Ben Abrahamse wrote: > This strikes me as similar to the old NACO rule of thumb, "Don't add cross- > reference for a variant of a variant". > > I.e.: "Don't add a qualifier to a qualifier." > > It makes sense for a heading.
It does not make sense to me, when you end up with a qualifier that is ambiguous or wrong. This is not analogous to cross-referencing a variant of a variant. This is deliberately making something not only less specific than it could or should be, but sometimes actually wrong--and all for some unknown reason. If you have two distinct places that have the same name, and the only difference in the AAP for the place name is the addition of a qualifier (such as ": North", ": South", ": Province", ": Township", etc.), that qualifier is a critical part of the name for the purpose of identifying the place (else why are we using it anyway?). If you need to use the place name as a qualifier for another name, removing the place name's qualifier immediately obscures the identity of that place. "Place A (Larger Place)" is NOT the same as "Place A (Larger Place : Township)". If I'm formulating the AAP for the name of a place or body located in Place A Township, and need to use the name of the township as a qualifier, leaving out the word "Township" results in an AAP with the WRONG place name in the qualifier. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
