Citation Issues

The "Search the Online GRO Index" website has become one of my go-to sites for birth and death information in England. I realize the information given by the index is derivative and should serve as an interim source until more definitive evidence (i.e., the actual register) is obtained, but I would still like to cite it occasionally. Here's the format I've been using: 

I am attempting to correctly cite an entry from the 1911 England Census where the data is imaged from the National Archives and the database from which it came is Ancestry.com.

In drafting this, I referred to EE item 6.51 (online database entries), various references in EE to layering, and other guidance on this site.  

I came up with two possibilities.  The first seems like too much information and the second, I feel I'm missing something:

Dear Editor;

I have a number of Canadian documents to file. The organization of the Canadian provincial level administration is a bit different than the American analog. This is making it a bit difficult to follow the "STATE-LEVEL RECORDS VITAL-RECORDS CERTIFICATE" QuickCheck Model.

Maybe trying to literally "fill-in-the-blanks" is the wrong approach. Should I just list as much identifying info as is present, proceeding from the country down to the certificate identification?

The certificate header says:

Dear Editor;

The EE section 3.24 on citing "Privately held materials" is fairly clear to me, but raises a few interesting questions about citing documents within ones own filing structure.

Dear EE,

I am using Google as a primary source to convert a regular date into a Jewish date. I want to do this because the family Bible record had the wrong Jewish date for one of the children's birthdates. The conversion is a feature Google itself offers, not a particular website. Do I cite just the search criteria used, or do I also cite the result (which is not in Hebrew characters, but transliterated to English characters)? I am using part of what I see in the EE p661 QuickCheck model.

What do you think of this (note, I use the <i> tag to indicate italics):

Dear EE,

Dear Editor,

I have read EE 7.43 and have generally used your citation example for the OPR's when I have purchased and downloaded a copy of the church register record from the ScotlandsPeople website (https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk) - maintained by the National Records of Scotland.  

tweaked slightly from 7.43 :

First Reference Note:

Ceres Parish (Fife, Scotland), Old Parish Registers, OPR 415/2, page 299, Elspeth Band, baptised 1 April 1744; National Records of Scotland, Edinburgh.

Subsequent Note:

Dear EE,

I want to check my understanding. In review of 9.32 for the NYC example (p 456), I would understand that most people with a NYC vital record would use 3 layers:

1. WHAT:  identify the overall source itself, in a vacuum:  Kings County, New York, New York, Brooklyn Birth Certificate #001, John Doe, 1 January 1961

2.  WHERE: identify the origin of the image: New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

In the past, I have consulted a source on a FHL microfilm, from which I must have attained the following information about the source:

Records of the Methodist Episcopal Church, New York, New York, 1785–1893, v. 7, Greene Street marriages, 1832–1869 (transcript), p. 308, Ward-Martin marriage (1855); New York Genealogical and Biographical Society, New York, New York; FHL microfilm 17780.

I often have the situation in which I find information that I do not wish to automatically relegate to my research notes. In fact, sometimes, the line between material that belongs in research notes and that which belongs in formal findings is clearly blurred. In these cases, I believe that a citation should be considered. But how and using what format ...