Citation Issues

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:

Hello,

I have recently purchased your book for my genealogy coursework.  I have received permission to use several photographs from Find A Grave in my family tree.  I don't really see a section in the book that will help me write a citation for these photographs.  The section on Web-Based miscellanea doesn't really address photographs and the section on photographs doesn't really address citation beyond a digital image.

Thank you very much for your assistance and I apologize in advance if I am being blind and idiotic with my question,

genealogylady

After reading EE, I am still a little confused about the use of the shortened form of a citation.  Can you help me better understand the principles that apply to the use of shortened forms of citations.

For example, consider census records.  Subsequent footnotes can differ as:

In the Netherlands, we've got a national website, Genlias, that provides an index of civil registration records (births, marriages and deaths). The website is created by a consortium of provincial archives. As a user, you only see one search form and results are displayed regardless of which archive or which source contributed the index entry. In other words: the website acts as a single database. 

I have recently discovered some of my ancestors in old city directories!

One was in the 1890 Chicago directory, which I found on microfilm at the Library (not online).  It seemed easy to build that citation following 12.55 (though I now realize I should've copied more information off the BOX the film was in).

Now I am looking at the 1907 and 1908 Detroit directories.  More specifically, I found two images on Ancestry for one of my ancestors in each of those two years.

I read Evidence several years ago and didn't pursue family history due to illness. Now am trying again. Just finished re-reading Evidence.

At Ancestry.com, federal census images of the mortality schedules are in the database "U.S. Federal Census Mortality Schedules, 1850–1885." Would my citation use the database or do I cite a mortality schedule relatively the same as a population schedule?

In EE 6.33–6.35, "'Nonpopulation' Schedules," there is no example for citing an online image; but, I feel as though my citation should be akin to typical population schedules.

Here are my two possibilities: