Citation Issues

How do I distingish between a birth register I saw in person and a photocopy that was sent from an archive? 

I was provided with a photocopy of the register and a note in pen on top that said, "Volume CE, p. 349 21 Janaury 1873".  I crafted the citation below.  Do I need to distingish between going to the archive myself and having them sent me a photocopy? 

Newark, New Jersey, Return of Births, volume CE, p. 349, 21 Jan 1873 entry for male child of William W. and Sarah Hawkins; New Jersey State Archives, Trenton.

Shannon

Ancestry references FHL film, but doesn't cite film number:

Ancestry.com. 1850 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2009. Images reproduced by FamilySearch.

Do I go to FamilySearch and find the film number, or say something like "No film number given?" I am looking at the images on Ancestry.

Sue

I would like to preface my question by explaining I’m continuing the daunting task of cleaning up my family tree.  Normally, I would put an answer to a forum question in my research notes then go off to find the documentation.  But in this case, because of the author, I feel the need to give credit where it is due.  And yes, I have gone on and found documentation backing this information up. 

So, how do I write the First (Full) Reference note?

Following “Core elements to cite 2.33” I have the following:

I wanted to ask a couple of very basic questions about the high-level structure of genealogical citations. I need to make sure I "cover my bases" before discussing certain topics in more depth within FHISO (see below). I hope, too, that others benefit from the answers I'll receive  ;-)

1) Can you direct me to a succinct but accurate definition of a "layered citation"? I'm especially interested in whether they also apply to source-of-source issues as well as derivative editions.

When citing census pages for England & Wales -- whether on Ancestry or findmypast -- I tend to use 'database' to indicate the nature of source being consulted. I used to specify 'digital image' but was informed that this is incorrect.

I'm crafting a citation for a source that doesn't seem to neatly fit into any of EE's many categories nor into any hybrid combinations. The original record is a straightforward deed that would follow the basic formats in section 10.5. These records have been digitized and made available through computer terminals at the recorder's office but without Internet access. So it would seem that a layered citation is required, but both layers are supplied by the same agency. This is what I came up with as a citation:

Don't we all just love Ancestry.com and using their stuff in our research?  I have found a family tree there that I am referring to in a client report.  Trouble is, no matter many times I hint that I would like the submitter's name, it is not given.  Sooo...  I have the following citation that I constructed using the template for Documented family tree data in the "Citing Ancestry.com Databases and Images" Quicksheet:

I have my original Texas Marriage License that was returned after being recorded by the county clerk.  I am not sure how to cite this record.  Do I cite it as a privately held item or do I cite it as a loose papers government record following EE 9.5?  Or, another option is do I make two separtate citations, one as a privately held artifact and a second as a marriage record as it is recorded at the county office from the back of the certificate where this information is documented (EE 9.4).

Could this work as a citation?

I am a couple of weeks old in experience with Evidence Explained, so please bear with me on this. I’m sort of feeling like a ditz here.

As an example, I want to use the following source: https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/VC19-8GQ

In this one record, I have:

1.       The marriage date for Johann Heinrich Metzler and Anna Katharina Seibert

2.       The location of their marriage.

3.       The birth date for Johann Heinrich Metzler.

4.       The birth date for Anna Katharina Seibert.

What's the consensus regarding citation of a prior work by ones self? For instance, if you have previously made a particular case, or a reasoned argument, and you wish to make reference to it in a new work.

In scientific and mathematical works, there would be no difference, but I wanted to confirm this in the specific realm of genealogy and historical research because the subjectiveness of an authored work rates less highly than more objective sources, and for fear it sounds like the I-disease.