A fact from Bullfighter (rodeo) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 July 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles
A couple years back there was an article titled "rodeo bullfighter" that was merged with rodeo clown. I noticed this article is newly created and somewhat redundant, so the two need to become one. I really don't care which title is used, though "bullfighter" is the more modern and more respectful term. I also wonder if we should resurrect the old title "rodeo bullfighter for the final article? Montanabw(talk) 04:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - They are not the same thing, so a merge seems inappropriate. A rodeo clown, a barrelman, and a bullfighter are three different people at a rodeo although they do work together. It's true that bullfighter grew out of the older type of clown, but they are now distinct and more and more often, the bullfighter does not even wear clown makeup. That's why I created this separate article. Frank | talk 04:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support a merger as the term bullfighter is not used in Australia.Cgoodwin (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support (and yes, I'm, the nominator so I only get onve "vote") I don't care which title is used, particularly if, as CG points out, the bullfighter job is still apparently called "rodeo clown" in other nations. I am sympathetic to your views, Frank, but this rodeo clown article contains pretty much all the same information as the bullfighter article does, but some of the bullfighter material is newer and better sourced and I'd like to see it added in. I see no reason why a single article cannot explain all three jobs, as the rodeo clown article currently does, though imperfectly. Personally, my axe to grind is that I don't like to see two small articles when a single one can cover the topic in one stop, and the barrelman and rodeo clown articles were already merged a long time ago. Further, the terms remain interchangeable in popular parlance. (See, for example, USA Today. And, actually, some bullfighters still do add clown makeup. (Examples: [1], [2], [3]). I realize that there are clownish novelty and barrel acts (Example: [4], and [5]) but my point is that I think a single article does a better job. I don't care which article is the base. Montanabw(talk) 05:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that some sources do use the term interchangeably does not mean the subjects themselves do so. It seems that this is a designation in transition - something that may take decades. Nevertheless, the delineation does seem clear from the sources, even if not every writer on the subject "gets it". I think the idea of merging would be similar to merging offensive tackle and guard (American football): they stand next to each other on the offensive line, both are ineligible receivers, and each article is essentially 4-5 paragraphs (plus tables and nav boxes, but the unique content is 4-5 paragraphs). I suspect the hue and cry that would result from a merge proposal there would be legendary...because rodeo isn't as popular a sport does not mean its jobs are any less distinct. (I don't like to use what appears to be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; I'm only drawing an analogy and I'm not about to propose that merge, regardless of how this discussion turns out.) Frank | talk 10:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we are that far off in understanding of the job. I agree with the notion that we have a designation in transition. Which is basically why I suggested merging the articles. However, given that, unlike football (about which I know next to squat even tho' I occasionally watch the super bowl), the public is pretty clueless about the emerging distinction, I see the merge as an educational opportunity: The Rodeo Clown article can have three (or more) basic sections: One for history, one for bullfighters, one for clowns and barrelmen, I just have problems with little articles that are five paragraphs long and will not be found by the casual reader looking for info. If nothing else, we need to cross-link these two articles so people looking for one can find the other. That, and we need to do a better job of cross-linking to the bull riding article too. My main concern is organizational. Montanabw(talk) 04:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this can be achieved by fleshing out this article (for which more information exists) and by putting in the links you suggest (which I agree with). Frank | talk 04:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The majority of sources used even in this article refer to "rodeo clowns". There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of support for alternative terminology, and this article seems to exist mainly to push the use of this terminology. The use of "bullfighter" in this context is a neologism. I don't see any content in this article that could not be placed into the rodeo clown article, including a discussion of terminology. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
