Mis-filed or mis-labelled diaries

by HeatherC moderator

We seem to have a few of these now where the diary is labelled as one thing in the header title but when you look at the diary pages you find it's something else. I'm going to try to collect example in this thread rather than having loads of different threads.

Can people also use the hashtag #misfiled to indicate pages that don't agree with their title or seem to be out of place?

This page http://talk.operationwardiary.org/#/subjects/AWD00014e0 has been commented on as follows "Tile of diary given as "22 Battalion Royal Fusiliers" but the diary image has "17th (service) Battalion The Royal Fusiliers" stamped on it.". I have now reported this apparent mis-labelling to the National Archives.

We already have the example of the diary of the 6DG being mis-labelled in the header as QOOH. This has already been reported to TNA.

Posted April 16, 2014 12:53 PM

by peterr1006

Re: 2 Cavalry Division; 8 Mobile Veterinary Section.
I have indicated in the Diary comment box that there appears to be a confusion. Pages 1-17 refer to 8 MVS (Aug-Sep 1914)
P18 (the cover page) refers to 9 MVS and pages 19-24 cover the month of Aug 1914.
P25 is labelled Cover Page for 8 MVS Aug-Sep 1914 but when moving on to P25 covering part of Aug 1914 the information is different from which appeared on P5 which covered the same period. Do you have any idea what might be going on? And, other than just carry on, have you any suggestions as to how I should proceed?

Posted May 20, 2014 3:30 PM

by HeatherC moderator

That does sound confusing! From what you say it is almost as though the diaries of 8 and 9 MVS are both in one document? They were certainly both part of the same Division but the National Archives Catalogue gives separate references for the diary of each.

Is it possible to tell from anything on the page which Unit the diary is actually describing from P25 onwards?

Can I suggest for now you do continue and update us here as to how things continue with this one over the next few months worth? It's hard to report something like this to TNA without being exactly sure what we are seeing.

I've now seen the page you are talking about - it's possible that this is the private diary of the OC (note his name at the top of the page) which has been added later maybe to fill in gaps in the main diary. if you read it. it does sound like a diary of an individual not a Unit I think?

Posted May 20, 2014 3:41 PM

by cyngast moderator

I haven't noticed any being mislabeled for another unit, but I did come across one where the dates given in the header were not correct. It was labeled as beginning sometime in 1916 (I think) but the diary was clearly covering the August-September 1914 retreat from Mons and subsequent advance back to the Aisne. The pages were also very clearly dated as such by the author. Unfortunately, I don't remember which unit it was, but I did mark it as either #wrongdates or #mislabeled.

If I get back into it again, should it be marked with #misfiled as well?

Posted May 20, 2014 11:31 PM

by cyngast moderator

I have been tagging the diary for 1 Bn. Loyal North Lancashires of the 2nd Infantry Brigade in the 1 Division for the past half hour or so and I KNOW I have tagged it before. It's not just the events, it's the phrasing and tone of the diary that is memorable. Perhaps this is the diary I mentioned in my previous post made just two hours ago? This one however gives a span of dates from 31 July 1914 to 30 Dec 1914. The particular section I have been tagging covers September 1914.

Posted May 21, 2014 1:45 AM

by HeatherC moderator

So if I understand right you are saying you've had the same pages twice but one of them was labelled as something else? Any chance you hashtagged or saved any of the pages from the first one as favourites and can find one of them again on your profile page to give us a link? (profile page from the link at the top of the classify page)

Misfiled is preferable if you can so we have the same label as far as possible for all such pages. It simply makes them easier to find. I'm sure we'll find the ones you already did though.

Posted May 21, 2014 8:13 AM

by peterr1006 in response to HeatherC's comment.

Once again, many thanks for your prompt and helpful response to my latest query.

I did wonder if this was a private diary based on the notebook sheets it is written on and,what might be regarded as, some unguarded, undiplomatic,critical comments in the text. I had not noticed the name of the OC on the Cover Page (P25) but it is also written at the top of P26 in the same hand as the Diary itself. Why would anyone do that in a private diary?
I didn't find anything in the pages I have classified today which give a clue as to the actual Unit being written about, but
P30 is exactly the same as P5 - both pages hand written and both containing the same distinctive information. I'll mark it as completed and wait to see what appears next.
Re: P28. It appears that payment is both being made and received for dead horses. It's the first time I have seen such references. Was it the norm for money to change hands in these circumstances?

Posted May 21, 2014 9:59 AM

by HeatherC moderator in response to peterr1006's comment.

Can I suggest you hashtag as #privatediary any pages that you think are indeed a private diary. If a page is definitely a duplicate of one you've had before, hashtag as #duplicate and do not tag further.

Let us know how this one progresses?

Re the payment for dead horses. I can certainly find reference to them being sold to slaughterhouses at or near the end of the war. You might want to start (or add to) a thread on horses rather than us talk further about that in here. Maybe add to this one? http://talk.operationwardiary.org/#/boards/BWD000000a/discussions/DWD0000bhc

Posted May 21, 2014 10:33 AM

by HeatherC moderator

http://talk.operationwardiary.org/#/boards/BWD0000002/discussions/DWD00007r1 this thread also refers to a mixed-up diary which is supposed to be 2 Cav Div, 2 Fd Amb but has other pages in it.

and this one http://talk.operationwardiary.org/#/subjects/AWD000147d 1 Bn Middlesex Regt seems to have pages out of date order.

(just trying to gather all the problem diaries in one thread!)

Posted May 22, 2014 8:02 AM

by cotula in response to HeatherC's comment.

I am at an earlier stage of tagging the same pages as peterr1006. I agree there seems to be a switch from 8 Mobile Veterinary Section to 9 section. While the 9 section pages are not on the official form, they don't quite read as a private diary, in my opinion. They read as if the writer had been given verbal instructions to keep a diary of the Unit's activities, but was unaware of some of the military rules and usual form. Considering the specialised knowledge required for the Veterinary role, this could be a hastily-trained volunteer, perhaps a vet in civilian life.
Incidentally, the 9 Section pages are also in considerably smaller script, enlarging them on screen to be readable results in huge tag markers, difficult to place well.

Posted May 22, 2014 8:50 PM

by HeatherC moderator

Another one raised here http://talk.operationwardiary.org/#/boards/BWD0000009/discussions/DWD0000c35

by angiehart

The cover page says 22nd Battalion Royal Fusiliers but the diary heading is for the 23rd Battalion Royal Fusiliers.

Posted May 29, 2014 2:08 PM

by angiehart in response to HeatherC's comment.

The diary pages don't specify which Battalion it is. http://talk.operationwardiary.org/#/subjects/AWD0001dad. I will keep on tagging anyway.

Angela

Posted May 29, 2014 4:31 PM

by angiehart

Have now worked through this diary a bit further and it is definitely the 22nd Battalion. The cover pages are all for the 22nd Battalion and the end of the March diary is signed for the 22nd Battalion http://talk.operationwardiary.org/#/subjects/AWD0001db9

Posted May 29, 2014 9:10 PM

by f0rbe5

I've just finished working on 226th Field Company, Royal Engineers, from 1 January to 31 December 1918 and reached (roughly) page 220 of 990. I now find I'm at 1 January 1917 for the same unit, which would appear to suggest that the diary has been filed as 1918, 1917, 1916 and then 1915, rather than in year order. It's not a problem for tagging, but just thought someone ought to know it's not quite in the right order... And I hope no one changes it around too soon, as I'd like to get the full set completed first!

Iain

Posted June 16, 2014 11:17 AM

by ral104 moderator, scientist

Thanks - I'll make a note of that. Unlikely to be any change to it in the near future, though, so hopefully your tagging won't be interrupted!

Posted June 16, 2014 11:43 AM

by cyngast moderator

The same sort of situation occurs with the 9th Field Company R. E., 4th Division. Label says it runs from 31 Jul 1914 to 27 Feb 1919. I picked it up on the project's page 5 in 1918 and just finished up Feb, 1919. The next page jumps back to 1 Jan. 1915.

Posted June 17, 2014 12:55 AM

by ral104 moderator, scientist

How odd! Thanks for letting us know. Again, I'll make a note for the National Archives, but don't imagine it will affect tagging in the near future.

Posted June 17, 2014 3:04 PM

by floodmouse

Hi - I'm a new user and I just started tagging the following diary: 3 CAVALRY DIVISION: 20 Mobile Veterinary Section (28 Feb 1915 - 27 Feb 1918). The handwritten label at the top of the diary pages doesn't exactly match. The handwritten label says "No. 20 Mobile Veterinary Section 8th Cav Bde." I don't know the abbreviation Bde so I wasn't sure if this could be a discrepancy. Can anyone shed any light? Sorry if this question seems ignorant. I studied history, but not military history, and also I'm an American. Please let me know if I should do anything different, or just keep tagging. Thank you!

Posted June 17, 2014 11:32 PM

by cyngast moderator

Hi, floodmouse! I'm also an American and I have found a website called The Long Long Trail http://www.1914-1918.net/ very very helpful in sorting out all the differences between brigades (which is what the abbreviation Bde is), battalions, divisions, etc. There's also a page there that deals with abbreviations.

I believe in the diary you're working on the veterinary section is part of the 8th Cavalry Brigade which is part of the 3 Cavalry Division. I'm sure someone else will set me (and you) right if I'm mistaken.

Posted June 18, 2014 12:24 AM

by HeatherC moderator

Welcome to OWD @floodmouse Yes @cgastwein @aol.com is spot on, the diary Unit does match the label. The Unit would have been more likely to describe themselves as part of a Brigade rather than part of a Division (the larger formation that the Brigade was in turn part of), hence the discrepancy. And the Long Long Trail is indeed a superb resource for looking up all types of Units and Formations.

Posted June 18, 2014 8:01 AM

by floodmouse

Thank you to @cgastwein @aol.com and @HeatherC for referring me to The Long Long Trail website. I located the list of abbreviations which should make the going a lot smoother!

Posted June 19, 2014 11:07 PM

by Jan_Greenslade in response to HeatherC's comment.

Heather, the 22 Battalion Royal Fusiliers has gone array in 1916 too. Each page of their diary from August 1916 is headed 2 Division 23 Battalion Royal Fusiliers. I have indicated with a Misfiled# at the beginning of each month [am now up to November].

Posted June 25, 2014 11:30 AM

by ral104 moderator, scientist in response to Jan Greenslade's comment.

Thanks for noting this, Jan. We'll have to let the National Archives know.

Posted June 25, 2014 11:41 AM

by f0rbe5

I've been working through 226th Field Company, Royal Engineers, whose diaries I previously noted were in reverse order (1918, '17, '16, '15). Having reached their beginning in November 1915, the pages have now reverted to initially March, and now April, 1918, both of which I'm sure I've already worked on. Is there any way someone can check to see whether the remaining 472 listed pages are duplicates of some of the 518 I've already done? It would be frustrating to duplicate work already completed, but equally frustrating to miss out on material that does need work. I've got as far as http://www.operationwardiary.org/?utm_source=Zooniverse Home&utm_medium=Web&utm_campaign=Homepage Catalogue#/classify/52d056903ae74026a3039f62, but don't want to progress this diary further until I've got some clarification. Thanks,

Iain

Posted July 2, 2014 9:37 AM

by HeatherC moderator

Iain

Your link does not work for us, it just takes us to our own classify page. See the first post in this thread for how to link to a specific page http://talk.operationwardiary.org/#/boards/BWD000000g/discussions/DWD0000cx8

I don't have the access to check this but hopefully there's an Admin around who does!

Heather

Posted July 2, 2014 10:06 AM

by f0rbe5

Thanks Heather, the page I've stopped on is http://talk.operationwardiary.org/#/subjects/AWD00011mv.

Iain

Posted July 2, 2014 11:18 AM

by ral104 moderator, scientist

As Heather says, we'll need an admin to check the file for us, but it does sound as if the remaining pages are likely to be duplicates of the ones you've already tagged. Given that you've reached the point at which 226th Field Coy arrived in France, it seems unlikely that there would be another 472 pages covering their activities beforehand.

I think this must have been an upload error. Sorry for the confusion. I'll get in touch with the National Archives and see if they can shed any light on it for us.

Posted July 2, 2014 12:16 PM

by lnnseagan in response to HeatherC's comment.

I was about to post about this, this is indeed the 22nd Bn., also saw the signature of the commanding officer, whom (Lt.Col. R. Barnett Barker) I looked up, and it clearly states everywhere that he commanded the 22nd.
Maybe it's time to change it on the site 😃

Posted July 6, 2014 1:08 AM

by ral104 moderator, scientist

You're absolutely right - it is! We'll need to get another scanned file for the National Archives, which may take a while. Not their fault, I should add - I'm still trying to track down the right person to inform about this, and then it will take time to make the necessary changes. But thanks for making us aware of the error - we're on the case!

Posted July 6, 2014 12:37 PM

by cyngast moderator

I started tagging the diary for the 3 Division: 9th Battalion Durham Light Infantry Pioneers. The label states this diary runs from Feb. 28, 1919 to Oct. 30, 1919. When I picked it up it was on page 17 and halfway through September, 1919, and page 19 was the end of October, 1919. I was curious as to what the next page would bring me as there were still 93 pages to go according to the count at the bottom of the page and this was the end of date span in the label.

The next page gave me this cover page for the 20th Battalion K.R.R.C. The one after that comes up as the beginning of Jan. 1918 for the 20th K.R.R.C.

Obviously, there is a problem here. I'm wondering if there are two diaries in this one file? I don't want to go any further with it and maybe confuse the issue more, so I'll move on to another diary for now.

Posted July 9, 2014 9:09 PM

by f0rbe5

8th (How) Bde, RFA diaries seem to be repetitious. I tagged some subordinate batteries, and then the Bde's own diaries from mobilisation up to end-Dec 14, only to find myself going back through the same process again. Have stopped at http://talk.operationwardiary.org/#/subjects/AWD00017x8 and intend working on another unit instead.

Iain

Posted July 10, 2014 9:00 AM

by ral104 moderator, scientist in response to cgastwein@aol.com's comment.

Thanks for the info re. 9th DLI Pioneers - I'll add that one to the list of diaries that I need to inform the National Archives about (we're just trying to hunt down the correct person to help us with these issues). Best as you say to leave it for now and move onto something else.

Posted July 10, 2014 2:15 PM

by ral104 moderator, scientist in response to f0rbe5's comment.

When you say repetitious, do you mean exact page duplicates, or that the same events are being covered by battery and brigade? If the latter, I'm not sure that this is so much an issue with the diary, although I absolutely understand why you'd want to move onto something else! If the former, I'll need to add it to the list of problem diaries and notify the National Archives. Thanks!

Posted July 10, 2014 2:17 PM

by HeatherC moderator

Rob - Iain had PMd me about this and I asked him to start a forum thread as I'm not sure how he should handle it. The issue seems to be that each Battery keeps its own diary and then the Brigade has one as well (this is an Artillery Unit so that's analogous to each Company in a Battalion keeping their own diary and then the Bn HQ also keeping one) and all of them are in the same document one after the other. Consequently he sees the same events reported both by the Battery and then by the Brigade, which is not the most exciting thing to tag! There was also the potential for casualties to be double counted if not careful and really it's hard to see how you could be sure you had not done so.

I don't think it is mis-filed or mis-labelled as such, but it's certainly an oddity I had not come across. I'd split the posts about this out into a new thread but we don't seem to be able to do that.... 😉

Posted July 10, 2014 3:52 PM

by angiehart

Not sure if this has been brought up before but the diary for the 4 DIVISION: 9 FIELD COMPANY ROYAL ENGINEERS (1 AUG 1914 - 28 FEB 1919) is in the wrong order. The first 30 pages are the middle to end of 1918 up to 28th February 1919, and then page 31 begins at 1st January 1915. http://talk.operationwardiary.org/#/subjects/AWD0001eok.

Will keep going, and see if I come across the 1914 pages at some point too.

It's a bit strange when they have all been demobbed and then the next page they are back in the thick of it again.

Angie

Posted July 10, 2014 5:02 PM

by ral104 moderator, scientist in response to HeatherC's comment.

Oh, I see. That is a bit odd, isn't it? I guess we don't want to lose the detail, but you're right that it throws up some potential issues as well. I was wondering whether it would be better to see if TNA can split it into separate files, but that would just increase the likelihood of double-counting casualties, I guess.

I think for now we'll just have to proceed with caution. I've started tagging this diary, so I'm at least aware of the issues now. I'll ask TNA for advice on how to handle it.

Posted July 10, 2014 9:52 PM

by ral104 moderator, scientist in response to angiehart's comment.

We did have a strange RE diary recently...could be the same one. I'll add it to the list. Sounds like a relatively simple job of just reordering that rogue section.

Thanks for mentioning it!

Posted July 10, 2014 9:53 PM

by f0rbe5 in response to HeatherC's comment.

HeatherC, I was happy with the fact that the Bde and Btys had their own diaries and was working through both, but the diaries are repeating - as I said above, I began with Btys in Aug 1914 up to Dec and then switched to the Bde over the same period - but have now gone through the same Bty pages and have stopped when the same Bde pages reappeared.

Iain

Posted July 11, 2014 8:12 AM

by HeatherC moderator in response to f0rbe5's comment.

Ah sorry Iain I didn't realise the pages were actually physically repeating now as well as just the information due to sub-ordinate diaries. I assume the page numbers weren't repeating so this looks like an error during scanning?

Posted July 11, 2014 8:26 AM

by f0rbe5

HeatherC, I'm not sure what you mean by page numbers - but those down at the bottom right alongside the Crown copyright were ticking over correctly, so I'm assuming a scanning error.

Iain

Posted July 11, 2014 9:05 AM

by HeatherC moderator in response to f0rbe5's comment.

That's exactly what I meant Iain 😃 If the numbers had gone back to 1 it would have indicated a system error rather than a scanning error. Thanks!

Posted July 11, 2014 9:26 AM

by ral104 moderator, scientist

Okay - does sound like a simple case of duplication. Another one for the list! Thanks for letting us now, Iain.

Posted July 11, 2014 11:58 AM

by f0rbe5

I'm currently working on 16 Field Ambulance. August 1914-June 1915 were straightforward. However, at the end of both June and now July 1915, there is an additional diary embedded after the Field Ambulance's diary, covering the activities of an Advanced Dressing Station run by a Captain. This is a subordinate element of the Field Ambulance, located further forward and gives significantly more details on casualties being dealt with. There's no problem in terms of recording from my point of view, but thought the National Archives might be interested in this.

Iain

Posted July 22, 2014 8:39 AM

by David_Underdown moderator

This sort of subordinate unit is not that uncommon, the signal companies for example comprised a number of sections, each of which kept an independent diary, but they were forwarded as a single set from teh compnay HQ each month. The data from this project will be rolled back in to the catalogue descriptions on Discovery, so as long as you tag it, this information will be picked up.

Posted July 23, 2014 8:37 AM

Mis-filed or mis-labelled diaries - old thread