Feedback on citations of probate records accessed through Ancestry

Hello, ancestrywithtaylor. For the first citation, you propose:

Lamar [or Lamar County or Paris], "Final Probate Record," Vol B, pp. 129-45, John W. Smith, died 21 September 1946 [or what date?], no. 136; imaged in "Texas, U.S., Wills and Probate Records, 1833-1974," database with images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/2115/ : accessed 4 May 2023) > Lamar > Court Records, Vol B, 1845-1848 >  images 75-83 of 263;  imaged from microfilm 03594521603, roll 59, Genealogical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah.

EE would tinker just a bit:

Lamar County, Texas, "Final Probate Record," Vol. B, pp. 129–45, petition of Charlotte Smith, administration on estate of John W. Smith, 26 November 1846; imaged in "Texas, U.S., Wills and Probate Records, 1833-1974," database with images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/2115/ : accessed 4 May 2023) > Lamar > Court Records, Vol B, 1845-1848 >  images 75–76 of 263;  imaged from FamilySearch Library microfilm 1293684, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Or

Lamar County, Texas, "Final Probate Record," Vol. B, pp. 129–45, probate, estate of John W. Smith, opened 26 November 1846; imaged in "Texas, U.S., Wills and Probate Records, 1833-1974," database with images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/2115/ : accessed 4 May 2023) > Lamar > Court Records, Vol B, 1845-1848 >  images 75–83 of 263;  imaged from FamilySearch Library microfilm 1293684, Salt Lake City, Utah.

EXPLANATIONS:

Creator field:

The creator of the record was Lamar County, Texas.  Saying just “Lamar” is not sufficient, and the city of Paris did not create the record. It just happens to be the city in which the courthouse is located, but the courthouse did not create the record either. The authority that created/authored the record was Lamar County.

ID of document:

After we cite Lamar County’s book and page, we state what document is on that page.  This is not a death record for John W. Smith, so we would not just give his name and a death date as we would for a death certificate. The whole span of records constitutes the probate of the estate of John W. Smith, which was opened in the November 1846 term of court—specifically on 26 November 1846. The first example above cites the specific document that opened the probate.  As a rule, we cite to a specific document, rather than a generic set of proceedings. That’s why I created the first example. However, if circumstances were to require you to cite the whole set of probate proceedings, then it would be handled by the second example. 

As for the death date itself, that is information you would discuss in the narrative or the research note to which you append this citation.

ID of film: 

I’m not sure where you got the information “microfilm 03594521603, roll 59.” The first image on that roll of film identifies it as film 1293684.  At FamilySearch Library, that record book is cataloged as microfilm 1293684. 

In general terms, to guide you going forward:

• FSL film numbers have no more than 9 digits. If you type 03594521603 in the FSL catalog’s query box, you’ll get that message.
• An FSL film may have smaller parts called “item numbers,” when several items are filmed on a roll.  However, an FSL film number 1293684 (or whatever) would not have a “roll number 59,” because 1293684 is the roll number. (As a comparison, National Archives microfilm will be identified as, say, “micropublication T1234, roll 726” because NARA assigned an alpha-numeric ID to every film publication, then numbered the rolls within that film publication. However, FamilySearch Library gives one distinct number to each roll of film.  If multiple record-sets are on the roll, then each record-set will have an item number, but it will be a very small number of items—nothing like 59.)
• Historically, Genealogical Society of Utah did filming around the world, placing the film at the Family History Library, where the number on the film became Family History Library’s cataloging number. Amid reorganization of the genealogical arm of LDS, things have been simplified under the umbrella “FamilySearch.”  Now the film number is said to be that of the FamilySearch Library.  Given that the film you’ve eyeballed specifically states that it was created by the “Genealogical Society of Utah,” you would not be wrong to say “imaged from Ganealogical Society of Utah microfilm 1293684”; but, if you do, it is essential to include those last two words “of Utah.” Just “Genealogical Society” is not sufficient because there are thousands of entities around the world with “Genealogical Society” in its name.

For the second and third citations, I’m going to let you work through them based on the comments above. Then if you still have questions, we can discuss those specifics.