Citation Issues

I inherited a Certificate of Birth for my great grandfather. He was born in 1892, and it appears he needed a birth certificate for some reason and so ordered this document in 1912.  The information was extracted from the original Birth Registers of the Parish.  I'm trying to figure out what a proper citation for this document would look like.  I have both the original blue paper certificate, and I've also digitally scanned the document (because it's very delicate and falling apart).  I probably would want to cite the actual certificate, not the digital image of the certificate. 

Dear Editor,

I know you've addressed this several times, within the pages of EE, the QuickLessons, and in the forum, but I'm still not getting it.

We do so much of our research online now, viewing images of original documents.

The question:  Do we try to cite the original document as the first part of the citation, followed by the website information, or is it the other way around?

Or is either acceptable, or does it "depend?"

I'm not entirely sure how I should cite a street view image from Google Maps. It is an image rather than a map, so I think this is what I've come up with for my full reference note:

505 Hayes Avenue, Helena, Montana; digital image, June 2012, “Street View,” GoogleMaps (http://www.googlemaps.com : accessed 29 August 2015).

It includes the date the photo was taken, according to Google, along with the day I accessed the image. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Nancy

Please email me at <address not visible> as I would like personal instruction on entering source information for Kansas State Censuses on Ancestry.com where the original appears to be at the Kansas Historical Society. Using RM7. Look forward to a quick reply from EE STAFF ONLY.

Greg

Dear Editor,

Recently, Ancestry.com made a change in the User’s experience when merging a record from their record collection into an Ancestry Member Tree (AMT) (online tree) or the Family Tree Maker program, Version 2014 (FTM2014).

The Patch Notes for FTM2014 are HERE:[1]

Up to now the online images of FHL microfilm I've used have been GSU (FHL) films of original records.

I've now run across an FHL microfilm that appears to be a copy of a preservation microfilm made by a state agency.  The microfilm header has the FHL film number but does not have the usual GSU filming information, but rather has information from the state agency.  There's no clear mention by FamilySearch that the FHL microfilm is a copy of another microfilm, however.

Is it appropriate to add the agency microfilm to the citation as:

In an effort to come up with a citation for  a draft registration card for WWII found at Ancestry, I am looking at EE 11.33 (second and third editions).  I would like to begin with my questions about the second edition example and I would appreciate very much your comments to the following:

Christopher Ferraci (2nd edition)

In section 11.33 Military: Draft Registrations, it lists the following source list entry:

“World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917–1918.” Database and images. Ancestry.com. http://www.ancestry.com : 2007.

My question in in regards to the listing in the source list entry of the year of access. If one finds records in this database over the course of a few years, it would seem redundant to have a source list with the following entries:

I continue to be uncertain about the typical or appropriate or better way to cite certain aspects dealing with census images.

I am looking at the QuickCheck Model Microfilm: Population Schedules 1880-1940 on page 248 (third edition).

The first reference note includes both page 246-B (stamped) and sheet 12-B.

I am trying to construct a citation for an online image of a typescript (published) that's a collection of abstracts of wills.  I would like to include the citation to the original source given in that collection.

Since this is an online image, I thought the citation should lead with the item in the image (as if I'm citing the original).  I couldn't figure out how to cleanly include the citation to the original records, so I rearranged the layers of the citation, and ended up this way: