A directory correction is easier to maintain when its purpose is narrow. This guide covers how to separate an internal site code from the public branch name, using approved terms and customer-facing names to separate an approved change from an unresolved question. It is written for a directory copy editor, with a final check of the public-facing result.
Set the boundary of this terminology and naming check
To separate an internal site code from the public branch name, first distinguish the affected public detail from neighbouring information that serves a different purpose. Choose terms that identify the business and help a visitor understand the service without internal shorthand. Record the question in ordinary language before editing. This keeps the review focused when several profile fields appear to need attention, and lets a second person understand why this change is being proposed.
Build a usable source note
The source note for “Separate an internal site code from the public branch name” should identify approved terms and customer-facing names, the relevant date or version if known, and the person able to confirm the arrangement. Preserve meaningful names and accents while explaining specialist language; do not invent a translated trading name or promotional expansion. Keep a source claim separate from the wording you plan to publish. When one part remains unconfirmed, write down that gap explicitly instead of allowing the rest of the evidence to imply that everything has been established.
Test the likely misunderstanding
Consider “Separate an internal site code from the public branch name” as a hypothetical editing exercise: a review of “Separate an internal site code from the public branch name” needs to distinguish the intended public meaning from an unsupported assumption. Choose terms that identify the business and help a visitor understand the service without internal shorthand. This is an illustrative decision test, not a report about a real business. Ask the directory copy editor to explain which part of the current display could produce that misunderstanding and which supported detail would prevent it. A cosmetic rewrite alone may leave the underlying confusion intact.
Prepare the public-facing change
For the actual edit to separate an internal site code from the public branch name, preserve the smallest useful distinction and avoid changing unrelated approved facts. For “Separate an internal site code from the public branch name”: preserve meaningful names and accents while explaining specialist language; do not invent a translated trading name or promotional expansion. If the platform supports a dedicated field, use it for its intended purpose. Where explanatory text is needed, put the qualification close to the information it limits; visitors should not need to discover it in an unrelated section.
Finish with a reproducible check
Treat “Separate an internal site code from the public branch name” as complete only after reviewing what the public record now shows. Compare the saved result with approved terms and customer-facing names, including any formatting or truncation introduced by the platform. Record the affected field, the visible outcome and any remaining question for the directory copy editor. A submitted update and a visible correction are separate milestones; retain the distinction so that a later editor does not assume a pending change is already live.
| Keep separately | Purpose for this task |
|---|---|
| Source | approved terms and customer-facing names |
| Public change | Separate an internal site code from the public branch name |
| Responsible role | directory copy editor |
Before marking this task complete
- Can a new visitor understand the result of “Separate an internal site code from the public branch name”?
- Is the relevant terminology and naming detail supported by approved terms and customer-facing names?
- Are the directory copy editor’s unresolved questions kept separate from the approved change?