the originals by the handwritten signatures and dates.  I have been citing them using the state-level vital records model, but now I am wondering whether I should indicate that they are image copies of the originals.  If so, is that another layer or do I just add "certified image copy of" birth certificate in the first layer?

I have 2 versions of my birth certificate that I am creating citations for as an exercise in understanding citation rules.  I would like some feedback about whether I am formatting the artifact version correctly.

Version 1:  State-issued photocopy of birth certificate with raised seal, supplied to me by my mother (artifact)

Source list

Oregon.  Division of Health.  Birth Records.  Vital Records Unit.  Portland.

I'm a little stumped. I came across a birth certificate for a distant relative on the NYC Historical Vital Records website for a Fred Layton, b. 1890,  which looks like it was corrected at a later date. However, this is the original certificate that was amended, not the one issued to Francis LeRoy Layton in 1942. Would I still cite it as in 9.35?

https://a860-historicalvitalrecords.nyc.gov/view/318596

Hello and Happy New Year,

I saw that FamilySearch has recommended using its digital image numbers now that they have moved from microfilm. Given this update, is it possibly time to consider only using the digital numbers rather than long URLs in citations? The long URLs are not useful in print publications. For online material, URLs could just as easily be underlying links to text. Using identifiers has been long practiced for books. Would love to see easier to parse citations without the long web links when they may not be essential.

Maybe something like this:

Hi,

Looking at the QuickCheck model for the unpublished dissertation or thesis on p100 of EE, I see in the First Refence note that the surname is given in the form surname, given names and followed by a full stop. This is what I would expect in the Source List entry, not a footnote.  Similarly, in the Source list entry the dissertation title is followed by a comma before the closing quotes. Should this be a full stop, or is the Manuscript type meant to be linked to the title?