Hey Mark,
In this example, one possible strategy is to split the citation by commas, taking into account that the 1st comma sits between quotation marks, and should not be seen as a separator. This means that you get three parts, of which the 1st is the source title, and the 2nd the publishing information. These 2 can both be stored in a source object.
In this case, the 3rd field ends at the semicolon, because what we have here is a layered citation, for which you can find a perfect explanation on the Evidence Explained site, in this article written by Elizabeth Shown Mills:
https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/quicklesson-19-layered-citations-work-layered-clothing
If we ignore the part behind that semicolon for a minute, we can argue that the 3rd part can be very well stored in the vol./page field of the citation, because it explains where in the source the information was found, and a microfilm image is similar to a page.
In this citation, there is no information about the date, other than in te source title, but if you can look at the image, you may find a specific date for this page in the census. And if you cite information for a particular person or family, you may also find a line number (or a range) that you can add to the vol/page field. But doing that means, that you’re willing to expand the citation beyond what FS gives you.
In a situation like this, I put the citing part in a research note, attached to the citation, in order to have a reference just in case that I’m able to visit the NARA, either in person, or on-line. OTOH, it might be, that the whole database is based on this particular publication T9. And if that’s true, you can better attach the citing part as a note to the source.
Things get a bit more complex with a citation like this, for an uncle of mine:
“Nederland, Indexen van de Archieven, Primaire Archiefstukken (BS en DTB), 1600-2000,” database, FamilySearch (FamilySearch.org : 22 August 2017), Henricus Borgsteede in entry for Theodorus Hendricus Maria Bense and Jacoba Cornelia Borgsteede, Marriage 23 Oct 1929, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands; from database, openarchives (https://www.openarch.nl : 2016); citing Haarlem, inventory number , record number Reg.5F fol. 38; ; Noord-Hollands Archief.
This one has 3 layers, where FamilySearch shows data from the Dutch open archives site, which in turn sites a particular record stored in a provincial archive. And even though this looks quite long, it’s still incomplete, because the inventory number is missing, which is the call number of the original source in the provincial archive. You can see the original here:
And for this one, I will probably ignore FamilySearch, and cite the original, which has a nice scan in color.
And to complicate things even further: The document shown here was also filmed by the LDS, years ago, and that scan is available too. And some indexes still cite those films, instead of the local site mentioned here.