Citation Issues

I want to express my gratitude for Evidence Explained. I use the book and website daily to further my understanding and practice of genealogical research. I have been looking through the forum to see if you have more than one Source List Entry for a layered citation. I have an example with two Source List Entries. However, the Source Entry List with the Database with Images seems sufficiently clear.

I would appreciate direction and corrections to the following:

AMERICAN SOURCE:

I am in the middle of "cleaning up" my citations for correct format, punctuation, consistency, etc., and noticed a difference in my Find A Grave citations from other online database citations. 

What I find I just had. Lloyds of London has published a yearly volume with all (most?) of the ships for the British Empire. The entries include ship owner, ship master, and voyage(s) the ship went on. There isn't really a listed author or editor, unless you take the committee chair as the author. The book is a combination of all of the port agents keeping track of the ships in their port. With that said here's my stab at the citation:

The Ottawa City Archives holds the physical marriage register of St. Andrew's church and sent me by email a digital image of a page which is not numbered and contains chronological multiple entries. I am not sure if the register has a formal title (working on this) but from a book about the church records I know it contains entries from 1858-1930. My attempted citation:

A recent failed search to find a deed record online in a particular record set supposedly imaged at FamilySearch (but apparently not) led me to contact the county register of deeds. An incredibly helpful individual there not only found the deed record, but also sent me images. The originals, it seems are housed elsewhere, but the county office had a book of "certified" transcriptions – or at least, transcriptions held in the register's office – duly copied into another volume using the exact same pagination.

I have been having a private discussion with History Hunter about citing usernames. The discussion started over citing a photograph from a Public Member Tree at Ancestry.

The first try of the citation is on Facebook in the Genealogy – Cite Your Sources group started with “Iveybet,” “Public Family History Content,”.

Based on melding the CMOS examples and that of the EE book, I thought I'd have another try at generating a citation for a of photo of Hazel and Mike Brophy's 50 Anniversary that I obtained from a user account on Ancestry. I've been trying to get this citation to make sense for a while now and could use some feedback. I suspect that I might want to add ", n.d." after the published photo caption.

First Reference Note:

Hello. My niece had a baby in February. As the mother, she completed the Registration of Birth form to be submitted to the province. She took a photo of that signed form before submitting it and sent it to me. I'm waffling as to whether I cite this as a personal artifact or as a provincial-level vital record.

I crafted a citation and decided to see if I could get back to my record following my citation.  Within the record set, FamilySearch gives us this name for citing the collection –"México, Tamaulipas, registros parroquiales, 1703-1964." When I went to the FamilySearch search page and pasted the collection name (in quotes above) it doesn't return any results.  Ultimately, I need to start typing Mexico, Tamaulipas... and collection suggestions populate that actually call the collection "Mexico, Tamaulipas, Catholic Church Records, 1703-1964".

Hi everyone, I am trying to form a proper citation for the birth record of "Hugh Byrne" found on the right side of the record here: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9BY-9Z1H?cat=580583

I've formulated two versions of the citation and am unsure in which order is the correct way, the orignal location first and then FamilySearch info, or the FamilySearch info followed by "citing" ... etc. with the original info. I'm sure I've made other mistakes as well, please let me know!