My guess is that this old form of local place and state/province is a
remnant of North American centric thinking. But given the current
state of "Worldcat" and more importantly cataloging rules, it makes a
whole lot more sense to include the country for ALL countries.
Yes, I believe it is problematic for other places as well (imagine the
equivalent to Springfield), and I thank the Chinese catalogers for
taking the effort to try to make controlled subject headings more
understandable for China-related studies.
East Asian studies librarian
Quoting NANCY K Brown <[log in to unmask]>:
> Just curious ... in other cases where state/province is used as the
> qualifier, the heading is [local place] ([state]), omitting the
> country. I can see why including China in the heading would be
> helpful, but I wonder how you envision indirect subdivision working
> for these headings. Would it be $z China $z Province $z Local Place
> or something else? And would using three subdivisions for Chinese
> headings, but not for other countries where headings are qualified
> by state/province be problematic or not?