Citation Issues

FamilySearch has published a record collection, "Arkansas, Death Index, 1914-1950," that it obtained from Ancestry.com.

When citing the FamilySearch collection in a source list, how much provenance should be included? I'm inclined to cite it as:

• "Arkansas, Death Index, 1914-1950." Index. FamilySearch. http://FamilySearch.org : accessed 2012. Citing Ancestry.com. www.ancestry.com : 2005.

Should I attempt to indicate where Ancestry.com says they obtained the records from? (Genealogical Society, Little Rock.)

EE 9.6 indicates that when citing an online digital image, you cite the image as you would the original and then "append" the identification of the web publication.

The first reference note example given at EE 11.33 at first glance appears to me to not follow the above guideline:

Everett, Massachusetts, "BIRTHS REGISTERED IN THE Town of Everett, Mass.," 1870, p. 163 (penned), no. 7, Mary Amelia Hickok, 13 May 1870, Everett; digital images, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "Massachusetts, Births, 1841-1915," FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org : accessed 6 Nov 2012); FHL microfilm 1,428,073.

EE, at 2.43, states:

"When we omit words from the middle of the title, as with Burgner, we should replace the words with an ellipsis (three dots preceded and followed by a space).  When we use only the first few words and omit the remainder, as with Linebaugh and Rediker, no ellipsis points are needed."

Is the same thing true for quoting text from a source? That is, is the ellipsis at the end of the quotation below non-standard/wrong/unnecessary?

Is it proper to use "(penned)" after a page number for any records other than censuses?  Is the sole purpose for doing so in censuses to distinguish between multiple/different page numbers on the same page, such that telling someone in a citation to a town register that has a penned page (and no other page numbers on that same page) unnecessary?

EE seems to use "digital images" for the most part, if not exclusively, while the Ancestry Quicksheet several times uses "digital image."  Does it matter?  If so, what are the guidelines for using each one?

Using censuses as an example, last names of family names other than the head of the family are not spelled out, but ditto marks or "do" is used, and places/states of birth are often abbreviated.  Is it standard to simply give the presumed name and/or state without explanation or should one be showing exactly what is in the census, such as in the reference note below, so that someone else can come to their own conclusion?

My impression is that "entry for" is generally used in citations that refer to databases.  An example from the Ancestry.com QuickSheet:

"Washington Deaths, 1891-1907, database, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 22 January 2009), entry for Adam Engler, 2 June 1899, Spokane; citing "Various county death registers, microfilm, Washington State Archives, Olympia."

Yet the same QuickSheet has a full reference note for a city directory image that uses "entry for":

"MARRIAGES.," Hartford Daily Courant, 18 Apr 1866, digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 3 Nov 2012), Historical Newspapers, Birth, Marriage, & Death Announcements, 1851 - 2003. "HICKOK--NEARING--In West Granby, April 3, by Rev. J. Simpson, Gilman C. Hickok, of Boston, and Jessie A. Nearing, of West Granby."

I'm having trouble deciding on the correct citation formats for New Hampshire vital records found in several databases, indexes, and image collections on FamilySearch and Ancestry. For a specific example, I have death records for my great-grandmother from the following collections/databases: