`  :While I agree that the website may be inaccurate (and not just Stockton's, but most others, so it often seems), I don't feel it's for us to decide whether a council's website is a reliable source or not. If we go down that route, we'd have people saying, ``Ah, but you can't believe everything you read in - (insert your least favourite newspaper here!)`` and then where would our verifiability policy be? :Also, I think you're missing a subtle point. There's a wood called Quarry Wood. On that I agree. But there's also a statutory entity called ``Quarry Wood Local Nature Reserve`` and that's subtly different  the Wood per se has no statutory protection, it's the LNR that has: one could even argue that the Wood has no inherent notability and that it's only the LNR status that makes it notable (though we do seem to have a remarkably laid-back attitude toward geographical notability). And while the locals may not go around talking about it as an LNR, that's not much of an argument: I don't recall, when I was growing up in the area, ever hearing Stockton-on-Tees referred to as anything other than just ``Stockton``, but that doesn't alter the fact that that isn't its official name. :But the fact that you unearthed a Quarry Wood that I'd missed  and not just another, but another NR!  does argue the desirability of disambiguation. I don't actually feel strongly about it, this only arose because I was doing what I thought was some unobjectionable preparatory work ahead of trying to write up a series of articles on nature reserves in Durham and I didn't expect to encounter such strong proprietorial feelings, so I'll leave you to decide whether you want to disambiguate it from the Maidstone one: if you do, Quarry Wood, Stockton-on-Tees would, to my mind, be the best of your four proposals, if only because that links it to the designating authority, but I'll leave it to you. Regards   `