There are many instances where spelling, wording or naming varies, so which is right and why have we chosen the terminology we have?
An example of what we mean is should we use Sergeant or Serjeant? In most cases we want to achieve consistency, if for no other reason than to help search and analyse our data. Where we have made changes to our data, we have tried to give an explanation below. This will no doubt expand and we analyse our data for other inconsistencies.
As we find inconsistencies, we will make a choice, make the changes (this may take a while!) and explain them here.
It might be that we have made a poor choice, but at least we will be consistent and that will help researchers using our information. However if you have a good argument to offer to make a change, we will happily consider it.
Sergeant or Serjeant?
In the above example we have simply opted to use that chosen by the CWGC for each man, although we accept that our records may not be 100% as it may depend on whether our researchers have typed in this rank or selected it from our 'dropdown'. If the latter, it would be easy to select the first one appearing.
There seem to be many variations for the same regiment, some even differ between ‘official’ databases, such as CWGC and SDITGW, e.g. should it be the "King's Own (Royal Lancaster Regiment)" or "King's Own Royal Lancaster Regiment"? or "3rd Dragoon Guards (Prince of Wales' Own)" or "3rd (Prince of Wales' Own) Dragoon Guards (Prince of Wales' Own)"?
In these cases we have chosen to use the names given in the book “British Regiments 1914 -1918” by Brigadier E A James, O.B.E., T.D. published by Naval & Military Press and first published in 1929. This seems to be a reasonably reliable source for accuracy.