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.

Sharon Domier
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?