Talk: Blackwall

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blackwall article.
General discussions not pertaining to the improvement of the article should be held in Discussions instead. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes! (~~~~) Do not edit another editor's comment.

Infobox Image (Updated as of 2/16/15)

The new infobox image of Blackwall is really cool (I love it!), but wouldn't it make more sense to use an image of Blackwall from the actual game? This looks more like concept art. --Death by Cheese (talk) 06:18, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely an in game image would be ideal. But at the moment there is a real shortage of good in game images of Blackwall's face without the helmet in the way. Soon as we get a decent one of those we'll replace this one.

- 06:36, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! --Death by Cheese (talk) 06:47, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it matters that it's concept art, given that Fenris' is too. It's too bad there's not one that's more of a close-up on his face, though. --♫ Kelcat ^Talk 06:42, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Well, whaddya know... I never noticed that about Fenris's pic before. And yes, poor Blackwall is really lacking good closeups, sans helmet. Thanks for the responses! All of this makes sense to me. --Death by Cheese (talk) 06:47, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

The current image is not good, it's too small according to me.-- 20:23, November 12, 2014 (UTC)

The new image was uploaded incorrectly and replaced a completely different image which is against image guidelines. I've reverted the file to the previous one, we can probably get something better if needed next week when the game is actually released. Otherwise I think a discussion should be had rather than repeatedly replacing it. --♫ Kelcat ^Talk 22:22, November 12, 2014 (UTC)

Update (2/16/15)

Which picture should be used in the character infobox?

1. (The current one.)
2. (The new one. Space effective and doesn't stick out as much/"calmer".)

My vote goes toward the second one.--Dragonzzilla (talk) 17:24, February 16, 2015 (UTC)

My vote is for the 2nd one... looks lot better dunno why.-- 18:48, February 16, 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't there a rule to use an image from when the character is first shown? henioo ^{(da talk page)} 19:31, February 16, 2015 (UTC)

I'm neutral regarding replacing the image. -- Kewpies^[talk] 22:14, February 16, 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care for either, but I don't like how much he blends into the dark background on the second one--it makes him not stand out enough in my opinion. The first one shows him much clearer, and the light background makes him pop out more. ♫ Kelcat ^Talk 23:25, February 16, 2015 (UTC)

Possibly romance with Josephine?

During party banter you may heard one of the companions(Cole for example) talking with Blackwall about his interest in Josephine(if neither of them is romanced). After hearing one of those conversations, The Inquisitor can ask Blackwall about this and inform Josephine. I sent Blackwall to Wardens, so Josephine said nothing can happen because of that. I tried to see what happens if he is free but I got "Party Banter Not Firing" bug. Soo... Could anyone check is it possible to brought Blackwall and Josephine together somehow? --Konst@ntin (talk) 21:19, December 6, 2014 (UTC)

I'm interested in this as well. Heidirs (talk) 23:05, February 16, 2015 (UTC)

sounds like it doesn't happen. Heidirs (talk) 23:22, February 16, 2015 (UTC)

Vanished...

Had just barely completed the Grey Memories; he seems somewhat put out if he wasn't in the party when you update the quest.

After the Abyss mission; I made the ring leader tranquil, and refused to judge the other woman who turned herself in. I didn't catch his dis/approval, but he seemed rather genial given the circumstances when I talked to him after. Once that conversation ended, I noticed an exclamation mark on the map in the stable, so I went and talked to him again; we went to the bar, he said he hopes he can live up to the standard I've set for him, and handed me the Warden Badge; then he vanished, he's not in Skyhold, and I can't use him in my party; he better make damn good use of the high-end equipment I crafted him. And just for posterity, we were currently in a romance when the fucker ran off on me. Shadizar666 (Ruck Rules) 21:17, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

Well aren't I a complete moron for skipping through for quick notes instead of reading the damned thing. Shadizar666 (Ruck Rules) 21:30, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

The Joining

"It is unclear if he underwent the Joining".

When I played, he quite clearly stated that he never had the chance to undergo the Joining (as the real Blackwall was dead before he could) and he couldn't go back to Warden HQ to go through it as he was asked to, because he had no proof that he had been recruited (the Joining would've been proof enough) and Blackwall was dead.

That's also why he says "all a Warden is, is a promise". It doesn't matter if you've undergone the Joining or not, to him (although really, in a Blight, it kind of does, but that's another matter). It's about protecting the people. He views them more like an order of knights with no Lord or King to serve. It's pretty interesting, actually, to see someone so invested in the Wardens - especially given recent events.

I think one of the admins should do his companion quest again and confirm this. I don't expect anyone to take a random poster at face value, but it is stated very clearly in the game that he is not actually a Grey Warden. LordSchmee (talk) 08:29, December 12, 2014 (UTC)

Heavy alterations

Obviously, spoilers ahead. Do not read before finishing the Grey Wardens plotline in Inquisition.

I have noticed that the article was not changed yet to reflect his involvement in the game. As you ignored the heading, you probably well know Blackwall is not Blackwall but Thom Reinier (might be spelled wrong), an Orlesian captain who took the name of a Grey Warden named Blackwall. This poses several problems. One, how do we reflect this in the article without huge spoilers? We would need to think about renaming the article to Thom Reinier, and creating a new one for actual Blackwall, the Warden-Constable. We'd need to remove his title, and the Grey Warden category. Change the heading to omit the mentioning of him being a Warden, for he is not; for example say "Thom "Blackwall" Reiner" is a companion in DA:I". Then explain that he is not a Warden under a spoiler tag.

Any thoughts? henioo ^{(da talk page)} 05:31, December 16, 2014 (UTC)

I'm completely against such alterations. His name is still Blackwall, regardless of whether or not he took it from someone else. After the quest the Inquisitor asks him what he should be called, and he says they should still call him "Blackwall". Thom Ranier was his name, but he doesn't use it anymore. Also, he identifies himself as being a Grey Warden, even though he never took the Joining. As he says, "All a Warden is, is a promise." To me, that means he counts himself as a Grey Warden, and if he does, I believe the wiki should as well. All of the promotional materials also call him a Grey Warden, and I think we should follow the devs on this like we do with other things. The info about his true former identity and his past can stay safely under a spoiler tag. Also, I believe he said at some point after that quest that he was originally from Ferelden, but I could be wrong on that one.

The promotional materials call him a Grey Warden, undoubtedly, so as to not spoil the reveal that he is not Blackwall. --WTRiker (talk) 07:55, January 8, 2015 (UTC)

I also don't think there is near enough info on the original Blackwall to create an article for him, as he doesn't really meet DA:NOTABLE. --♫ Kelcat ^Talk 05:46, December 16, 2014 (UTC)

Well, Corypheus considers himself to be a god, or aspires to be one. But we shouldn't call him a god in his article. The truth is that Blackwall isn't a Grey Warden, even if he really wants to be one. Technically, of course. My issue here is with technicality.

After the revelation takes place in the game I consider "Blackwall" to be his nickname, an assumed name and not an actual name, which should be reflected in the article.

I think BW called him a Warden on purpose, to not spoil his real identity. If we're going to treat him as an actual Grey Warden, should we do so with Jory, Daveth and Mhairi? They definitely were recruited as was Blackwall, and they even went one step further than him by actually undergoing the Joining.

As for real Blackwall, I would argue that he is notable enough. One, he is a rank beneath a Warden-Commander, two there is a codex entry with a letter written by him during the Fifth Blight, and three he is the man who inspired Thom to turn his life around. I however don't feel strongly about this, but I wouldn't mind if there was an article on the real Blackwall, either. If such thing happened, we could link it in this article like "For another man named Blackwall, see Blackwall (Warden)" (or something, in the style of Aveline and the original Aveline the chevalier.

In summary, what I feel strongly about it to not call him a Grey Warden outright as it is now. We need to specify that he is a Warden-Recruit. I don't mind the name of the article staying the same, although we should list his birth name all the same, in the opening of the article, kinda like we call Inquisitor as both Inquisitor and Herald of Andraste. henioo ^{(da talk page)} 06:04, December 16, 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to have to side with Kelcat on this one. I'm all for including clarity behind the spoiler tags but I think the article otherwise should stay as is.

- 06:12, December 16, 2014 (UTC)

"Iron Bull" is an assumed name, too, you know. . I still feel strongly that he should continue to be referred to as a Grey Warden; I've always considered Warden-Recruits to still be Wardens, as that is listed as part of the Warden hierarchy. True, WoT says that recruits have to undergo the Joining in order to become "true" Wardens, recruits are still included in the Order's hierarchy, and their names are recorded at Weisshaupt if they don't survive. At the very, very least, I am against putting anything like "claims to be a Warden", as I've seen added in the past. That just puts up a big red flag. I'm very much in favor of things being technically correct in most circumstances, but I also don't think it's right to turn the article into one huge spoiler, starting with his original name. It's why we don't have Alistair's article name as Alistair Theirin, or say in Loghain's lead section that he is a potential companion. Both of those things are also technically correct, but they're also spoilers. --♫ Kelcat ^Talk 06:27, December 16, 2014 (UTC)

However, it is different with Qunari as they don't have proper names. Anyway, you said the Inquisition should still call him Blackwall, but he also treats it as a title. here's a video of it, which supports my idea of it being a nickname rather than a name he uses. henioo ^{(da talk page)} 07:16, December 16, 2014 (UTC)

Timeline

Is it ever said when exactly Blackwall took on his new persona? I got the impression that it had been a long time, but I don't actually recall seeing anything specific. --♫ Kelcat ^Talk 19:39, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

The codex entry says something like Blackwall was spotted in Val Chevin around 9:37, or something like that. Presumably it was the real Blackwall, so Thom became Blackwall any time between 9:37 and 9:41. henioo ^{(da talk page)} 07:58, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Misleading info maybe?

Thom Rainier is a warden recruit, the real blackwall was the Warden-Constable. So shouldn't this be corrected? He never took the Joining and according to everyone in Ostagar that makes you a Warden Recruit. And where is the page for actual Blackwall? There's enough information even on such a small character, and there are smaller pages. His title should be "Blackwall", because even he says it himself. StagsKilledDragons (talk) 05:49, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

There ia currently a discussion taking place above. You are welcome to take part. henioo ^{(da talk page)} 05:09, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

page split

Should we split Blackwall into "Blackwall" and "Blackwall (Warden)", since there was once a real Blackwall, the one that Thom took the identity of, treating this page as Thom Ranier and his adventures as Blackwall, and the other page being utilized for what we know of the original/real Blackwall? --WTRiker (talk) 07:53, January 8, 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction (Spoilers)

If Blackwall never performed the Joining, and therefore is not an actual Grey Warden, how has he been getting away with posing as one? Being capable of things such as possessing the maps for Memories of the Grey, the treaties for conscripting, having knowledge on their fortresses, and even performing duties for them? Grey Wardens are supposed to be able to 'sense' one another the way they 'sense' Darkspawn due to the taint. So whenever Blackwall is around another Warden, like Stroud or Alistair, or when he addresses them at Adamant, shouldn't the others have been able to tell he wasn't really a Grey Warden? I doubt they would allow someone to run around calling himself one when he really isn't. It's a bit contradicting, isn't it? Did the creators not notice this plot hole, or did they just brush it off? --108.215.164.199 (talk) 17:59, January 15, 2015 (UTC)CrimsonRaine

Rename and restructure

After playing through the game a couple more times, I'm changing my mind about possible changes to this article to deal with the whole "he's not really a Warden" thing. I think we should rename the article to Thom "Blackwall" Rainier. I think it's important to keep the name Blackwall in the article title, since that's the name he goes by the most. Then turn Blackwall into a soft redirect to this page. We can cut out the part about him being a Grey Warden in the lead, and since both Background and Involvement are behind spoiler tags, we can do a bit of rearranging to avoid calling him a Grey Warden, then go into greater detail about his companion quest and real name, etc etc (which still needs to be done regardless).

I'd like to keep his approval and dialogue pages as just "Blackwall", though, just because it seems simpler to me.

If it's decided that the real Blackwall warrants his own article, I'm on the fence about what to name it. Blackwall (Warden) might cause confusion for readers. Maybe Blackwall (Historical)? --♫ Kelcat ^Talk 02:47, February 2, 2015 (UTC)

I myself am fine with the page staying as Blackwall, because otherwise it would look silly with quotation marks in the name, I think. For me it is either Blackwall or Thom Ranier, but then then there is the war table quest called Thom Rainier's Fate, which would be spoilerish to a newcomer, as they would realise you can decide the faith of Blackwall. Then in the opening of the article we'd use the nickname as Thom "Blackwall" Reinier. For the real BlackWall, I don't mind calling him "Blackwall (Historical)", and then link to it in this article as "For the man who inspired Blackwall, see Blackwall (Historical)".

You mentioned removing mentioning of him being a Warden. Do we do the same with the infobox, or do we list him as a Warden-Recruit? henioo ^{(da talk page)} 19:29, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather keep the page as Blackwall and just do a redirect if searching for Thom Rainer. The character is known more commonly as Blackwall, so I think that's what the page should reflect. Heidirs (talk) 22:42, February 16, 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is enough information for the historical blackwall to warrant a page. Maybe a few lines in the trivia section.(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 18:03, February 18, 2015 (UTC))

So is anything gonna happen with this or what? Now the page has been renamed, but Gordon is not Blackwall's name, it is the name of Gordon Blackwall, the original person Blackwall stole the identity from. The article should remain as just Blackwall, as that's how this particular character calls himself in the game, i think. henioo ^{(da talk page)} 15:51, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to do about the Blackwall-Rainier spoiler issue, but Blackwall never uses the name "Gordon", even if that is the name of the man he's impersonating. So I agree that "Blackwall" should be the name of the article.

If the original isn't getting his own page, I think the article should be a blurb about Gordon Blackwall's background and life and then Thom Rainier's under a spoiler tag. The current structure is confusing because it discusses Thom Rainier's backstory using the name "Gordon Blackwall", intermingling both character's backstories in a confusing mess. Ravenfirelight (talk) 16:26, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

I actually just went ahead and edited the background section according to my own suggestion, I hope that's agreeable. Ravenfirelight (talk) 17:20, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of the new name, and I think it should have been discussed first in this particular situation. If Thom Rainier isn't an appropriate name for the article--which I concede it isn't--I definitely don't think this should be named Gordon Blackwall. As Henio points out, Gordon is not Blackwall's name, nor has it ever been. That's the name of the Warden he took his name from. This is all just too damn confusing, and I think it should just stay named Blackwall with a new article about the original Warden called Gordon Blackwall. --♫ Kelcat ^Talk 18:19, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

I do need to check my copies of WoT1&2, but I don't think there's enough information about Gordon Blackwall to merit a full article. Beyond being a respected Warden that was serving at the time of the Fifth Blight, there's not much on him. Ravenfirelight (talk) 18:42, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

If there's not enough info on him, that's fine. Either way, I think it's best to keep this one titled "Blackwall". --♫ Kelcat ^Talk 18:48, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

Well, HD3 was the one who did the name change, so let's wait awhile for them to chime in (And if they don't by, say, tomorrow, change it back to Blackwall) Ravenfirelight (talk) 19:10, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

Sweet Maker, I thought we were done with this. But if we're going to argue the toss anyway, using a character's full and complete name has always been policy in naming articles. We renamed samson to Raleigh Samson even though his first name is never used in game. I don't see how anything that occurs with the character in game has any impact on this. Having read World of Thedas Vol 2, I can confirm there is probably not enough information to justify a distinct article for the original warden blackwall. Considering the current article's backstory combines elements of what rainier's tells the inquisitor with confirmed actions of the original blackwall from elsewhere, which makes sense to me given he assumed his identity, I really don't see any need to change anything beyond the article name and keep all information relating to Rainier's true identity behind the spoiler tag.

-HD3 ^(Talk) 03:38, June 11, 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with you about renaming articles to full names nearly every single time, but you have to admit that Blackwall is an anomaly and sometimes exceptions should be made. Policy is to always name the characters by their full and complete names, yes, and again in the vast majority of cases it's not even an issue. However, Blackwall's full and complete name is not Gordon Blackwall. It's Thom Rainier. Even in WoT2 they're vague about the name, stating "Gordon Blackwall was recruited from the city of Cumberland in 9:17 Dragon." We of course know that this is not the same Blackwall who is a companion of the Inquisitor, so his name shouldn't be used. As you can see above, though, consensus was to use his nickname instead, for various reasons. Blackwall even says after his quest to think of Blackwall as a sort of "nickname". I don't see an issue with honoring consensus in this specific case. --♫ Kelcat ^Talk 03:58, June 11, 2015 (UTC)

But that only comes into play after Blackwall's personal quest. Blackwall is just as much the signifier of the identity he stole and we spend a great deal of time in the game operating under the presumption that is also his full name.

-HD3 ^(Talk) 04:05, June 11, 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel that strongly about the name of the article, but I'm redoing the revisions to his background section. The personal information and anecdotes Blackwall provides clearly belong to his true identity as Thom Rainier and it causes confusion to mix these in with the history of Gordon Blackwall. 129.10.9.70 (talk) 08:56, June 11, 2015 (UTC)

The fact that this article is repeatedly being edited to remove "Gordon", is a strong indicator that this article should be reverted to just "Blackwall." The article has also become a confusing mess, not through the fault of editors really, but that the article is being used to detail the background of two different characters. We need to come up with a consensus. There's enough info in WoT2 to warrant an article for Warden Blackwall. I say we split it, and change the name of this back to "Blackwall." It's too confusing the way it is now and is just causing problems. --♫ Kelcat ^Talk 20:34, June 15, 2015 (UTC)

Having a separate article would defeat the entire purpose, its not the article itself that is the issue here but the fact that people won't step fiddling with it. We finally settle on one model and then someone edits it all over again without reading the talk page. I really don't think a split is necessary. Given that Blackwall is supposed to be the identity rainier assumed, I say we keep the name Gordon Blackwall for the article and in the background section, use Gordon Blackwall to refer to the very limited background information we have on the original warden blackwall and just Blackwall subsequently to refer to everything rainier says under the moniker that would be covered in the background section. Then maybe a lock on the article for a bit.

-HD3 ^(Talk) 05:30, June 16, 2015 (UTC)

Not to add to the confusion, but perhaps the article could be titled 'Warden Blackwall' (No picture) with everything pertaining to the original (if there is enough to warrant a separate article). At the bottom there could be a Spoiler tag simply stating the identity was later assumed by 'another man' with a redirect to a separate article 'Blackwall' wherein Thom Rainier's story and identity is revealed (with picture). Shenachie (talk) 11:58, June 16, 2015 (UTC)

If we create a separate Blackwall article, then we'll just get nothing but well meaning people proposing for deletion or merging it into this article until they get far enough into the game. Not to mention that solution is effectively what we already have now an article about "Blackwall" with everything revealing the deception behind a spoiler tag.

-HD3 ^(Talk) 13:12, June 16, 2015 (UTC)

You're probably right, HD3, but the article is confusing now because the man pictured is Blackwall but not 'Gordon' Blackwall. The first name could be dropped from the article title but mentioned in the description of the original Blackwall (please with a reference where 'Gordon' originated). Then the spoiler tag and the description of the current Blackwall. There is precedent for identifying a person's article by only one name - Alistair's full name doesn't come to light until later in Origins and his page is only titled by his first name. Shenachie (talk) 15:46, June 16, 2015 (UTC)

I think whoever added "Gordon" Blackwall misheard "Warden" Blackwall in-game and lacked subtitles for clarification. --100.36.168.78 (talk) 16:37, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

His full name is revealed in World of Thedas vol 2, as Gordon Blackwall. p. 234

-HD3 ^(Talk) 17:14, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Trivia Dialogue

I was thinking the dialogue for Blackwall in combat, when he says the phrase "Done and done!", might be a reference to Baldur's Gate since one of the protagonist's voices says the same phrase. My edit was removed by another editor so I thought I'd bring it up here instead (which I probably should have done in the first place, sorry).

This is the original text I had, with a link to the Baldur's Gate dialogue, before it was removed: "Throughout gameplay, Blackwall will occasionally say the phrase "Done and done." This may be a subtle reference to BioWare's earlier Baldur's Gate series, in which one of the male voice options for the protagonist would say the same line delivered in a similar manner."

It was removed because this is apparently a common phrase, the implication being that the connection is coincidental. I'm from Yorkshire and haven't heard anyone say this in real life before, I'm the only one I know who says it and it's only because of Baldur's Gate that I do; I've also looked it up and it doesn't appear to be all that common elsewhere either. I personally think it'd be fun to include as a little piece of trivia, even if it isn't a deliberate reference. Anyway, let me know what you guys think :)

Vespus (talk) 19:06, June 9, 2015 (UTC)

It's a very common saying that I've heard lots of times before, and use myself quite a lot. Like some other dialogue I've seen I have a feeling that it's just a recycle of generic battle dialogue rather than a deliberate hat-tip--it' said by a few characters in the Mass Effect series as well. And if it's not a deliberate reference, by DA:TRIVIA guidelines it shouldn't be included. --♫ Kelcat ^Talk 19:28, June 9, 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kelcat. I've played through all the Mass Effect games and don't remember hearing anyone say that phrase. Could you direct me to the characters that say it? It would be interesting to hear :) I do know also know that Mass Effect had some dialogue that was definitely a reference to dialogue in Baldur's Gate (see the third bullet point in Tali's trivia section). Regarding the trivia guidelines, I would have thought this would count as "adding facts that allow readers to draw their own conclusions".

Vespus (talk) 10:45, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

I could have sworn it was said by Miranda, but I may be thinking of another phrase, as I know there was at least one battle dialogue in Inquisition that showed up in Mass Effect as well. Anyway, even though I didn't remove the trivia, I too feel it's too trivial. It is a common phrase that I've heard for years, and I've never played Baldur's Gate. --♫ Kelcat ^Talk 18:25, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

References

I've seen this omission on a couple of other pages, but is there a reference to where the name 'Gordon' comes from? I don't recall that mentioned anywhere, but I don't play with subtitles on either. Thanks! Shenachie (talk) 18:05, June 12, 2015 (UTC)

Why does this page say his name is "Gordon Blackwall"? I'm pretty sure it is "Warden Blackwall" (since he is a Warden) and the others call him that, while his first name is never mentioned. Of course his real name is different as we learn later in the game. But at no point in the game or anywhere in the internet did I ever come across "Gordon". I'm pretty sure this is a case of misheard lyrics...

World of Thedas Vol 2. Riley Heligo ^{The Forgotten Sinner} 15:23, July 12, 2015 (UTC)

Trespasser DLC/Blackwall Never Revealed as Rainier

In one of my games, we never find out Blackwall is Rainier. He simply never leaves. I thought it might be a bug, but then in Trespasser he is missing, and a codex entry explains that he was discovered as Rainier when he disappeared from the Inquisition six months post-game. Is this a bug turned plot point? The option that he never left isn't in the Dragon Age Keep. --Yavril (talk) 12:51, September 12, 2015 (UTC)

In one of my games I never talked to him, so it was natural that I never triggered his leaving, but this time I don't even get the scene after Adamant, although he is my tank and was with me. I talk to him many times and have finished Wicked Eyes and Wicked Hearts as well, but nothing yet.--Kendira (talk) 11:26, October 5, 2015 (UTC)

It seems his approval is the key. You need high approval with him to trigger the Revelations quest. I got a great dissaproval after choosing Gaspard de Chalons for Emperor. I'll try to raise his approval and report here. --Kendira (talk) 12:05, October 5, 2015 (UTC)

Yep, just finished Memories of the Grey and the Tavern scene triggered, so I went back o his place and found the letter that starts Revelations as well. That means it is definitely approval rating.--Kendira (talk) 12:43, October 5, 2015 (UTC)

Rename

Based off of the discussion here it seems as though there was never a consensus to move the page name to begin with, and I still find the arguments made there compelling. Particularly the idea that this article isn't about the man known as Gordon Blackwall it's about someone going by the name Blackwall. It's also clear that this name has caused some confusion as we someone has thought that the word Gordon was supposed to be Warden. Because of these issues, I propose we change the article back to simply Blackwall. Loleil ^Talk 00:17, July 7, 2016 (UTC)

So we're deleting a character's name because one random person misheard the word "warden" ? Besides they were deleting the name from the article rather than the name anyway, so I don't see how changing the article's name would have helped anyway

-HD3 ^(Talk) 03:09, July 7, 2016 (UTC)

My opinion's still the same a year later as detailed above--I think the most appropriate and least confusing name for this article is simply "Blackwall". There have been multiple editors who have tried to remove "Gordon" from the article, the only reason it hasn't been renamed multiple times is because unregistered users don't have access to the "rename" function. --♫ Kelcat ^Talk 03:20, July 7, 2016 (UTC)

I'm still opposed. As Kelcat said, they've been trying to remove the name from the article, rather than the article name. So I don't see any point in renaming the article just to remove Gordon from the title, because that won't actually change anything and they'll keep doing the same thing anyway.

-HD3 ^(Talk) 05:06, July 7, 2016 (UTC)

My two cents - I agree with Kelcat. I also suggest dropping the first mention of 'Gordon' to Background (with a proper origin cite) and proceed as normal. That makes the whole article about Blackwall (both). The initial description is still about Blackwall (the companion), and the Background explains the 'inheritance' (from the original). That clarification may also lessen strangers' random need to 'correct' the article. Shenachie (talk) 14:08, July 7, 2016 (UTC)

My opinion has not changed. The fabulously bearded companion is NOT Gordon, and he is never referred to as such. I mentioned it before, that after his identity is revealed and Inquisitor asks how they should address him, Thom says that Blackwall is his title, just like the Inquisitor is theirs. Gordon was the name of the real Blackwall, not Thom "Blackwall" Rainier. henioo ^{(da talk page)} 19:27, July 7, 2016 (UTC)

Actually it does give his full name as Gordon Blackwall in Trespasser in one of the codex entries.

-HD3 ^(Talk) 02:07, July 8, 2016 (UTC)

Is the codex entry referring to Blackwall the companion or Blackwall the Original™? I've not played through Trespasser, could you link me up to the entry, please? henioo ^{(da talk page)} 17:23, July 9, 2016 (UTC)

Both actually.They refer to "Warden Blackwall" as not being whom they had believed, which was of course, "Gordon Blackwall", meaning they were operating under the belief the man they knew was Gordon Blackwall

http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Codex_entry:_%22Blackwall%22_and_the_Last_Few_Years

-HD3 ^(Talk) 02:16, July 10, 2016 (UTC)

"Turns out the "Warden Blackwall" we knew wasn't Gordon Blackwall at all". This summarises my point entirely. henioo ^{(da talk page)} 09:26, July 10, 2016 (UTC)

Yes but he's believed to be Gordon Blackwall for most of the game and is known as such prior to the reveal. Plus as I stated, unless we choose to remove every mention of his full name (willfully removing canon information from an article), people are going to continue thinking we've misheard the word "warden".

-HD3 ^(Talk) 10:15, July 10, 2016 (UTC)

I really don't think Inquisition even knew that the real Blackwall's first name was Gordon. It was certainly never used, save for that one codex entry you linked, and only in one specific condition that the Inquisitor never finished the quest. As for removing his full name, that would be for the best, to omit his name from the introduction. Then explain in detail in involvement section, or even create a separate heading under a spoiler tag. henioo ^{(da talk page)} 16:59, July 10, 2016 (UTC)

That's why I'm for plainly calling the article 'Blackwall' and suggested removing Gordon from the initial description and make it simply, "Blackwall is a Grey Warden and a companion in Dragon Age: Inquisition as well as a potential romance for female Inquisitors." That is fact. Then in Background state, "Nothing is known of Gordon Blackwall[2] prior to his recruitment into the Grey Wardens from ...". That is also fact - and goes on to explain the identity change. Our companion is not Gordon but a little literary misdirection covers the facts without revealing spoilers. Shenachie (talk) 15:52, July 10, 2016 (UTC)

The name "Gordon" appears here, in The World of Thedas: http://i.imgur.com/anPuau1.jpg --Virrac (talk) 14:25, July 10, 2016 (UTC)

We know that it appears in WoT, but the whole discussion is about whether we should use the name or not. henioo ^{(da talk page)} 16:59, July 10, 2016 (UTC)

My point is that previously when misguided editors have removed Gordon from the article, they've removed every mention of it in the text as well, so renaming it and omitting just the first in text appearance of the name seems unlikely to accomplish anything and we'll end up exactly where we started but with a less accurate article.

-HD3 ^(Talk) 01:34, July 11, 2016 (UTC)

It's not any 'less accurate' than omitting 'Theirin' from Alistair's page title/main article.
We know Blackwall is not referred to as 'Gordon' anywhere in the game until the very end DLC and then only under precise circumstances. By initially moving 'Gordon' to the Background, followed by an immediate citation, both reveals the name and where it originates - and for those who read far enough, eventually leads to the explanation of the appropriation by Thom. Introducing 'Gordon' as backstory may also lessen the knee-jerk reaction for people to 'correct' the whole article. Shenachie (talk) 15:50, July 11, 2016 (UTC)

If Alistair is your go to example, I would point out that the deception in that case is the the obfuscation of his family heritage. So if you're saying that we should structure the article to protect the plot twist, then leaving the article titled after the full name of the person rainier is impersonating seems the logical course. I would also point out that the name Gordon is already present in the background, with an immediate citation visible immediately above that.

-HD3 ^(Talk) 18:28, July 11, 2016 (UTC)

Leaving the page titled after the impersonation is certainly one possibly logical perspective but it’s still relatively simple to structure the article accurately without misrepresentation or giving away the plot twist. I recognize the difference between them is that Alistair is always Alistair, whether he's a bastard stable-boy or a bastard prince, but (the man identified only as) ‘Blackwall’ is always an Inq warrior (unless he's just not recruited at all) and that’s the name most people research. Leaving the name ‘Gordon’ in the article title is confusing as well as inaccurate since Gordon is not our companion. By simply changing the article title and the initial description to 'Blackwall', the man who joins the Inq is identified and defined without the initial confusion of a name no one’s heard of or the revelation of the plot twist. Follow that by opening the Background portion of the article with cited Gordon since that *is* Blackwall's true background with the eventual disclosure of the Marcher captain. I guess the real question is whether this article is defining a man or an identity. Shenachie (talk) 17:09, July 13, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback everyone. The page has been renamed. Loleil ^Talk 22:32, July 19, 2016 (UTC)

Voice Actor in Game of Thrones

In the scene immediately after Mormont get his skin peeled off, you see the cut to two men talkin, one of them is the voice actor - link to a youtube clip. https://youtu.be/ccTmHeoYZjE?t=8m6s HomerDOHSimpson (talk) 00:19, November 9, 2017 (UTC)

Titles

Noted the recent addition of the Silverite Wings Recipient (and a couple others) to Titles. That one was not, however, bestowed on Thom Rainier. Should that really be added to the character box or simply left in the description, given the duality of identity? Shenachie (talk) 15:55, August 13, 2020 (UTC)

Hey Shenachie, I didn't add the titles; they were already on the page prior to me making any adjustments. I just did a little bit of cleaning in regards to the spoiler tag & quests invloling Blackwall / Thom. Looks like they were added on November 26, 2016 via this edit. --Zj24 (talk) 20:17, August 13, 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the clarification! Shenachie (talk) 12:28, August 16, 2020 (UTC)

Revisiting splitting Gordon Blackwall

I think maybe we should revisit the idea of giving Gordon Blackwall his own page. Between everything we learn of him in Dragon Age: Inquisition and Dragon Age: The World of Thedas Volume 2 (pages 234–235 and 263–264), there's enough for a good three or four paragraph of character history, which is more than we have for a lot of other historical characters. Factor in the fallout of the Inquisitor's choices regarding their Blackwall's adoption of G. Blackwall's identity (such as the Grey Wardens' reaction in Trespasser if they figure it out on their own should the player choose to make him maintain the charade) and we've got a lot to say about this guy.

Ticking all the notability boxes aside, having the life narratives of two separate people in one place is confusing and splitting them will make it easier to understand for readers. Toqgers (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. This article can keep the same name and the other one could be "Gordon Blackwall." Evamitchelle (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

That was already taken into account in a much earlier debate. Splitting the article would likely cause more confusion than it would alleviate. Is there a cite somewhere that it's actually "Thomas" Rainier and not simply "Thom"? Some folks are simply bestowed the shorter name instead of the longer or more formal alternatives. Shenachie (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

World of Thedas Vol. 2 p.262 says: "My father was Thomas Rainier. Call me Thom." It strongly implies that he's named after his father but uses Thom out of personal preference. Evamitchelle (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: "Thomas Rainier," it's also in Codex entry: Blackwall if his personal quest is completed. I read the earlier discussions and those tended to center more around the titling of this page, which I definitely agree should stay at Blackwall. It's what most people will search to find him and doesn't spoil the character on title alone. But Gordon Blackwall is his own person and warrants his own page. Splitting would also clear up issues others have brought up, like the question several months back of putting titles in the infobox that truly belonged to Gordon Blackwall, but not to the Inquisition's Blackwall. Toqgers (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm also open to the idea of having a page created for Gordon Blackwall; I agree it will potentially prevent confusion when it comes to who earned what title; as far as Thom/Thomas is concerned, redirects can just as easily be made from Thom Rainier and Thomas Rainier to Blackwall, it's a simple and easy fix to prevent any spoilers from being divulged. --Zj24 (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

What did Gordon ever do that's not touched on in the existing history? Another question that arises then is whether there should be a disambiguation page for the Blackwalls and, if so, how would they be differentiated so as not to give away the assumption of identity? Two separate pages for 'Blackwall' were attempted when DAI was released and there was a great deal of confusion between the two with many folks attempting to "correct" both of them. Trying to start another page for 'a' Blackwall seems to be an invitation for a return to more perplexity and endless page revisions. Shenachie (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

If a page is created for Gordon, then removing any info from Blackwall that pertains to Gordon and moving it over is pretty simple. A disambiguation won't be necessary as a user would need to type in Gordan Blackwall vs just Blackwall. Unless someone is specifically looking for Gordan Blackwall, Blackwall will always refer to the Inquisitor's companion. But if this is to even proceed a vote would have to be presented; I would also recommend posting a more detailed discussion on the DA: Discord server. --Zj24 (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Except you can't really remove 'any info' that pertains to Gordon since that's the identity Thom assumed. It's nearly as much a part of who Thom became as who Blackwall became since Thom essentially picked up the end of Gordon's life. Many people were already 'correcting' the initial Blackwall page to both add and/or remove the name Gordon before the current iteration. I could understand possibly adding or altering the name to 'Thomas' since that has been cited in Leliana's note (although he says himself he goes by 'Thom'), but there still doesn't seem to be any real reason to otherwise change the current Blackwall page as it stands. Shenachie (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)