Citation Issues

I am currently researching a line with Polish ancestry, and I am using primarily the digital images of parish records which are available via FamilySearch.  The records are 'original copies' which were (presumably) made at the time of the 'true originals' and sent to the State Archives.  They were microfilmed at the State Archives and the microfilm images digitized for online access.  A church is not listed, so I presume the first item in the Source would be the parish (that IS listed).  When the records were made, the area of Poland where the parish was located had been annexed by Austria.

I have seen/used online database names listed in citations both with and without their domain extensions:

(Note: items in bold for this question only, not actually bold in published citations.)

I have seen NARA both spelled out and abbreviated in Ancestry.com census citations:

(Note: items in bold for this question only, not actually bold in published citations.)

I have a citation for an Ohio Graves Registration Card from Fold3.com:

(Note: this is a real example--for my husband's 2X GG whose last name was actually spelled "Shaffer," but it was misspelled on the card and on his marker.)

I have an original baptism record (written at the time of her baptism) from my grandmother passed down to me.  How do I cite this? I would think this is an original source created at the time she was baptized.

Another question, hopefully less detailed as I believe I am understand more of the generalized idea of EE.

If I am searching Ancestry for marriage records and I come across this 

1. Would the best approach to citing this be to use 9.7 or 4.6?

I am doing an indirect evidence case study to prove parentage. I want to mention that a survey of online trees was done but no tree was found with a source for the parental link between the two generations. I would like to simply cite the Ancestry Public Member Trees, FamilySearch Family Tree, and My Heritage Family Trees as a whole and not list every single tree that was examined. Is that a legit way to handle it? I think listing 40ish trees in a citation would be overkill but I thought I better check :) 

Hi,

I am on my fifth reading or so of your book and every time I read it or read through your blog, I seem to only get more confused.  I am a 100% Permanent & Totally Disabled Veteran, so it I do 95% of my research from home using Ancestry.com, MyHeritage.com, FamilySearch.com, etc....  While I would love to travel to all these amazing locations where so much data is held, it is just not that easy.  So these online providers are pretty much the best I can do.

I am working on citing a couple of immigration cards from Brazil. These cards can be found at Ancestry and FamilySearch. 

The way in which they are organized is a bit perplexing and can be confusing when you first look at them. There are two cards I am writing citations for. For clarification in my citations, I use FHL microfilm or DGS numbers instead of search paths. I do this because it is the fastest way for me to find the records at a later date.

Let me call and raise on a recently discussed item. I want to cite a section of a volume in a series (well, one of two series). What I've drafted for the first reference note is: