Talk:Chinaman (porcelain)

Merge discussion
While this entry was recently expanded from a one sentence stub, the new information seems to simply concern sales of china in general or information that would be better served in the article on china or Chinese export porcelain. Please also see related discussion in Articles_for_deletion/Chinaman_(porcelain).--Yaksar (let's chat) 10:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree While the article is much better as expanded, I agree (for the reasons stated by Yaksar) that it makes more sense for it to be merged with an article on china.HillbillyGoat (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is enough valid information to fill its own article.  D r e a m Focus  11:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge I agree with Yaksar. I looked at the Merriam-Webster, Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries on line. None of these refer to chinaman other than its use as a derogatory term in relation to persons of Chinese origin. One on-line dictionary references the Wikipedia article and gives a disclaimer. The article about Chinese export porcelain would easily accomodate this article. Indeed the article could easily be merged. The Wikipedia article about Giles does not reference this long obsolete term. The only pertinent aspect of the article is the reference to the discription of trades in 1747. The only reference is 265 years old. This is a footnote to a footnote in history.  Kanuk (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The Oxford English Dictionary has an entry: "A dealer in porcelain." Perhaps you consulted an abridged version?  Dictionary.com has a similar entry, "a person who imports or sells china."  And if the topic is mostly historical then that's fine because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and so has a historical perspective in which 265 years is quite recent as compared with antiquity.  Please see WP:RECENTISM. Warden (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But considering that 90% of the descriptions do not use the term "chinaman" and that this article has very little substance about the actual sellers but is rather about the trade in general, your argument doesn't make much sense.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Again I agree with Yaksar. Even the business Card shown as an example is "China and Glass Man"
 * The document cited William BELOE, China-Man, with a dash, even then there was a distinction between a Chinaman and a China-Man.


 * Oppose The article has continued to expand and has been on the main page twice now. It now seems too large to merge easily and there is no clear target as the topic spans the transition from import of Chinese porcelain to a domestic trade within England. Warden (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Warden. No single appropriate target anyway. Johnbod (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Cream of society
Instead of using the expression "cream of society", can we find something more encyclopedic? The article currently says "This was because of the continuing import/export business and the concentration of artistic talent and the cream of society there.[1]" What does that mean exactly? The rich and famous, the influential people, preferred the imported ones?  D r e a m Focus  11:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The phrase appears elsewhere in Wikipedia. I have provided a link for those that wish to explore the concept further. Warden (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)