When you say "have all the NT manors under the same entry" this is what I proposed at the beginning, after joining, in that we could have kept it to 'National Trust' and 'National Trust for Scotland' but expanding the location in the notes for that artwork?
But I think we can leave the NT and University entries as is without resorting to the collective titles.
What concerns me now are the numerous new entries being created for UK's civic collections - these will run into hundreds, if not thousands of so-called museums. It has happened with a large number of US institutions, where only one or two works are held.
As for the BBC Paintings lists for which I am a major culprit (!) I am starting to think that there is little point in [basically] copying their entries to this website. Why have a parallel website when the BBC one is so much better?
Athough I use the BBC a great deal (it is good), I only include major 'international' artists and you will see from the BBC that they include a very large number of local (and unknown) artists.
It looks as if Rocsdad is simply going through the BBC alpha lists and copying them all over to this website. This will definitely consume the servers. It is bad enough at present.
I am not sure if, by containing works under a collective title, such as 'Civic Collections - UK' is better for the server than creating new museum entries for each and every provincial collection? If it makes no difference, then I can delete the Civic Collections museum entry and transfer the contents to new/existing museums on this web.
Example: I have been transferring recent entries for Perth and Kinross Council' to Civic Collections - UK, as this is where they are.
Currently, we now have two entry points (Civic Collections + indiv council museums). So it's not satisfactory.
I can only speak for the UK. Don't think this same problem arises in Europe or American collections.
I do need direction?