Citation Issues

I have 2 versions of my birth certificate that I am creating citations for as an exercise in understanding citation rules.  I would like some feedback about whether I am formatting the artifact version correctly.

Version 1:  State-issued photocopy of birth certificate with raised seal, supplied to me by my mother (artifact)

Source list

Oregon.  Division of Health.  Birth Records.  Vital Records Unit.  Portland.

I'm a little stumped. I came across a birth certificate for a distant relative on the NYC Historical Vital Records website for a Fred Layton, b. 1890,  which looks like it was corrected at a later date. However, this is the original certificate that was amended, not the one issued to Francis LeRoy Layton in 1942. Would I still cite it as in 9.35?

https://a860-historicalvitalrecords.nyc.gov/view/318596

Hello and Happy New Year,

I saw that FamilySearch has recommended using its digital image numbers now that they have moved from microfilm. Given this update, is it possibly time to consider only using the digital numbers rather than long URLs in citations? The long URLs are not useful in print publications. For online material, URLs could just as easily be underlying links to text. Using identifiers has been long practiced for books. Would love to see easier to parse citations without the long web links when they may not be essential.

Maybe something like this:

Hi,

Looking at the QuickCheck model for the unpublished dissertation or thesis on p100 of EE, I see in the First Refence note that the surname is given in the form surname, given names and followed by a full stop. This is what I would expect in the Source List entry, not a footnote.  Similarly, in the Source list entry the dissertation title is followed by a comma before the closing quotes. Should this be a full stop, or is the Manuscript type meant to be linked to the title?

I want to cite a naturalization record for Charles K. Kelly imaged here: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSMV-Y929-N

Looking at the FamilySearch catalog for these records, it almost looks like they should be cited as federal records, but the authors are listed as Circuit and District Courts:

https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/1344633?availability=Family%20History%20Library

I've reviewed various sections of Evidence Explained 3rd revised ed., but it only seems to have muddied the waters.

I am working on a history blog post that is based partly on information drawn from the Documents of the Assembly of the State of New-York. These were compilations published after each legislative session during the 19th century. They contain reports, transcripts of testimony, etc.

I am citing information about a medical license issued by the District Court in Williamson County, Texas, but because this record set is new to me, I thought I'd get input on this citation

Williamson County, Texas Medical Register: 76, A. C. Mussil medical license, 3 December 1909; digital images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-89QS-J99X-K?i=250&cat=457558 : accessed 19 Nov 2023), image 251 of film 5788521.

The book spine is imaged here: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-89QS-J99P-3?i=186&cat=457558

I was revisiting some of my citations, but I still feel insecure about citations, so I wanted your thoughts on this one:

Williamstown, Orange County, Vermont, "Record of Births 1897-1903,"  p. 8, Sabra Margaret Cross; digital image,  "Vermont, Town Clerk, Vital and Town Records, 1732-2005," FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QSQ-G99D-Q9WK-V?i=148: 6 Nov 2023). 

I read over sections 7.24 & 7.25 in the EE book and have a question about why the event dates and document dates vary in their presentation as they do. As both refer to artifacts, I would have expected the dates to be presented in a similar way. I just need a bit of help to understand if there is a specific reason for this.


A) In the 7.24 example, the certificate date is shown as, "Rogers-Morgan marriage certificate (1848 marriage); issued  1971...", in both the source list and reference note.