Talk:Giuseppe Verdi

Switching Verdi's lead portrait

I think this should be the lead portrait of the article - it was drawn the same year and by the same artist as the current lead image, yet this one is far more iconic (with even a source), and I would argue, represents him better.

Please feel free to let me know your thoughts on this. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The source appears to be dead. Why do you believe it better represents him? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images Says that lead images should be based on "what our readers expect to see", and I think most people who know Verdi would expect to see that portrait. Wikieditor662 (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

What makes you say that? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

There's no way of 100% proving which portrait is more well known, so it's probably best to use our discretion if there's no other choice... And I think it's pretty obvious that this portrait of Verdi is far more recognizable. Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the sources used in this article and profiles of Verdi elsewhere, it appears that a wide variety of images are used to represent him, including the current one. I don't see it as obvious at all that the proposed alternative is more recognizable. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Well perhaps the fact that more than 100 other wikipedia commons pages used the image I'm suggesting, as opposed to much less for the other, so this might tell you other people also recognize this one portrait more easily.

I understand that this is hardly enough to provide with concrete evidence on its own, however the only other option would be to choose one randomly, and I think that this option would be better. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• I think that the Baldini portrait shows more of his face, and the other is extremely dark, so of the two would prefer Baldini. What other options could we consider? What I don't don't like about Baldini is the dominance of formal outfit - for someone who liked to be a peasant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure which one is the Baldini, but those are generally good reasons. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Painting vs. photo

Apropos of the discussion above, Verdi has a number of high-quality photographs which could be used to represent him instead of a painting. None of the images on Wikimedia Commons were completely satisfactory, which lead me to upload this, my proposal for lead image. Constable31 (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

What is the status of this image in the US? It's missing a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

It's public domain, Art Institute of Chicago has it under "CC0 Public Domain Designation". Tags updated accordingly Constable31 (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

There were already at least three images of this photo at C:Category:Photographs of Giuseppe Verdi. The photographer, Ferdinand Mulnier, died in 1891, so there should be no copyright issue. As for revisiting the above discussion about the lead portrait: I agree with those preferring the Boldini portrait with the top hat and scarf from the Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Moderna, Rome, compared to that painter's much darker 3/4 length painting from the Casa Verdi in Milan that is currently in the lead. Lastly, I don't see a good reason for the proposed photograph as a lead image. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Judging by the criteria in MOS:LEADIMAGE of "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works", it seems that the two most common representations of Verdi are the top hat and scarf Boldini portrait and the Mulnier photograph (used by the English National Opera, Atlanta Symphony Orchestra, and Opéra national de Paris, all of which appear in the first page of Google search results). Of these two, the Mulnier photo is closer to the middle of Verdi's career than the Boldini portrait, and I think it's sensible overall to prefer a photograph whenever a high-quality one is available. Constable31 (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I generally agree that a photo is preferable, given that high quality options exist. In any case, I would prefer the Boldini above the current, since it is certainly the most widely used painting of the composer. Aza24 (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Infobox

Giuseppe Verdi
Verdi, c. 1882 photography
Born	9 (or 10) October 1813 Le Roncole
Died	27 January 1901(1901-01-27) (aged 87) Milan
Occupations	Composer Conductor
Works	List of compositions

I added an infobox to this article. It was reverted with the only edit summary "per previous discussion". I see several previous discussions (and several similar reverts in the history), and I trust that editors will be able to find them in the only archive of this talk page.

Looking forward instead of back: I think the infobox serves a few purposes, improving this article:

1. It shows a photograph of Verdi instead of a portrait.
2. It shows Verdi in his middle years.
3. It has the data about his birth and death together at the beginning, common for biographies in every encyclopedia, and per our MoS not in the lead sentence (where details such as places would be clutter) but in an infobox. (Try to find in the prose in which city and country he died.)
4. It offers a quick link to Verdi's complete works, the most neutral summary of his production,
5. It follows the example of Mozart, established as community consensus in 2023, and of Beethoven, established as community consensus in 2015.

I would like to avoid another RfC, thinking that the arguments have been exchanged clearly enough in the two former ones, and I see nothing different for this biography than any normal one on Wikipedia. What do others think? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Support. Gerda has spent many years trying to explain to me why infoboxes aren't allowed here, but I still don't get it. This seems to me to be an example of a local consensus that is out of step with the larger community. My guess is that when the dispute originally arose, there were legitimate concerns about how these were used. There was a time when infobox usage was not as standardized, and parameters were out of control and all over the place and were difficult to source or justify. I remember visiting a bio similar to this one a long time ago in the past, and the infobox was long enough to go from the top of the lead to the bottom of section one. I remember thinking at the time, no wonder people are against them! It looked horrible. That doesn't happen anymore. The new aesthetic is to keep infoboxes short and tidy, so I think the original concerns that people had so long ago no longer apply. Now about this particular example: 1) the photo is superior to the portrait, but unfortunately, Verdi looks haggard in both. 2) It would be nice to show him happy and upbeat or at least relaxed in his middle years. I realize that might not be possible, so one can only hope. 3) I am unfortunately, not familiar with these MOS changes, but if what Gerda says is true, then the use of the infobox is an improvement. 4) I love the idea that we can quickly view a link to his compositions, and this is one thing I do enjoy about infoboxes, but not enough articles use them this way. 5) The use of the infobox over at the Beethoven bio is ideal; however the Mozart box is slightly long and dipping into section one per my criticism up above. I think the problem might be the size of the photo? Disclosure: Gerda informally invited me to weigh in here. Viriditas (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

If there is a desire to change the image, I'd suggest kicking the discussion a section up to arrive at a consensus about which image to change to. But it's terribly incorrect to assert that an image change is an improvement supplied by imposing a template; they are wholly independent issues.

As to your general points: it would be lovely if That doesn't happen anymore were true, but it is not. Indeed you touch on this in your point 5: while the Mozart example started out "short and tidy", it is no longer so. Regardless of what is proposed, keeping it "short and tidy" requires careful stewardship. Are you volunteering to take on that role here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

My take is that many people here are invested in perpetuating unsolved problems instead of fixing them, and I find that attitude everywhere in life, not just here on this site. For that reason, I generally don't participate in these kinds of discussions and did so only because Gerda asked me to do so as a favor. There are numerous solutions to these problems, most of which are opposed, such as the wikidata infobox idea, which can easily constrain the size and parameters. My take is that people don't genuinely want to fix things, they are emotionally invested in perpetual disputes. That's why I try to stay out of this. Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Support per the above reasons. Concerns about infoboxes are silly now that the layout for composers has been standardized, and especially so considering almost all of the top 50 composers on Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers/Popular pages have infoboxes Shogeneral (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)