Talk:Battlecruiser

Before Time

There is no such article at wikipedia, so at least half the template is inaccurate. I'm going to split it in two. PsiSeveredHead 22:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The name "Yamato" is actually derived from a Japanese warship used in World War II labelled as "The Yamato". This article need some revision. Anonymous 10 April 2007

No, it's based on the fictional Yamato ship. The real Yamato ship didn't have a wave-motion gun. PsiSeveredHead 00:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization inconsistency

Why are both words in the name of the Science Vessel capitalized, but only one of the two and a half words in this article's name capitalized? --Chibiabos 05:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Battlecruiser Classes

I've been wondering about the other classes of battlecruiser that have been featured in the novels; Mammoth and Leviathan class. They're too minor to have articles of their own, but putting them under the distinct class of Behemoth... Perhaps the battlecruiser article should be removed of class, but then again, that's perhaps a bit extreme.

Any ideas? --Hawki 08:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We could make an "other heavy ship class" article. (Actually I think there's a rarely visited Terran ship class article sitting around somewhere.) PsiSeveredHead 13:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the redirect, want me to put the Leviathan-class Battlecruiser in here?--Hawki 22:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

On one czech site is described several clases:

• Leviathan-class as the older class of Battlecruisers before behemoth class (no more informations)
• Behemoth-class as the most spreaded class with heavy ship plating and six double-laser bateries
• Ares-class as Starcruiser class (upgraded Battlecruiser) with heavy ship plating and six quatro-laser bateries (eg Norad II)
• Venegance-class as Starcruiser class (upgraded Battlecruiser) with double heavy ship plating and eight double-laser bateries (eg Hyperion)

What is Mammoth-class?

--lord Magnus, 27. XII. MMVII, 0:15 (CET)

I'd need links to the references for Ares and Vengeance classes.

Mammoth class is a troop carrier (much larger than a Dropship) mentioned in the Uprising and Queen of Blades novels. PsiSeveredHead 23:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The link is here. For your luck this page has also english version, so you can read it by yourself. Enjoy ;-)

--lord Magnus, 27. XII. MMVII, 2:38 (CET)

We can't use them, because it says this:

"Ares/Venegance class Starcruiser – Command ship

Appereance : In game, but the name is fictional."

Obviously they're all fictional, but it doesn't say this about the Leviathan and Behemoth classes. PsiSeveredHead 02:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, on the other side is better to say about Norad II StarCruiser Ares class (not official class) then unknown class. In fact it can help to clasified cruisers at this moment marked as unknown class. These classes obviously exist, it is just about their name. Norad II has more attack damage then Hyperion but Hyperion has more HP then Norad II (by info here) so they are two different classes of upgraded BattleCruiser.

--lord Magnus, 27. XII. MMVII, 14:00 (CET)

No, sorry, we can't use the name Ares class, as we don't have a Blizzard source for it. They might not even be two different classes, just minor upgrades (or better crew, etc). PsiSeveredHead 14:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Battlecruiser vs Carrier

There is, in fact, a scene in the end cutscene of the original Terran campaign that strongly implies a battle between a BC and a CV - it shows a Battlecruiser in the process of crashing into the ground and a swarm of Interceptors streaming towards the BC from the camera (implying that the camera is from the CV's viewpoint).

It's at the time of the line "The tides of an unwinnable war are against us". Draxynnic 14:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Starcraft 2

What does its plasma torpedo looks like? Does Yamato gun still do 250 of damage? What class is it? Hercules class?

Check here. http://eu.starcraft2.com/features/terran/battlecruiser.xml

Note that, due to there being at least classes of battlecruiser, the page title has been changed to simply "battlecruiser". PsiSeveredHead 21:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ghost Battlecruiser image

For some reason I can't see it on my computer (but I know the image is on the site). Is that the case for other people? PsiSeveredHead 00:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The image with caption "Nova with a Battlecruiser overhead" is showing up ok for me. --Meco 01:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto with Meco--Hawki 01:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Plasma Torpedo?

I noticed that the following pic was posted:

Now, it also seems that it has been interpreted as the BC using its Plasma Torpedo ability. However, the lasers do not come out of small cannons along the hammerhead (which aren't even there), but rather something below the main cannon. SCLegacy has interpreted this as a new AtG attack and Karune's post calls it an "attack", though that is pretty ambiguous. -Capefeather 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Cruisers and Battleships

This has been something that's been on my mind for awhile, a recent reading of LC reminding me of it. Basically, there's the issue of the two ships that the Battlecruiser is between, at least in modern day navies; the Cruiser and Battleships.

In all likelihood, these ships do exist, but that alone doesn't warrant an article. Some evidence has presented itself, but is easily offset. As such;

Cruisers

For

-Liberty mentions Cruisers at the end of LC (see the quote)

-The menu screen of StarCraft single player displays a "Class 4 Inteaceptor". No idea what that is, but it appears to be a light warship, capable of deploying fighters (Red Squadron). It's definetly not a battlecruiser, frigates don't house fighters (I think), so...

Against

-Cruiser could easily be a shortened form of Battlecruiser. This is definetly a canon trend, the Norad III being called a Cruiser in Shadow of the Xel'Naga

-Inteaceptor could be a class of ship itself. Certainly there's nothing solid to establish it as a Cruiser.

Battleships

For

-It's mentioned that the Thor's armament would not be out of place on a Battleship.

-In Queen of Blades, it's mentioned that the most important vessels in any space engagement are battleships. Certainly Rosenberg introduced many new classes of ship.

Against

-Battleship is easily an alternate title for Battlecruiser.

-It's mentioned in the manual that Battlecruisers are the most powerful terran capital ship. So, if Battleships do exist, they'd be weaker than Battlecruisers? Hardly conventional. Admittedly, Battleship can also refer to a class of ship (eg. the Dreadnought), but even so...

Thoughts?--Hawki 10:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In real life, a battlecruiser really is between a battleship and a cruiser. A battlecruiser's weapons are about as heavy as a battleship's, but it has lighter armor. Battleships aren't made anymore because aircraft carriers are so much better.

IMO, the novel authors are using short terms. Many of them aren't familiar with real military tactics and organizations as well. (It's sort of like why I didn't want a Confederate Army article; I'm sure DeCandido confused the terms Army and Marines. Making matters worse, in real life there's no marines without an army, but StarCraft doesn't seem to have an army outside of possibly mistaken mentions in Ghost: Nova.)

And, by the wiki's policy, the manual generally trumps novels. If the Battlecruiser is the most powerful kind of ship, then the novels are probably using short terms. (Think of it this way; if battleships existed in the StarCraft universe, why is the Norad III called a battlecruiser?) PsiSeveredHead 14:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the carrier issue is that QoB at least implies that the Mammoth-class Carrier is without armament and as such, there's no precedent for a ship class to replace a Battleship. (Hawki)

The Terran carrier, as far as I can tell, is a troop carrier; basically, a cargo vessel used by the military (with the cargo being people). So no, it wouldn't be equivalent :) Kimera 757 (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the Army...well, DeCandido may have made a mistake with the Army, but Confederate Army is indeed capitlized in the novel, as opposed to "Dominion Marines" being capitilzed as well. He may not have understood the wider nature of organization (eg. the 'Companies' of the 22nd), but I still think it's safe to divide the two. After all, Raynor served in the Colonial Rangers; to my knowledge, Rangers are an Army branch.--Hawki 11:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... good point. Kimera 757 (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Plasma Torpedos

...Aren't they supposed to be called the plasma array?

I heard Plasma Turret. I think it would take a screenshot to prove the actual name. Kimera 757 (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

New Battlecruiser Classes

Obviously Blizzard has released that two new Battlecruiser classifications exist now: the Hercules and the Minotaur. On the BC information page it states that the Minotaur is equipped with the Yamato cannon; could it be implied that the Hercules is equipped with the Plasma Torpedoes or is that not what's meant concerning the Minotaur? 76.21.226.66

That was true when there were only battlecruiser special abilities (Yamato Cannon and Plasma Torpedoes). However later Blizzard made three models (Yamato Cannon, Missiles and Defensive Matrix) so the game outpaced the lore (Blizzard won't update the lore until the game is ready, I believe).

Then comes Frontline vol. 2, which confirmed that the Yamato Cannon is on the Minotaur-class battlecruiser. Considering how long it takes to write these stories, it's quite possible it was written when there were only the two models.

It's quite possible the Hercules class is supposed to be the one using Plasma Torpedoes, but will only appear in the campaign; on the other hand, the name could have been assigned to one of the newer versions.

In short, we know the Yamato Cannon belongs to the Minotaur-class, and we cannot be sure until the game is released (or the lore is updated on the official website) what the names of the other classes are. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Size

Battlecruiser lengths

Has the length of a typical Battlecruiser been officially revealed by Blizzard? If so, what is it? I heard that it's 1.2km, but I find it conflicting in many sites.

Starshade 16:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It was stated in StarCraft: Uprising (I forget the exact length) but the lore from novels often conflicts. :( Kimera 757 (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In Uprising it was stated to be 2 leagues long. That's no longer an official unit of measurement but is figure to be about 3 miles (roughly 4.8 kilometers) so a battlecruiser would be 6 miles or 9.6 kilometers long. --Zervziel 21:49, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Battlecruiser troop capacity

These things are massive, but in "Uprising," the book says they only carry "hundreds of marines, dropships, siege tanks, even armored Goliaths."

Can this just be misinterpreted as collectively including all troops and hardware and counting them all under "hundreds?"

Because I honestly think that a battlecruiser should at least hold a couple thousand ground troops, because for a capital ship, a few hundred troops is not a lot, unless the quote actually meant "hundreds of marines, dropships, siege tanks, and armored goliaths" all together (because thousands of tanks dropships and goliaths in a cruiser is too much, so the author used hundreds instead to describe them all.) Pandonetho

Realistically, capital ships aren't designed to carry troops. For that, you'd need a Mammoth-class carrier. Also, we aren't even sure how big a battlecruiser is; we've heard some very big and quite small sizes for them. Kimera 757 (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

2 leagues according to uprising

And a lot smaller according to the Brood War opening video. That's why I said the sources conflict. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 02:16, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

Size (again)

Anyone mind telling me the length of the battlecruiser?

Hyper Zergling 01:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No one knows for sure. We were told over a mile in Uprising, though. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, really? They seem much smaller.

Hyper Zergling 03:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Inauguration video shows the battlecruisers and the wraiths in the same shots, as well as the wraiths compared to their cabins. You can try calculating from that. They seem to be about 20 times the length of wraiths.Omeganian 17:36, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

But we don't know how big a Wraith is. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 23:50, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

In Uprising it was stated to be 2 leagues long. That's no longer an official unit of measurement but is figure to be about 3 miles (roughly 4.8 kilometers) so a battlecruiser would be 6 miles or 9.6 kilometers long.--Zervziel 21:50, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

In other words almost 1.2 kilometers short of being twice as long as a Covenant Assault Carrier, which is 5.3 kilometers long. Just look at a pic of it from Halopedia or some other site and imagine something almost twice as long.--Zervziel 21:53, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

The dimensions of a Battlecruiser don't really make sense. On the battlecruiser page, it tells us that the dimensions for the Bucephalus are: 560 meters long and 82.4 meters WIGHT? Maybe if that read high, then it would be alright, but if they mean to make that wide, then we have a real problem here. The dimensions of a battlecruiser are usually no more than 1:2.5 and an unknown height. This should be fixed.

The Bucephalus measurements are taken from a canon source. We can't really ditch it. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 00:12, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

The video in SC2 states that the "Bucephalus" has 82.4 wight.Then again, it is a Minotaur- class.The Behemoth and Hercules can be larger.Also, we don't know to which part of the ship the wight refers to.It could be the hammerhead, the main hull, the "wings", or the connection between the hammerhead and the main hull.Svetoslav 18:47, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Battlecruiser and physics lab

Just sounds fairly illogical - battlecruisers need power from planet-based labs. And- Hyperion and most other noted vessels of such class- they operated without labs. In whole these are space battlecruisers - intended for battles LIGHTYEARS away from base.

As considering reqiurement of a physics lab - this could be simply resolved. Labs do the necessare calculations and provide relay data for a battlecruiser to be stabilized in lower atmosphere or in close proximity to orbiting platforms and provide battlefield support. If labs destroyed - battlecruiser should be limited to open space, orbit and upper atmosphere. Hyperion and some other "heroic" vessels could have on-board science labs for such stuff--93.153.161.237 18:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of stuff in StarCraft doesn't make sense :)

While what you said made sense, we have to say what StarCraft: Brood War actually said: the physics labs were "required" for powering up their weapons systems. We can't use speculation. This isn't the first or only plot hole in StarCraft. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that you could point out how little sense this makes in a notes or trivia section, just not in the main body of the article. Please be sure to use neutral point of view (in other words, don't say LIGHT YEARS in all caps.) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This was over 4 years ago, but in Heart of the Swarm we see the Hyperion operating its Yamato cannon without science labs of any descriptions. Therefore the OP might be right...a distinct possibility is that the labs just coordinate BC's main gun for in-atmosphere use, while in space (without gravity and wind to mess up shooting) the Yamato functions fine, and because of that the Terrans favor packing the ships with weaponry rather than large calculating systems.184.58.0.200 19:35, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

The OP might be right... but maybe they're not. I suspect Blizzard just didn't think that through, but again, we don't why. That's why we don't use speculation on the wiki. (We had a big problem a few years ago, due to speculation with times and dates.) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 19:38, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

Battlecruisers escorting Bucephalus

I've noticed that the two battlecruisers escorting Bucephalus when arriving at the Moebius rendezvous point have also a small readout each one just like Bucephalus has. However, I'm unable to read them, and I even consider that they are unreadable since they are showed just too briefly. Is someone able to read those, or at least the names of the ships? Omega20 22:02, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Battlecruiser articles lists

As noticed by PSH, the list seems to be getting a bit long. We can do one or both of the following: reduce the lists to only "notable" ships/personnel, and/or create subcategories for specific battlecruiser classes (and possible discard the ship list altogether.) - Meco (talk, contribs) 01:16, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Or there's the option of a scrollbox, which if any option would be necessary, I'd find the most preferable.--Hawki 08:22, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

I can go for a scrollbox, if the list of "notable" objects is still long. I don't think it's necessary to include every ship was ever mentioned; that's what categories are for. - Meco (talk, contribs) 20:45, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

The "notes" on size

Uprising states that a battlecruiser is leagues long.Since the Hercules an Minotaur classes were NOT developed at the time, we can assume that they regard the behemoth class. The new classes CAN be smaller and still retain the same basic shape. The notes should be removed.--Svetoslav 17:55, July 1, 2011 (UTC)

The model types were clarified. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 18:21, July 1, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed they are, but still the "Bucephalus" is a Minotaur class, NOT a Hercules class.--Svetoslav 08:50, July 2, 2011 (UTC)

Is the Hyperion a Minotaur?

The Hyperion is a Behemoth class, since it was stolen before the Minotaur class's conception, this makes every BC seen in cutscenes a Behemoth as they all look very similar to the Hyperion. So maybe the Minotaurs are oriented at atmospheric combat, the Behemoth taking the role of extra-atmospheric? But the Hyperion appears ingame as a buffed Minotaur, whereas in cinematics and in loading scenes the Hyperion lacks the Star Destroyer-esque command bridge, and has more cannons and appears to be much bigger.

So does Blizzard just fail at consistency between cutscenes and ingame or..? -99.126.77.135

It was just cheaper for Blizzard not to make "new" artwork for an old battlecruiser. The Hyperion is still a Behemoth-class battlecruiser. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 22:09, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Psi. For the record, I've added notes on the issue in the ship's article.--Hawki 12:05, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

That really seems shoddy on Blizzard's part. More than ten years in the making and they're too lazy to make a Behemoth model? -127.0.1.32

Gorgon game model

Nor a Gorgon, at that o-O

Seriously, what nit decided the Buce was Gorgon? Their models are so aesthetically different...184.58.0.200 19:25, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

That info was updated in the most recent novel, Flashpoint. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 19:32, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

Game canon overrides books, yeah? Gorgons look a lot different from Behemoths and Minotaurs ingame; more like Lokis. Cutscenes can't be relied on for continuity, it'd appear, so by all rights it should remain a Minotaur. 184.58.0.200 19:37, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

The info in the cinematic and books conflict, but we're not going to use "image analysis", as that's far less accurate than clearly-stated sources. In addition, Blizzard directly called out the Bucephalus as a new class for a flagship. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 19:43, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit of a leap to go from 'a new class of battlecruiser' to 'Gorgon class battlecruiser'. The loremaster could've been referring to the Minotaur, for all we know. What we do know, on the other hand, is that Gorgons are elongated BCs with a Warhammer 40k-esque prow, a description that doesn't fit the Bucephalus in any shape or form.

I'm going to go ahead and find a screenie of a Gorgon and put it in that section, we can figure out the Bucephalus issue later. It really bites to me that there is so much inconsistency within the game. You'd think with a guy on payroll explicitly to avoid that sort of thing that it'd be nullified somewhat, but from what I can tell Starcraft has to be the worst offender in that respect.184.58.0.200 19:44, March 20, 2013 (UTC)

Whenever we get an image of the Gorgon's in-game model (which looks like a variant of the Jackson's Revenge/Loki in-game model): save it for the Gorgon unit article. It will not be at home in the Gorgon lore section. Making a distinction between lore-y and game-y depictions/information is nothing new around here. - Meco (talk, contribs) 20:55, March 20, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I added the picture before I saw the talk page. So just remove the picture entirely? Something I'd like to point out is that in HotS the Hyperion, and by extension the Behemoth class, now has its own model that distinguishes it from the Minotaurs. Given that all BCs in the cinematics don the generic 'HD Hyperion' model, it's safe to say those aren't a reliable source of information. That means the Bucephalus very well could be a Gorgon as we've never seen it ingame.

I suggest removing all the pictures derived from cinematics and patiently sit on our hands until Bliz clears things up; whether it's a simple act of laziness on their part, or if Battlecruisers have remained identical through 3 generations. As a sidenote, though, the Gorgon appears to be a specialized class; Warfield and Kerri treat their deployment ingame with some bravado. Somewhat supports the Buce=Gorg concept. Jayvu (talk) 22:35, March 20, 2013 (UTC)

If you can add a source for the image, we can keep it for the Gorgon unit article. Aside from that, nothing is changing. - Meco (talk, contribs) 22:42, March 20, 2013 (UTC)

One of the neat things about the mediawiki software is that it's a community driven platform for information. While I respect that you've been here longer and won't engage in an edit war with you, I must assert that unless I've missed something and you're an admin our says in the matter are fairly equal. I'd ask you to reconsider your stance here instead of flat-out opposing an idea that has a moderate amount of merit. Given the ingame models there is no way a Gorgon looks like a Behemoth, as the picture that I removed implied. Other than that I'm perfectly OK with the article, the 'cinematic BC' is a Behemoth, while the Minotaur and Gorgon classes are represented by how they appear in the game. There really doesn't seem to be any other plausible explanation; the only other one I can think of is that all the battlecruisers look the same, but you and I both know that isn't true.

edit: I also see you reversed my edit on the grounds of "we keep game and lore separate for a reason". There are no pictures of a Gorgon class BC. Aside from the ingame model all we have is a shoehorned designation of the Buce as one after the development process of WoL, meaning that it could not have been displayed as a proper model given to the class in HotS. What I'm saying here is that having the model of a Behemoth in the Gorgon slot is a bit misleading when canon has dictated that the Buce is of the model seen on Char in HotS. Jayvu (talk) 23:22, March 20, 2013 (UTC)

The WoL image for the Gorgon in the lore context is allowed through the synthesis of lore-oriented sources. Saliently, this synthesis does not require jumping through hoops, or trying to read deeply into Blizzard's intentions, and comes from canon sources as defined by the wiki.

That the Gorgon's appearance game-side is different does not affect the lore-side conclusion. This instance is not exceptional as to do so. (An example of an exceptional circumstance would be some sort of weird overlap between the two contexts. Like if the Gorgon unit model had shown up in a cinematic as a Gorgon.) Conversely, the lore depiction has no bearing on the "acceptability" of the game depiction.

In the interest of inclusiveness and avoiding endorsing one as the "true" depiction (which would require knowing Blizzard's mind beyond reasonable doubt), both images get used separately in their respective contexts. This happened with Hyperion for WoL, I imagine it will happen with the Umojan marines seen in HotS, and it will also happen with the Gorgon.

Things may change if:

1. Blizzard starts loading the dice by having the Gorgon unit model appear as the Gorgon in lore (either in quantity or in significant appearances)
2. Blizzard comes out and and explicitly says "yes, this is what the Gorgon looks like"

Since this has not happened, nothing is changing. - Meco (talk, contribs) 01:34, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

Arguing with you at this point, I've realized, is a fruitless endeavor. I won't point out how daft I find that policy to be for the sake of avoiding further incident, but I apologize for intruding on this wiki, I did not realize the concept of change for the sake of not overcomplicating things was such a fallacy here. Good day. 184.58.0.200 19:25, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

Gorgon's stated length and width

So...

"Length: 560 metres/1,827 feet (Gorgon-class) Width: 82.4 metres/240 feet (Gorgon-class)"

Can we put a note on the page on how these numbers can't possibly work with the ships they are assigned to?

Now, I know we don't include picture scalings as canon size estimates on the wiki, but I do think that it is called for here to precisely show how messed up they are: [1]

There's no possible way for it to have those figures and have the same shape from the cinematic.

Flashpoint does call the Bucephalus a Gorgon though, but it doesn't fit the Gorgon from HotS either. [2]

The other canon figures, ones we are dismissing as an error because of the info given by Kindregan/Heir Apparent, (2 Leagues from Uprising) actually have supporting evidence, from Frontline's Newsworthy story (Really Huge Minotaur) and Heart of the Swarm's intro (Really Huge Falling Battlecruiser). Both of those Battlecruisers are closer to those figures than any other.

But the Heir Apparent ones don't fit with what is on screen. They don't fit with anything visual in the StarCraft canon.

Now I know that it is official info, but we have dismissed Uprising's figures due to being "incorrect." Why not these figures too?

At the least, if we do still keep the numbers from Heir Apparent, can we at least have a part in the Notes section to point out that the dimensions given can't possibly work with the ships the dimensions are assigned to?

Maybe we could have both figures in a continuity section of the article, like the StarCraft: Queen of Blades article? --Shadow Archon (talk) 04:32, May 5, 2015 (UTC)

I've put up a "sizes" section. That said, it's only the leagues thing that calls it into question in of itself, which ends up working both ways - outright statements contradict visual analysis, fan-made or otherwise. The dimensions thing assumes that the wings constitute part of the width, and the cinematics team is separate from cDev, so observations, while great for fan work, can't really be used as a basis, at least when actual figures are given.--Hawki (talk) 10:20, May 5, 2015 (UTC)

Fan-made or otherwise? Won't an official Blizzard analysis state a direct figure anyways?

Well, width does directly mean: "a piece of something at its full extent from side to side." or "the measurement or extent of something from side to side." So, by saying width, it has to include the wings, or else they aren't using width correctly.

While I can understand the devotion to the stated facts, I thought the model itself, when viewed objectively from the editor at a perfect angle, and not from a more indirect angle in a cutscene, would have a bit more stronger standing. I can understand though. You'd rather not open those kind of flood gates and travel down a slippery slope. I am happy with the current changes to the article though. That's enough for me.

Though, if I ever have a chance at going to a Blizzcon Lore Panel, this will be one of the things I wish to point out. --Shadow Archon (talk) 17:57, May 5, 2015 (UTC)