Citation Issues

I purchased a booklet several years ago in PDF format published by a local historical society. It's supposed to be a transcription of an old store account book in which the owner logged marriages and deaths in a local town in NY.  The original booklet is not paginated, contains no section headers, (nor is there any implied sections. Marriages and deaths are not chronological, alphabetical or even separated into 2 groups). I'm having a hard time putting together the citation.

This is what I have so far.

From looking around and searching, I seem to be understanding that in a citation it may not be necessary to cite dates unless it is fundamental to relocating the record(s). For example, will books that have no number or letter but do have a date range would be something like: state, county, Will book 1840-1846, p300, etc.; while one that does have a number/letter would be something like: state, county, Will book J, p300, etc.

I am new to Genealogy research and I want to be sure I start off on the right foot. I've read and re-read chapter 2 of the 3rd edition of EE. I am still uncertain as to the difference between the "Source List" and the "Source List Entry." Are they the same thing? Also, can I make a comparison between Family Tree Maker's "Source Title, Citation Detail, Citation Text and Reference Note" and EE's "Source List Entry and First Reference Note". Is there any similarity? Thank You for any help.

I inherited all of my dad's research notes and materials. He was actually writing a family history book, but he passed away before he finished it.  What is the best format to use for a reference note for his research notes?

Thanks!

What are the thoughts on using URL shorteners?

When an archive isn't using some sort of persistent ID, you end up with lots of gobbley gook that isn't guaranteed to be persistent (like the following

I am wanting to cite a quote from this website that states "New York State did not require local governments to report births, marriages, and deaths until 1880."

This is what I have come up with, but was after US based folk opinions. I am in Australia.

I have certified copies of vital records that I have acquired over the years and am working on re-entering the records with correct citations into a new software program (correcting years of bad habits). A simple citation for my grandfather's birth certificate would be: 

North Dakota Bureau of Vital Statistics, birth certificate no. 12913 (1917), Lineol Joseph Gow; Department of Health and Consolidated Laboratories, Bismarck.

So here's my issue, i've located an unsourced photocopy of a death certificate, issued by Germany, for a Dutch citizen. The dates are right so it's likely valid. Here goes my citation for this.

Layer 1 is the certificate, issued by the 3rd Reich. Layer2 is the web site where i located the information. Layer 3 should be the repository for this information but it's not given (sure wish those who'd done this had read EE and put the citation on the photocopy, one can hope for the future :)

Recently, I did some record exploring with FamilySearch.org and took screenshots of some of the records I found to share. As I was compiling the data, I went back to verify the records and discovered that the first screenshot I took of one of the records never came up that way again. Has anyone ran across such an issue before?

I see that CMOS, 17th ed., says that using ibid is discouraged.  But my Evidence Explained, 3rd ed., supports using ibid.  For my own use, I prefer ibid rather than a subsequent note (in the right situation, of course) - it makes the footnote section look a bit cleaner.  Just wondering what is the current EE thinking on this - follow CMOS or encourage the use of ibid?  Thanks so much!