I've briefly scanned all posts since my last one, so if I have missed a point then just give me a nudge
My view is strip all (unnecessary) info from the titles, and leave only what a site would be referred to locally, but using the full correct/official name. This might sound a bit contradictory, so let me elaborate my point with an example...
Supposing there is a site called
Beautiful Lakes in the county of
Greenshire, which is in a country called
Treeland. Assume that the site is owned by the
National Nature Trust (
NNT) and is referred to by the locals as
The Beauties. This site might be named:
The Beauties NNT (Greenshire, Treeland)
Since
The Beauties is not the correct/official name it should be changed, as visitors are unlikely to find it listed as such in guides/maps/etc.:
Beautiful Lakes NNT (Greenshire, Treeland)
Since the site's ownership may change over time, and this information may be considered non-neutral/subjective, the ownership should be removed from the title, but inserted as a category and probably should be mentioned in the overview too (as to whether one should use the full name or its acronym for ownership... I'm of mixed opinion, but that's another issue):
Beautiful Lakes (Greenshire, Treeland)
Now if there are two or more sites
listed on Opus with the exact same name, then they'll need different titles, so I'd recommend appending the differentiating text in brackets (with a space). If these multiple sites are in different countries, then just add the country name to both; if in the same country, then add just an appropriate differentiating region (i.e. the state/county). If, for example, there were three sites, and two were in the same country, then add both the region
and the country to
all three. However, assuming we don't have multiple sites with the exact same name, remove all geographical regions* and add them as separate categories:
Beautiful Lakes
* unless the region is an essential part of the correct/official name (e.g.
London Wetlands Centre)
This site should now have categories for
NNT,
Greenshire, and
Treeland.
What are you thoughts on this idea, and does anyone foresee any problems with it?
Another point to consider is use of common terms like:
- State
- County
- Country
- Local
- National
- Reserve
- Park
- Center/Centre
- Nature
I think the consensus is already not to abbreviate phrases like "Local Nature Reserve", but should they even be included? In some cases they seem necessary, but in others they're superfluous. Can we achieve a balance between meaningful and concise site names, whilst maintaining consistency?