Talk:Watcher (titanic)

Old discussion
Is the word "titanic" ever used in describing them, or was that added to disambiguate them?-- 18:46, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's used to separate them from the other watchers. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:32, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of this page
The entire purpose of this page was originally to have a place for the group of "watchers" around Ulduar, of which it is not known whether or not they are titans or titanic constructs. Before that, this was a part of the Watcher page, but it was split and disambiguated. The name it was split to could easily been "Watcher (titanic)" or "Keeper (titanic)" or something like that. The term used was somewhat arbitrary (see above). Now, I see several titanic things with "watcher" in their names listed on this page. If a "watcher" does not have confusing godlike power, there is a place for it: Stone watcher. Now, I was actually planning for the possible deletion of this page, when I saw something that Ashbear160 pointed out actually made it to live: Ironaya is "a Titanic Watcher." The term was made canon after this page came into being, but it is canon none the less.-- 01:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I feel we influence Blizzard too much xDDD.--Lon-ami (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It may not have been the fault of Wowpedia or its predecessor. However, this formerly speculative category has at least one cite-able member now, unless Ironaya is only a "Watcher" that is "Titanic." The naming convention is consistent with some other proper names for Blizzard entities, so it may not be purely descriptive, but it might be.-- 21:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Update:Moved from "Titanic watcher" to "Watcher (titanic)".-- 23:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Why do that when we have "Titanic Watcher" in-game? :S--Lon-ami (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Only one entity can be (retroactively) cited as a "Titanic Watcher". The rest are just "Watchers" and sometimes "Keepers".-- 18:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to organize them by location if anybody has something against it tell me so--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I still don't know if the things on this list are all the same type of thing, or are all in the same "group".-- 01:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * When blizzard doesn't give us the information we have to fill the gaps with general information, and yes i agree i think some of these don't belong to this group (Maiden of virtue wasn't nearby a titan place)(Nablya might be a titan), and some should be here (algalon he was a creation of titanic origin with the function of observe/watch), as long as we interpret the information without speculating i think it's okay--Ashbear160 (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What you just wrote was (in part) speculation, and by your logic this page is not okay. I would like a broader argument please.-- 02:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes those mentions were speculation but you didn't see me removing or adding them, that was speculation, interpreting the information is using the information that blizzard gave us, we know all of these are "Watchers of Titanic origin", this is not speculation, however there is a both a need to call these guys something, and blizzard gave us a name that means the same thing--Ashbear160 (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually meant maiden of virtue never been related to anything titanic other than her model--Ashbear160 (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not want the "need to call these guys something" to lead to a name being used wrongly. Various questions need to be asked, from both directions, such as 'what is a "watcher"' and 'what are each of the guys listed on this page'? If those answers really do match, then it needs to be asked 'what are the properties of a "watcher"/whatever the guys are'. If the answers do not match, then the page needs to be split up into the "watcher" title and the race(s)/group(s) that this wiki is calling "watcher". Also, the Maiden of Virtue also shares the same naming style with the Maiden of Grief, who is in the Ulduar complex.-- 02:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "A Watcher(titanic) is a humanoid being that was made by the titans to take watch something" if i pick up the dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/watch
 * We can determine that the functions of these guys fit the definition of Watch(including algalon), if you feel there's a need to distinguish between them both you are free to do it, as long as a article listing Titanic Watchers or Watchers (titanic) is kept intact i have no problem
 * Good point although i have my doubts about the maiden of grief too, i'm not going to touch it--Ashbear160 (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You are citing... a dictionary. So, you say that watchers watch (that is true), and on this page, titanic things that watch should be listed. However, what would the point of a page with those standards be? That does not anwser any of the questions I just put forth (even vaguely). Why should a page that says something so completely bland and obvious by kept? You know, I could reassemble this page to just list, with minimal context (even less than there is now, because no one will be looking for the context this time), titanic things that have been called a watcher. I, however, dislike that idea.-- 02:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Because blizzard states them as watchers (as either title or descriptive), and distinguishes them from the rest of titanic creations, like earthen, tol'vir and mountain giants, and gives them a specific responsibility and are significantly more powerful than the rest of titanic creations, because of their specific responsibility, their responsibility is to watch something, if blizzard didn't bother to distinguish them i would be the one at fault, but blizzard does distinguish them, however i don't think all of those listed here should be here and some that are missing but that is a entirely different discussion--Ashbear160 (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * How (and where) does Blizzard distinguish the things listed on this page from the other titanic creations? Do they distinguish them from stone watchers?-- 03:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not directly, but i never saw that the things like thorim and loken using the ability to shift trough time, and the stone keeper article, kinda says that stone watchers are not sapient constructs while Thorim and Loken, so by the only definitions we have of stone keeper and stone watcher, these watchers not only do not fit but are clearly superior in both intellect and in power(again with some exceptions but that's a different discussion all together)--Ashbear160 (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So they (at least some) could just be really powerful and really well programmed stone watchers. If anything, I would say that there is not enough information to make any calls at this time, but I wonder what the safest route would be.-- 03:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say "Titanic Watchers" are just all those titan-like guys we have around the world, and that are serving some certain purpose. They're the most similar thing to titans on Azeroth. The maidens seem to be simple constructs, so I wouldn't consider them watchers (profession).
 * But, in the end, I think the page is fine with all the creatures that use those models, or similar, and we don't know their race for sure.
 * I'd add Algalon and leave it like it this, after all, we have a "presumed" above the list, so it's fine.--Lon-ami (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My computer crashed so i wasn't able to post it yesterday, anyway here's the anwser
 * They could, but that could be just speculation, while the statement that they are Titanic watchers is interpretation, the difference is the first statement "they could be Stone watchers" is speculation, while the latter statement "they are watchers of titanic origin" is a interpretation without speculation--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So, you want this page to list, and only list, things of titanic origin that are "watchers". How do you tell "watchers" from "stone watchers"? You say 'sapience' (which you can not prove) and 'clearly superior in both intellect and in power', but that itself is speculation. Also, if that is the case, it is speculation to shove all of the models of something called a watcher here, as they by your logic, might not all "watch".-- 03:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes and i can prove that least some of them are clearly superior in power(intellect is more dubious), if they are a watcher of titanic origin, they all have a function that involves watching(like i said if some of these don't belong is another discussion)--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also as the article states this also include things that are "keepers of titanic origin"--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will not allow a dictionary definition to be used as proof that "Watchers" watch. It is true, but irrelevant, thus stupid. I do not think superiority in power makes them different. It may, but that in itself is not proof. Yes, I know the article says that it includes "Keepers" and I stand by that, except if you are using the wording of the current article to prove something. I ask again: What is a "watcher"/"keeper"? We do not know, besides what is called one. What are each of the guys listed on this page? We do not know, besides a context-less name that some of them share.-- 20:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The context is that they were all left for a specific complex function by the titans, for example the ulduar group(except for maiden of grief) was to defend and take care of the prison of yogg-saron and prevent corruption, the uldum ones were to defend and take care of the re-origination device, Ironaya the same for the chambers of khaz'mul, archaedas was to maintain uldaman and defend the discs of Norgannon, Nablya manages the experiments in un'goro for khazgoroth, creteus, myzrael, Jotun and the maidens i do not know--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So, you are saying that the article is fine how it is? Fine. Whatever. Now here is a question: What is the "race" (or type of thing) of each member on the list? If you have an anwser, where did you get it?-- 20:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't know their race was never stated, also for the record i'm not the one that put titanic watcher as a racial label, i saw that people were doing this, didn't care, didn't touch it--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I redid the page a bit. Any useful comments?-- 18:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Added titanic guardians even trough that page is not yet made.--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What is a titanic guardian? If you mean the things in Uldum that have a mob with that name, do they have any lore at all? Also, the link messed up the wording of that sentence a bit.-- 18:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes those, guys since they already have named mobs, they can be considered something akin of a type of mechanical creature.--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How much have you thought this page through? They have no lore at all, besides what they each do (guard things and get killed), and they could be a number of existing things. Fancy stone watchers? Fancy stone keepers? Somehow dessicated lesser titans? Also, instead of saying that the things on this page might be a preexisting thing, you are saying that they might be a new thing that we know nothing about, when it (at a bare minimum) should be the other way around.-- 18:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no mention of preexisting in
 * "or titan constructs such as stone keepers, stone watchers and titanic guardians (which the terms might be short for)--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Titans, stone keepers, and stone watchers all have lore and official names. Titanic guardians do not. How is this not clear (to you or anyone)? You are saying that the things listed on this page may be "titanic guardians" when this is not the case.-- 18:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you know it's not the case? they share many qualities with them--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The "titanic guardian" things in Uldum may be titans, stone keepers, or stone watchers, but I strongly doubt that it is the other way around.-- 19:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Like SWM says, the term "watcher" is more established, when "titanic guardian" isn't. The article stays as it is. -- 19:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hum it wasn't about changing the name of the article... but the fact that titanic guardians might also be titanic watchers...--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think anyone mentioned changing the name of the article. These "titanic guardians" (if that is their real name) are related to "watchers" somehow.-- 20:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

 * That's the sensation he gave, by stating "the term watcher is more established", We named it using the most common name of the mobs with that model(and different hats, the other name was pyramid watcher), the somehowis that they are titanic constructs made to watch something(aggressively it seems).--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if Uldum contains the ultimate weapon, which could destroy Azeroth... it's understandable whey they're aggressively active. 21:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, watchers watch. We established that, and I think it is somewhat irrelevant. The context of Gourra's comment was that these "watchers" are not "titanic guardians", but the "titanic guardians" may be the things presented on this page (I think, I will not take his words out of context). I assume by "we" you mean your icon-club, and by "named it using the most common name of the mobs with that model" you mean that is how you got the term "titanic guardian". I think this is getting off topic.-- 21:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As for there looks, Blizzard loves to introduce new models every xpak (even for the same things) just so it's not a constant use of older models, to where it makes it feel like the same thing seen over and over again. For example... how would feel about entering deepholme and only seeing the same earth elementals you saw back in vanilla. Most players would probably think new environment, same enemies. 21:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Coobra, I am not sure what the pyramid guys are a new version of (stone watcher, stone keeper, titan, or something separate just called a "watcher"), and I am not quite sure what the old version (shoved on this page) specifically is.-- 21:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh this argument is getting confused, what i'm saying is that Titanic Guardian(all variations of that model with different hats) may be titanic watchers, which corresponds the phrasing of the article "May".--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll assume that is what you meant in the first place. So, going by that, the article does not need changing. Does it?-- 21:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It could be added the titanic guardian because the article clearly express "may", and the titanic guardian fit the same roles as the other 2 in that situation, of course we could just put it at the end of the article.--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand what you want, but what you are doing is giving two speculative names for the "titanic guardian" things (watcher, and titanic guardian). The pages would be redundant.-- 22:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Excessive citation for the names
It has been mentioned that some think that seven references each for two names seems rather excessive. However, as the person who added these citations, I disagree. We have little idea what these things are called, or if the two main names ever refer to exactly the same group. I added so many references so readers could decide for themselves what is right.-- 18:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Referencing each of the names that they are called is all well and good, but referencing every single time each name is used is excessive; the line of reference numbers takes up more space than the name itself. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)