Talk:Falstaff (opera)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Opera (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Shakespeare (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Page move[edit]

The recent page move by Xover (talk · contribs) 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)

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)
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)

Archive box[edit]

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)

Chorus[edit]

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)

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)

Music[edit]

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)

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)