Talk:Iron Bull

Delete

Speculation only. Delete for now. Henio0 (talk) 16:26, September 1, 2013 (UTC)

I saw screenshot of him and it was named "Iron Bull".78.9.151.207 (talk) 16:35, September 1, 2013 (UTC)

It is a piece of concept art titled Iron Bull. Doesn't mean that it is a final name of the character. It may be a describing title of the image, not the man in it. Assuming it is the name is speculation. Henio0 (talk) 03:28, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

Based on the reasons stated in the deletion nomination. 16:48, September 1, 2013 (UTC)

This concept art for the game is titled "Iron Bull" by the artist. BioWare's been vague on the name, but it's gotten out in a few places. We may not have much for an article now, but we will soon. -Mr. Mittens (talk) 16:49, September 1, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this concept art is linked to the Qunari shown in the trailer. Also, even if we suppose "Iron Bull" is his name, the article should still be deleted on the basis of not having enough information. 16:54, September 1, 2013 (UTC)

• • I thought this place was allowed to have stubs (which essentially this article would be for the time being). Not to mention there may be some people who hear about a character called "Iron Bull" and then decide to check this wiki for more info on him. DAWUSS (talk) 17:28, September 1, 2013 (UTC)

There are stubs, and then there are articles of (for now) such little consequence that their existence can't reasonably justified. Consider, for example, that the sum of all we know about this character could be presented in an infobox, and sections would still be left blank. King Cousland | Talk   22:26, September 1, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with DAWUSS- this article would be far better suited as a stub, and deleting an article only to recreate it later would be both inefficient and a waste of time. I do however believe that whatever sources we have at this point should be cited because as the article is it's completely blind speculation. Basically, to summarize my opinion- the article sources should be made clear and then it should be turned into a stub. In the event that no actual sources can be directly linked- I agree with the deletion because then article effectively becomes complete speculation. ----Isolationistmagi 17:43, September 1, 2013 (UTC)

Creating a page is not a difficult task. Plus, the scant information currently listed here could be quite easily replaced and expanded once we actually know something about the character. King Cousland | Talk   22:26, September 1, 2013 (UTC)

Based on this. The resemblence - in my opinion - is rather obvious, and the picture itself is titled as Iron Bull. Source. --Margerard (talk) 20:39, September 1, 2013 (UTC)

And another source, actually provided by Viktoria. :P --Margerard (talk) 21:19, September 1, 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree that the Iron Bull in this article is the same as the one in the concept art, but until we receive official confirmation, as well as some additional information about the character's involvement, he is too inconsequential to warrant an article to himself. King Cousland | Talk   22:26, September 1, 2013 (UTC)

Per my deletion tag. King Cousland | Talk   22:26, September 1, 2013 (UTC)

I agree, not enough info. Kelcat (talk) 00:42, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

But there will be enough information soon. Delating this page only to restore it would be pointless in the end.78.8.135.173 (talk) 09:31, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

Not if it turns out his name isn't Iron Bull. I think that's just the title of the artwork, not the character name. Kelcat (talk) 09:43, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

Changing name of article is no problem just like 1st qunari war was renamed qunari wars.78.8.135.173 (talk) 10:43, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

So is recreating an empty article not a problem. Henio0 (talk) 11:07, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

This article isn't empty, it's incomplete and fulfilling it takes less time and work than recreating it.78.8.135.173 (talk) 12:10, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

Speculation for now. Just recreate when it's confirmed or there's more information. ··· d·day! 17:40, September 4, 2013 (UTC)

The article was recreated without any new information. The character was mentioned in the leaked Game Star article, but we don't know whether it was actually confirmed by developers or the journalists based that on the leaked survey, i.e. they do not actually posses new information, but they put it in the magazine anyway, and it was misinterpreted by the Internet. It isn't even confirmed if that is the Qunari from the trailer, or if Iron Bull isn't a production codename. Henio0 (talk) 17:58, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

As before. Kelcat (talk) 18:53, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

Delete, round 2

Again, not really confirmed yet, so delete. Henio0 (talk) 12:58, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

He is mentioned in two different articles (GameStar & OXM), there is a concept art etc. I'd say it is enough already) Asherinka (talk) 13:03, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to have him on here once his appearance is actually confirmed. For all we know he is just mentioned in the article. Henio0 (talk) 13:14, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Well, the first magazine (GameStar) is officially out already and it says there are two new companions: Solas and Iron Bull. What other confirmation do you need? By the way the second one (by OXM) is to be released on 2 Apr. Asherinka (talk) 13:24, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

The article was translated by a user here, and "the thing I found strange about Iron Bull is that there were no screenshots of him in the article, unlike Solas, who got several. Iron Bull is merely mentioned a few times on page 18, and never brought up again." So what I want is something that says "There is a companion whose name is Iron Bull and he is a Qunari warrior". Not rehashed rumours about a character going by Iron Bull, because we've known this for months. I want an actual statement that it was a piece of information released by BioWare, not that it was an educated guess based on leaked information. Henio0 (talk) 13:36, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and if it comes out on the 2nd of April, we could just wait for it to come out. Because it is really easy for information to be misinterpreted. For example, in GS it says that Morrigan will not be a playable character, like the Warden or Hawke. Which could mean that the Warden and Hawke will ne NPCs like Morrigan, or that Morrigan is not the protaognist. Yet everyone just assumes this means they will be in the game. Henio0 (talk) 13:39, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

But the user you mentioned wrote exactly that he's a companion. Here it is. "Iron Bull is officially confirmed, yes. He is a Qunari soldier whom David Gaider describes as fearing nothing except his own past." And it is not "leaked" information. The magazine was released two days ago and you can buy it and check it yourself if you have any doubts.

P.S. This user also wrote the following: "But I think it's pretty safe to create a page for him already, albeit without pictures until BioWare provides some". Asherinka (talk) 13:41, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Again, I do not know if the two are related as I've not seen the original article. It could be that the magazine said, on their own, that he is a companion, and asked Gaider for a comment about the character of Iron Bull, not whether or not he is a companion. The devs made comments on Solas and Vivienne before they were confirmed companions, too. Of course, I may be wrong and it was clearly stated that he is in fact a companion. I that case I will retract my vote, but as it is right now it is still a no. Henio0 (talk) 13:49, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with deletion of the page. he is a confirmed companion. so why the hell would someone vote for deletion of the page??????????? - JH EP - Talk - Contribs 15:08, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Too few informations.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 16:53, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

overreacting much? I cannot be more clear about my doubts regarding his confirmation status. Solas WAS confirmed directly, Iron Bull was confirmed indirectly at best.Henio0 (talk) 19:17, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

He is mentioned in GameStar & OXM. dont ruin the wiki with your doubts. - JH EP - Talk - Contribs 19:23, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

being confirmed does not equal being mentioned.Henio0 (talk) 19:40, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

I will risk violating the copyright just to put your mind at ease. Here is word-for-word what the GameStar article says: "Mit dem Qunari-Söldner Iron Bull and dem abtrünnigen Elfenmagier Solace [sic] kommen nun zwei weitere Gefährten hinzu... Iron Bull wiederum beschreibt Gaider folgendermaßen: 'Den schreckt wirklich gar nichts - außer seiner eigener Vergangenheit.'" You can put it into Google translate if you don't like my translated summary. :) --Koveras Alvane (talk) 20:12, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say I didn't like it. ;) I did ask you to clarify and you said you had doubt about Iron Bull, hence my doubts, unless I misunderstood. ;) Henio0 (talk) 20:14, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I did put it into Google and it came out like "With Solas and Iron Bull added as companions, that makes two new ones. David Gaider described Iron Bull as being scared of nothing but his past". If that is the only mention of Iron Bull in the article, you can see my scepticism. It does not say that David Gaider said he is a companion, it merely says what Gaider said about Iron Bull, regardless of whether he is a companion or not. ;) Henio0 (talk) 20:17, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

I did not doubt Iron Bull's presence as the Inquisitor's companion in the game. I merely pointed out that the GS article did not contain any screenshots of him, so I recommended to create a page without images (i.e. avoiding the use of concept art) until some screenshots are provided by BioWare.

As for the other thing... Maker, you are stubborn. Do you need a personal letter signed by David Gaider, Mike Laidlaw, and Matthew Bromberg before you believe it? I've posted a small excerpt, but the entire paragraph goes along the lines of: "A hero needs companions. Three companions have already been confirmed: Cassandra, Varric, and Vivienne. Now Iron Bull and Solas are added to the companions. We have also spotted a nameless female archer, who may or not be a companion." How much room for interpretation is there, if the Bull is mentioned in that kind of context? --Koveras Alvane (talk) 20:24, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

No, no, I do believe that he is a companion, and most probably the Qunari we've been seeing. But I am just looking for a confirmation that is defnitely a confirmation (eh :D), and not an interpretation. I am just afraid BioWare may not have told the journalists explicitly that Iron Bull is a companion, but the journalists said he was one anyway, going in for the interview assuming he is already. But then again, I am only one person and this is my opinion. If more people wish the page to be kept, that is completely fine. I however am such a pain in the ass and I'm afraid I will stay such a pain. ;) Henio0 (talk) 20:49, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

We have so far two "interpretations" from two journalists from different countries speaking different languages and they both say the same thing: Iron Bull is a companion. If he turns out not to be a companion after all, it will mean that two professional journalists independently grossly misreported what they saw and heard and the EA PR people decided to let it slide to have a cheap laugh at them later on. Remember that they got the whole "Solace/Solas" thing cleared up before the GS magazine even hit the stores. In my view, this is as official as it gets, and the lack of fresh (and labeled) screenshots is most likely due to the aforementioned EA PR people's veto on it. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 20:39, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Again, I am just being technical with it. Although you do raise a good point about it not being debunked. Henio0 (talk) 20:49, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

Here is a French article saying the same thing. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 20:51, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

I don't really speak French. :) But again I am going to be anal - we don't know if they actually got the information, or they are rehashing GS and internet gossip, or just post the article for the sake of having one in French. Henio0 (talk) 21:04, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

@Koveras Alvane That makes three "interpretations": German (GameStar), French (your link) and Enligh (OXM). And then there is the art by Matt Rhodes with a description "DA:I - Iron Bull". I'd remove the "delete" tag and be done with it. Asherinka (talk) 21:31, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

We have confirmation from numerous sources, including Gaider himself. Not for the first time, I get the distinct sense of stubbornness for the sake of stubbornness. Alexsau1991 ^{(talk page)} 22:17, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

I think the article should stay at this point. The issue of Gamestar that he's first mentioned in has actually been published and made publicly available, and I feel comfortable going with the translation given by koveras alvane, and using that as a reliable source. If it does stay I do have one concern: I question him being classified as a Warrior as I don’t recall any of the article summaries I’ve read mentioning what his class is. From what I’ve seen, he’s labeled as a “soldier”, which could mean either warrior or rogue. Kelcat (talk) 23:30, March 28, 2014 (UTC)

A valid point, but he is shown wielding a greatsword in the concept art, so it is doubtful that he can be anything but a warrior in-game. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 07:12, March 29, 2014 (UTC)

technically Arishok was a rogue, and he wielded big-ass swords. ;) Henio0 (talk) 07:23, March 29, 2014 (UTC)

Technically Arishok was never a companion. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 08:35, March 29, 2014 (UTC)

orly? Didn't know, thanks. Anyway, what my point was that a big qunari with a big sword may be a rogue.Henio0 (talk) 08:45, March 29, 2014 (UTC)

I thought your point was that a big qunari with a big sword and a big battleaxe in each hand may be a rogue because the Lycium Engine cannot render a dual-wielding warrior. How relevant that is to a big qunari with a single greatsword who is (to be) rendered by the Frostbite 3 engine is anyone's guess. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 08:57, March 29, 2014 (UTC)

it's relevant in such a way that we don't know how the engine handles classes yet. Perhaps this time round rogues can wear shields or big swords. And there is no reason to be snide, please. Henio0 (talk) 19:20, March 29, 2014 (UTC)

it's been awhile since I saw that art, and I could have sworn it was just a longsword. Looks like I remembered wrong. It's just strange that they made the effort to call him a mercenary and a soldier but not a warrior. Kelcat (talk) 07:39, March 29, 2014 (UTC)

How long do these discussions usually last? Can we remove the delete tag now or do we wait some more? Henio0 (talk) 18:21, March 30, 2014 (UTC)

I removed it per discussion. Asherinka (talk) 18:40, March 30, 2014 (UTC)

Qunari or Tal-Vashoth

He is not Tal-Vashoth. He is Qunari. Check out the dragonage.com website for his updated information on the Characters section. 05:33, June 9, 2014. 24.183.20.102 (talk) 22:34, June 9, 2014 (UTC) A concerned fan

I think he actually is a Tal-Vashoth, but one who still cooparates with the Qunari. He's a Tal-Vashoth who hasn't acknowledged that he is one, just like Tallis. Henio0 (talk) 22:43, June 9, 2014 (UTC)

Rename

Should we rename this page to "The Iron Bull"? That seems to be how he's labeled in all of the official material. --Kelcat (talk) 00:47, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

It does seem like a nickname more than a name, and thus it should have the "the", similarly to the Champion and the Warden. Perhaps they'd reveal his Ben-Hassrath name-title, or his actual name even in the game. One problem with renaming the article now will be that all of the links are to the "theless" version, though. Henio0 (talk) 07:11, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Fixing links are easy enough for me to do, and there aren't that many right now. --Kelcat (talk) 07:21, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Just heard him say (and I think this would be a great quote to really show his personality at the top of the page, although I am paraphrasing someone should double check the exact wording) "Technically it's 'The' Iron Bull. I like having an article at the beginning of my name. Makes me sound more like a mindless killing machine than a person." Again, someone should double check the actual words. It's the last sentence I'm not sure if he said "machine" or what. But, it also goes to show that by his own words, his name is The Iron Bull. Also, while the name of his codex is just "Iron Bull," throughout it he's referred to as The Iron Bull every time. As for his actual name, he doesn't have one... No Qunari does, something he also says in that same conversation. AbsolutGrndZer0 (talk) 08:25, November 21, 2014 (UTC)

I support a rename of this article to reflect what the character has expressed as his preferred method of address. If the "the" is part of his name, then it is also a proper noun. Thus, "the Iron Bull" is incorrect, and all instances should be replaced with "The Iron Bull." Keeping the "the" lowercase would imply that there are other Iron Bulls. Clearly, there is only one, and the article at the front of his name really works for him. I checked the exact quotation regarding his name via youtube as I remembered it from my own playthrough. I made it his title quote, because it really says a lot about who he is as mentioned by AbsolutGrndZer0. Shinsaikou (talk) 16:27, December 5, 2014 (UTC)

It is actually used as "the" with a lowercase in the game (both in codex and dialogue) and he clearly says using this name makes him feel like a killing machine instead of a real person, thus, unless you make several assumptions, it is not certain what case is correct to use. <- Kewpies (talk) 18:17, December 11, 2014 (UTC)

Iron Bull Sexuality/Romance

While I think it is likely at this point that Iron Bull is a bisexual romance option nothing has been officially confirmed yet. I mean does anyone doubt Cole is going to be one of our companions at this point? Still reason and speculation are not fact or confirmation. Non confirmation confirmed here https://twitter.com/PatrickWeekes/status/478304810953752576 Makenzieshepard (talk) 22:43, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Perfect example of why people need to stop jumping the gun when adding new Inquisition info without a direct source confirmation. --Kelcat (talk) 23:53, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

So we got more news on the bull we got a tweet from Karin Weekes that says he is 'worth at least one romance playthrough :D' https://twitter.com/KarinWeekes/status/480048442874408960 If we don't get any more news or clarification should we considered this enough of a confirmation for at least some type of romance? Makenzieshepard (talk) 21:13, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

Looks like she's refusing to confirm it just yet: "Well, you can certainly TRY to romance him..." Wouldn't hurt to hold off, as I won't be surprised to see it actually confirmed soon. --Kelcat (talk) 00:23, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

As per Kelcat. Karin Weekes' was quite ambiguous as to whether he is or isn't a romance option, she says you can "certainly try to romance him", which may not be unlike the option we got with Aveline who we could also try to romance, to no avail. I would remove it until we get a definitive statement one way or another. Alexsau1991 ^{(talk page)} 19:59, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

Pointed note!!! Whether romancable or not, Bull will go silent on you for some time. He will not talk to you again until you've killed a dragon. Shadizar666 (Ruck Rules) 04:39, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

Race/Romance

Why does it specify that Iron Bull can be romanced by any race when none of the other romances are race-specific? Could this mean that they may become race-specific in the future? --Cousharielana (talk) 20:55, July 13, 2014 (UTC)Cousharielana

It's been confirmed that two of the characters will be race-limited, but it hasn't been revealed which ones. It looks like they specifically said that Iron Bull isn't one of them, though. --Kelcat (talk) 21:12, July 13, 2014 (UTC)

Relationship Gains

Relationship Gain when you kill Venatori 175.156.26.65 (talk) 14:05, November 26, 2014 (UTC)Culnarion

So, here's a thought, if The Iron Bull is of the Qun why dosn't he have a 'soul' weapon?

Pansexual

The article says Bull is a pansexual romance option, but that is not correct. Whilst he is himself pansexual, the Inquisitor can only be either a man or a woman, they cannot be transgender. And thus, whilst pansexual, Bull is really only a bisexual romance option, as is Josephine, who does not differenciate between a "manly" man and a man with woman's hait and make up, but it is due to the game mechanics, and it does not make her pansexual. henioo ^{(da talk page)} 19:04, December 2, 2014 (UTC)

Calling him a bisexual option would be a bit misleading in terms of his sexuality, even if it is the most fitting in terms of game mechanics. What about putting that he's a romance option for both male and female Inquisitors and then perhaps a note in the trivia about the devs saying he's pansexual? --♫ Kelcat ^Talk 19:35, December 2, 2014 (UTC)

"Pansexual" by definition only means that a person's sexuality is more flexible than normal, and that they don't really have a gender preference. Anything goes really, that describes Bull perfectly and that is how the devs describe him, don't really see how theirs a problem. That and their's no such thing as a bisexual romance, their are bisexual people, but both partners are going to have a sex so it's either hetero or homo.--Swampshade (talk) 20:39, December 2, 2014 (UTC)

A very good point about the definition. My preference would be to leave it as it is. --♫ Kelcat ^Talk 04:44, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

My issue is only with the wording. "A pansexual romance option for the Inquisitor" is just not correct, as the Inquisitor can only be a man or a woman. I am fine with Kelcat's suggestion to rewording it that he is available to romance to both male and female Inquisitor, and then state in trivia section that he is pansexual, and and then we can also maybe squeeze his opinion on Krem somewhere in there, as it is somehow related. henioo ^{(da talk page)} 20:27, December 5, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah but Pansexual doesn't necessarily relate to transgenderism, the difference between Bisexuality and Pansexuality/Omnisexuality is that the latter lacks a gender preference, a bisexual (or a heterosexual, or a homosexual) can still be attracted to someone who defies gender norms.

Describing him as a pansexual romance option just shows what he is, it's not like for the Bi options that you can romance them as both genders on the same playthrough you still need to be one or the other.--Swampshade (talk) 01:31, December 6, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, looking at this again, other romanceable characters on the wiki do not list their sexuality when discussing who they can romance. They aren't referred to as bisexual, heterosexual, homosexual, etc exept for Iron Bull. So for the sake of consistency we should indeed put that he is a romance option for "either a male or female Inquisitor" in the header, rather than call him a "pansexual romance option". Again, we can note later in the article that he is pansexual. --♫ Kelcat ^Talk 03:30, December 6, 2014 (UTC)

Pansexual is more than gender preference. While Humans and Elves share a similar build, making them sexually compatible from a visual stand point; Qunari and Dwarves deviate from that shared similarity, qunari being larger and horns, and dwarves having shorter legs and longer arms. Pansexual just means that sex is sex, and a willing partner is just someone to share a sexual experience with. In this sense, Josie should also be defined as "pansexual"; though I failed to romance her, or Sera, or Bull for that matter, with my female qunari mage. I think that defining a romancable character as "pansexual" is a good thing; the Inquisitor isn't quite as limited (guaranteed choice) in their romance options as they once were. Shadizar666 (Ruck Rules) 05:14, December 8, 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's denying that Iron Bull is pansexual--it's more a matter of how best to word it on the article, not debate whether his being pansexual is a good or bad thing. As far as Josephine being pansexual: the developers have never said she is, so we can't make that assumption as far as what we put on her article. --♫ Kelcat ^Talk 05:36, December 8, 2014 (UTC)

Didn't say otherwise; I was just stating pansexual is more than gender, which everyone appears to be hung up on, which is bisexual, not pan. Further, if nobody wants the word used correctly, or fear some people don't know what the word means; it can be canned in favor of a phrase, "Bull is an equal opportunity romance option." Given that pansexual is descriptive to those who actually know what it means, or know how to use google - being generous that would be about 5% - I vote in favor of the phrase. Shadizar666 (Ruck Rules) 17:55, December 8, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Kelcat and Shadizar666's suggestion. I almost think the devs announced he was pansexual, to see whether a discussion like this would pop up. To me, the fact that he is pansexual is not about his romance options. Thus, I would rephrase it as suggested, and note the pansexuality somewhere else, where you can possibly explain further. Not the least because the pansexuality is part of who Iron Bull is. Still, the fact that he is a romance option for male/female characters *and* pansexual are not mutually exclusive (as some seem to think). That is because the romance option only reflects the limited choices we are given in game, namely male or female character build. --Kewpies (talk) 20:30, December 8, 2014 (UTC)

Priceless Banter...

I'm a dumbass... Shadizar666 (Ruck Rules) 05:14, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to add this to the characters' dialogue pages, we keep it separate so it doesn't bog down the characters' main articles. --♫ Kelcat ^Talk 05:18, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

You're right... shit, it's already there! Shadizar666 (Ruck Rules) 05:29, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

Notes...

It should be noted, that while Bull initially disapproves of The Inquisitor's choice to let Cole stay on the team, he is surprisingly accepting of Cole as a "case study" of his own accord. As a Ben-Hassrath, he sees Cole's ability to psychologically heal people, as useful for interrogation purposes.

As a side note, Bull is rather put out that Cole "healed" the whore Candy, "yeah, that was five royals well spent." Shadizar666 (Ruck Rules) 05:25, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

Rename revisited

Having played through the game more and listened to banter as well as cut-scenes, I think it would be most appropriate to rename this to The Iron Bull. He tells the Inquisitor that technically his name is "The Iron Bull", Cole seems to always call him that in conversations, with Iron Bull appreciating the use, and in at least one conversation the Inquisitor referred to him as "The Bull". The only argument against this would be that the name over his head does leave out the "The", but it seems like that technically is his name, even if it's somewhat interchangeable. --♫ Kelcat ^Talk 22:32, December 8, 2014 (UTC)

In that response to that reason against it, for example Dorian has his first name only above himself but his article is Dorian Pavus. And yes I know you are in favor of renaming, just mentioning this :P but yeah, I agree with the renaming. -- 14:24, December 11, 2014 (UTC)

In the character codex he is also referred to as "the Iron Bull", which could support the renaming. Still, my initial thought is that there's not enough to convince me of either.

• Firstly, Cole sometimes (or often) seems to take things literally, so it says very little that he is using "the". And the others only say "Bull", with occasional "Iron Bull"'s being throwed in.
• The "technically" part. Well, I actually do not understand why you don't use the most common in-game names as page names, and list the official full names somewhere in the first paragraph. But it seems to be the case, as we have pages Dorian Pavus and Varric Tethras (the "technically" correct names), although the in-game companions are Dorian and Varric. So in this case you probably should add "the", although he probably will be referred to as Iron Bull by many. It would make it correct and consistent (but I see no major benefit for the users).
• Bull doesn't strike me as a very serious person, thus when he explains the being-machine-thing, I'm not sure it makes me feel like "oh wow, that IS serious, I really should call him The Iron Bull from now on". I'm more like "hm, cool philosophy, but let's continue the game now".
• Anyhow, to end this with a Futurama reference, albeit ironic - "technically correct is the best correct". <- Kewpies (talk) 17:36, December 11, 2014 (UTC)

Ah, well, the "technically" part was Iron Bull's wording. I think both names would be appropriate, except Bull does go out of his way to point out that there's supposed to be a "The" in it. So while it seems to me that he doesn't really care one way or the other, The Iron Bull is the most accurate. If this does go through, I'll leave "Iron Bull" behind as a redirect.--♫ Kelcat ^Talk 19:02, December 12, 2014 (UTC)

I am undecided myself. I am leaning towards leaving the article name as Iron Bull, but keeping the "the" in the opening line of it. Whilst he does say he prefers to be called "The" Iron Bull, he never actually is called that. Everyone calls him Bull or Iron Bull. henioo ^{(da talk page)} 13:15, December 14, 2014 (UTC)

I've heard the Inquisitor refer to him as "The Iron Bull" and "The Bull" on a couple of occasions. --♫ Kelcat ^Talk 02:19, December 15, 2014 (UTC)

Was in a direct conversation, as in was the Inquisitor talking to him? With me it never was that my Inquisitor called him "The", the only instances were indirect, like when he was talking ABOUT the bull, not talking to him. :) henioo ^{(da talk page)} 07:22, December 16, 2014 (UTC)

Indirect conversation only, though I can't recall a lot of instances where the Inquisitor called him by any name when in conversation with him. --♫ Kelcat ^Talk 07:27, December 16, 2014 (UTC)

Mysterious tattoos

The tattoos that appear during the romance scene with the dragon tooth normally only appear when Iron Bull wears one of his three armour variations (Sturdy Defender Armour is an example) and go down to his wrists on the armour model, so there appearance during that scene is likely an oversight or a bug.

Iron Bull, Gat and Bioware's Subtlety

Bioware has done many subtle things hinting at certain things provided one does a bit more reading and has a good perceptive eye. While most players focus on the big things such as 'OMAWGAW SOLAS IS DREAD WOLF' I focus on 'Flemeth enchanted Morrigan's armor in Dragon Age Origins to decrease the wearer's willpower which meant the wearer of said armor, Morrigan, was more receptive and willing for Flemeth to posses her'

Will this is talking about the Gat-Iron Bull dynamic. Gat, formally an Elven Slave was recruited by Iron Bull and the two became fast friends as much as the the Ben Hassrath would allow. Gat calls Iron Bull the Quanari translation of Liar. Iron Bull senses many things could go wrong with the Quanari Dreadnought appearing so close to shore because the vessel is so slow and yet annihilates the much faster less armored Venatori ship.

Gat mentions that he stood up for Iron Bull to the other Ben Hassrath that Iron Bull would never go Tal-Vashoth. There is also a large contigient of Venatori on the coast almost as if they -knew- to be there. Because of Bioware's Subtlety (such as the possible romance between Solas and Mythal/Flemmeth had in the past if one looks closer at the signs) I can't help but feeling that Gat set this whole thing up to see if Iron Bull was truly loyal to Ben Hassrath or just Tal Vashoth. Gat seems reqrettable in more than one way if the Inquisitor chooses to have Iron Bull save his men; it's like he now has to face up to the other Ben Hassrath on top of loosing Iron Bull. I'm not sure if there was a relationship there at one point or not. But if Bull becomes Tal Vashoth and were to ever learn about what transpired between Gat and the Venatori, Gat could easily say Iron Bull lies and the fact he is now Tal-Vashoth no Quanari would believe him.

If Iron Bull does sacrifice his chargers for the Quanari Dreadnought, Gat is beside himself with Glee but is very subtle about displaying it. I really do not like this Gat; he's crafty like Flemeth.--Unokitsune (talk) 17:29, December 29, 2014 (UTC)