Tolkien Gateway


Is this entry really necessary? The very first line of the Balrogs entry explains what Valaraukar means. I think a redirect would be more appropriate. --Ebakunin 13:58, 2 June 2006 (EDT)

I agree. --Narfil Pal├╣rfalas 13:59, 2 June 2006 (EDT)
I don't agree: this article has more info on the name/term itself. The Balrogs article focuses more on their history. IMHO, it add to the Encyclopedia. As said before (e.g. @ Talk:Gondobar), I truely believe in having a separate article for each and every name of characters, places etc. --Earendilyon 14:33, 2 June 2006 (EDT)
While I agree the article should be trimmed so it's not repeating information, this article does state how the term is formed while the Balrogs article does not, and should not as the Balrogs article should focus on the actual Balrogs. I understand this is a rather heated debate and we have some conflicting views, I think we're just going to have to wait for some more contributors to voice their opinion before we can make a final vote. But my stance is if someone is searching for "Valaraukar" they are interested in what the name means, not Balrogs in general. But there are a lot of articles out there which repeat information which I agree should be removed because of redundancy. --Hyarion 15:21, 2 June 2006 (EDT)