Sure, I have a branch naming scheme for my repos. But nobody else has to know it because those branches don't leave my system. Branches published waiting for code review are shortlived enough even if someone notices the branch name in the review tool, they're likely not going to use it for anything.
Unless there are many long-lived, public, collaborative branches there's little need for careful and deliberate naming convention across a team. And if you have enough of those kind of branches, I contend that you're not merging enough.
From painful experience, I can say that leaving a branch that lasts longer than a day only on your machine is begging to lose work.
Unless your machine is automatically backed up every hour, in which case ignore me.
That has not been the case in most of my jobs, but pushing my WIP branch to a remote every hour or two achieves that goal in practice (as long as I don't have anything important that's not in a repo).
Unless there are many long-lived, public, collaborative branches there's little need for careful and deliberate naming convention across a team. And if you have enough of those kind of branches, I contend that you're not merging enough.