Talk:Falstaff (opera)

message: The recent  by  from Falstaff (opera) to Falstaff (Verdi) seems ill-advised to me. 1) That name has been in use for this article for a very long time, because 2) this is the best known opera of that name; 3) consequently, there are hundreds links to this name, including from other language Wikipedias; 4) the page mover didn't bother to adjust at least two significant such pages: Falstaff (disambiguation) and Template:Verdi operas.
I suggest to revert the page move. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'll freely admit my knowledge of opera is deficient, and relative primacy was determined based on the rather cursory state of all the related opera articles (Verdi, Salieri, and Elgar). However, I do believe that once you begin to need a disambiguator such as (opera), determining the primacy among equals becomes needlepoint work; and this was the only way I could see to have some consistency of naming between them. As for the links, I didn't change them manually because we're supposed to have a bot that takes care of that, but it seems to have not performed its duties in the interval. I would, of course, be happy to do the grunt work of updating the links as required; but if you feel very strongly about the naming I shan't object if you wish to undo the move. --Xover (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WikiProject Opera has a well-established policy on disambiguation: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera#Operas:_avoiding_ambiguity.  The Salieri work isn't performed very often and the symphonic poem by Elgar isn't an opera.  I agree with Michael that the page should be moved back. --GuillaumeTell 10:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: Since the current state of the article is much different now, I have gone ahead and archived most of the past discussions on this page. I thought it best to leave the discussion of the page move since that topic could possibly come up again.4meter4 (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive box 

message: Although the peer discussion is closed, I notice there is no mention in 'Roles' of the chorus of Burghers of Windsor, Street-folk, Ford's servants, etc. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good point. Thank you, dear Cg2p0B0u8m! I'll make sure to add before going on to FAC. Tim riley (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chorus 

message: I have another comment, I am sorry again for being late, but I didn't notice when I read through before. The 'Music' section seems unbalanced. The first paragraph is the orchestration, which is OK. The early sentences of the second para are good, but at the end it goes into the perceived influence on Albert Herring. There seems very little about music in the third paragraph, which might be better elsewhere in the article. Verdi's quote and the following sentence are not about music. The next paragraph does touch on music but without talking much about Falstaff. The last paragraph is fine but there ought to be more like it. My 1954 Kobbe (GH) has some nice comments. I seem to remember that Charles Osborne is very good on this aspect, and I am sure that Budden has a few quotes that could be used. I am sorry to criticize this hard work, but hope this is helpful. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Helpful comments like this are welcome at any time, and it doesn't matter a bit that the peer review is closed. Thank you for these points, which I'll ponder and address. From a quick re-reading I think the Britten point may be all right, but I take the point about the third para. I'll dig Osborne out too. More in a few days when I've done some homework. Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: This quote seems to have a spelling error, but it may be in the original, which I don't have access to:
(Should be "straitjacket"?)
Colonies Chris (talk) 09:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: On the face of it I think you're right, CC, but it was my late collaborator, the greatly missed Viva-Verdi, who added this. I'll put it on the to-do list for my next visit to the British Library to see if we need a correction or a sic. Tim riley talk  16:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: According to The Verdi-Boito Correspondence (2015), "straitjacket" is the term used. I'll tweak accordingly. – SchroCat (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much, SchroCat: that's what I call service. And thanks to Colonies Chris too, for spotting the slip. Tim riley talk  07:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling error? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Falstaff (opera). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070606154605/http://www.giuseppeverdi.it/stampabile.asp?IDCategoria=162&IDSezione=581&ID=20353 to http://www.giuseppeverdi.it/stampabile.asp?IDCategoria=162&IDSezione=581&ID=20353
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the version which was approved as featured article, the type/genre was simply given as "Opera". Changes need a discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So how should commedia lirica be translated? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opera 

message: I have added the description of the final fugue to include the term "bewildering", and posted lines from a book and two articles, by three music critics.  One describes the fugue as "devilish", another as "a devil of a fugue", and a third as "formidable".  I hope that justifies the term "bewildering".  HandsomeMrToad (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  I hope this description is sufficiently NPOV 

message: In the third para of the Introduction is written “ Falstaff did not prove to be as popular as earlier works in the composer's canon.
However in the article proper it appears the Opera was immediately well received. Which is the case?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.253.130 (talk) 07:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are correct, as the article makes clear. The work was eagerly taken up by opera houses in the wake of the triumphant premiere, but did not prove as popular as earlier Verdi operas. Nowadays it is a much performed part of the Verdi canon. Tim riley talk 17:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy