Rebecca,

I think you want a section from LC-PCC PS for 16.2.2.4:

Form of Larger Place

LC practice/PCC practice: If the heading for the larger place being added
to the smaller place is created according to the provisions of RDA
11.13.1.6 (type of jurisdiction) or RDA 11.13.1.7 (other designation
associated with the body), do not include the term for type of
jurisdiction or the other designation associated with the body.

EXAMPLE

151 ## $a Albany (N.Y.)
not 151 ## $a Albany (N.Y. (State))

EXAMPLE

151 ## $a Seoul (Korea)
not 151 ## $a Seoul (Korea (South))

According to DCM Z1, you'd have the established form of the larger place
in the 370 (in this case: ǂc Mexico ǂe Baja California (Mexico : State) ǂ2
naf), but not in the addition to the name in the 1XX.

I know there was a fairly recent discussion about how this can, in some
cases, cause confusion, but I don't think there are any planned changes to
the current policy.

Later,
kt

On Fri, 17 Oct 2014, Rebecca Uhl wrote:

>
> One of our catalogers questioned the qualifier used for the city of Tijuana, Mexico (n  82020615), and I have been
> unable to find a definitive answer for him, so I’m turning to the collective wisdom of this list.
>
>
>
> The heading as it stands now (and has since 1991) is “Tijuana (Baja California, Mexico).”  “Baja California (Mexico)”
> is the established form for the peninsula, which includes two states, established as “Baja California Sur (Mexico)”
> and “Baja California (Mexico : State).”  The latter heading includes “State” to differentiate the state (a
> jurisdiction) from the peninsula (a geographic feature) with the same name.
>
>
>
> Why is Tijuana, a city in the *state* of Baja California qualified by the *peninsula*, rather than the state?
> Shouldn’t it be established as “Tijuana (Baja California, Mexico : State)”?   What are we missing?
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
>
>
> Becky Uhl
> Science Cataloger/Authority Control Coordinator
> Arizona State University Libraries
> (480) 965-9802
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>