Talk:Douglas MacArthur

Rename
It was suggested at the failed deletion discussion for this article that it be moved to an "Unnamed General" page, as MacArthur's name was not mentioned in canon. I have started this discussion to debate the merits of doing so.--31dot 20:48, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * support; Worthwhile to do as it is a direct quotation--Obey the Fist!! 20:53, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * oppose... because it was also suggested on the discussion to be left alone as well. Face it, we're not idiots: the writer's weren't treating us like ones when they incorporated it into the dialog, so let's treat the readers here as if they were idiots by ignoring the facts. --Alan 15:38, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * oppose; If we are going to bother wasting time to write an article about an unmanned general because of a short quote, then why are we going to act like it isn't because we all know who the general is, and therefore significant? --OuroborosCobra talk 16:33, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * oppose... as I was for a "ludicrously ambiguous article" named Douglas MacArthur. - 16:44, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, though I know I'm outnumbered :) - The issue isn't whether we're idiots or not, or if we know who it's supposed to be or not, but what was said in canon. Even those arguing in favor of keeping it concede that his name wasn't used in canon and can only be found in canon through inference and implication.  That doesn't mean we don't state who said it(which is documented, I believe) but it does mean that canon information is affected.  As for "wasting time", I won't even go into the numerous articles that are based on brief glimpses on screen or one word of dialog which provides little information.  In closing, I realize how people feel and I do not expect to change any minds(just state my opinion), so no one has to restate their arguments if they feel it would be repetitive.--31dot 21:49, April 25, 2010 (UTC)