Talk:Victory Through Air Power

message: I think not.The subject of film and the novel seem too closely interconnected to be separate artciles.Taucetiman (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How is the book a "novel"? A2Kafir (and...?) 17:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  Its not a novel at all, but it ought to be separated.  22:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I think it should be split. Personally, I went to this article to learn about the book, not a movie inspired by it. They're different enough that they should have two pages, though the book section needs to be expanded to stand alone. Kevin (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article? 

message: "Somewhat ironically, after the war, Disney's characters, especially Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, were enthusiastically received in Japan and Germany, where they remain immensely popular today."
Marginally misleading I think. Mickey Mouse was popular in Germany before and even during the war as well - at least until the US joined the hostilities. --Sergeirichard (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "impact of the film" section has a lot of subjective sentences, though I personally am not quite sure where to delete, change, or add. This is one of those parts. The fact that it says "somewhat" ironically weasels it into acceptability. Kevin (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Point 

message: (I haved changed "novel" to "book". Why wasn't that done earlier?)
The book does not warrant a page of its own. I think the discussion should be about splitting off the book into a prominent section on the Seversky page.
Since I've been aware of the book (30 years), it has been as the basis for a Disney film that was one of the lost Disney films and impossible to see. (Like "Fuehrer's Face" and "Education for Death" and "Three Caballeros".) Anyone who was curious was curious about the film.
If people are interested in air power discussion, aren't they going to look for the Billy Mitchell book?
Varlaam (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the book was a best-seller and influential pre-war statement on air power. There are certainly enough references to it for it to be a stand-alone article. The Seversky article already has a mention of both the book and film but does not go into great detail as it is a biographical piece. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, there does not seem to be a clear-cut consensus, but can affected and interested parties live with a split article if both were developed sufficiently? Look at the Alexander P. de Seversky article for an example of how that can occur. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Split it.  Personally was looking to find info on the film, would be easier to find exactly what you're looking for on seperate pages. Ilsonowl (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's split through editor power. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Split?

message: From the article: "On December 8, 1941, Disney studios were essentially converted into a propaganda machine for the United States government."
From the reverter's reference article: "During December 1941, Roosevelt devised the name "United Nations" for the Allies."
Considering the book was made the next year, mentioning that the term "United Nations" is used within the movie does not seem to be a trivial point at all. I will change the text to indicate that this was not an error, rather than simply remove it entirely, as the previous editor (reverter) did.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.59.107 (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: United Nations