Citation Issues

I finally got a chance to review my first microfilm on German ancestors. Imagine my delight to find the birth records of all six children, in addition (sadly) to the deaths of four of the children. Now I'm struggling to write new citations. This is an example of just one of the many, using EE as a guide, 7.40 Germany, pp 358-359. Did I capture more than I needed? Or did I overlook something? (Line 1 is the title page of the microfilm)

Hi,

I'm trying to work out which source citation is going to be best for a series of (thick heavy) books that in their time where the equivalent of today's phone books but with loads of extra important information for the people of that time, and easily held 1500-2000 pages.  They were published yearly for around 75 years (1858-1933) only missing a handful of years in that time.

I'm somewhat confused on how to cite vital records located at the Wisconsin Historical Society, Library and Archives (WHSLA). This actually pertains to using a mixture of the society's information on the film box and the filmer's target information.

Example: Centenial [sic] Washington Jerry, b. 27 May 1877

Oh no, he's back.

I have done a Video Blog on how I handle Emails within the Family Tree Maker (FTM2014) program.

http://ftmuser.blogspot.com/2014/04/ftm2014-how-i-handle-emails_28.html

After I did that, I thought I would see if I could use the Template feature in that program to craft a reasonable Reference Note (FTM2014's term)

I am trying to cite Find A Grave for the following grave: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=28456886 

Where I run into confusion is with the photo and site attribution. The site was created by "EL" which when one follows up to get a name, this is what is provided:

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=mr&MRid=46539242 It seems to infer that EL may also have been a photographer to some extent. Their is no further way to identify this person other than as "EL."

Dear editor,

I have been working on a one-place-study in collaboration with another researcher. We both made copies at the archives, all marked with citations to the original source. He has now passed away and I have inherited his collection. I would like to know how to cite these photocopies. 

OK, another one.  I have a digital image received from a mailing list subscriber (the Lovelace list on Rootsweb) of an original marriage license, complete with affixed stamp.  The subscriber received the image from his daughter.  His daughter works with the woman who is in possession of the certificate.  She took the photo on a smartphone when the co-worker brought the certificate for her to look at.

I have just received copies of some naturalization papers from the South Carolina Archives.  They were copied from a microfilm which appears to be an in-house filming project, as the Family History Library doesn't have the film in their catalog.  Info from the SC Archives website:

--------------

"Record Group Number:  000044

Series Number:  .L 44067

Creator:  South Carolina. Court of Common Pleas (Union County)

Title, Dates:  Citizenship petitions, circa 1802-1910

Quantity:  1.00 microfilm reel(s)"

--------------

Dear Editor,

I have been asked a couple of times as to how to Cite information from an Ancestry Member Tree (AMT). I use the Family Tree Maker (FTM2014) program and rarely use information from an AMT, but may look for hints for other places to do research.

Rather than typing out the details here, I did a blog post on this topic and would be very interested in your response. I see many, many negative messages, everywhere on the use of the AMTs, but I am hoping that I may have offered a different view on this topic.

Hi,

I need to cite various newspaper articles that appear on the Australian website Trove among their newspapers section -  - all of these papers were orignally printed, and have in recent years been scanned from the orginal papers or digitised from microfilm records and made available online.

Trove very helpfully provides a variety of ready-made citations and I've been using those, but I am wondering if those are the most ideal citation to use in the situation, or if there is something better.