This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the William Shakespeare article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Elizabethan theatreWikipedia:WikiProject Elizabethan theatreTemplate:WikiProject Elizabethan theatreElizabethan theatre
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry 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.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore
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.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Warwickshire, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Warwickshire. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.WarwickshireWikipedia:WikiProject WarwickshireTemplate:WikiProject WarwickshireWikiProject Warwickshire
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2010, when it received 6,648,475 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
Wondering why the original Wikipedia page did not include Romeo and Juliet when it named the other tragedies of Hamlet, Othello, King Lear and Macbeth?? ~2026-83830-4 (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I expect the OP is asking about the third paragraph of the lede. If so the answer seems to be that the writer is trying to divide Shakespeare's work into broad periods, and in this sentence is referring to the early seventeenth century, up to ~1608. Romeo and Juliet doesn't belong there because it was written earlier. (If I've understood the question correctly?) AndyJones (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading the critical reputation and was thinking that it really downplays his reputation from when he was alive when he did develop a fair amount of fame performing for several kings. Catatfrommarvelrivals (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think so? The section says that, while not receiving the adulation he later gained, he was highly regarded in his lifetime. It then quotes three contemporary commentators who praised his work, including Jonson’s “not of an age but for all time”. I’m not sure I’d describe that as “downplaying his reputation”. If you have a reliable source you want to include that goes further, then post it here and I’m sure you will get some responses. But remember the article seeks to cover his, extraordinarily productive, life and works in summary style, so much has to be excluded. KJP1 (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been more specific but I meant because it opens saying "He was not revered in his lifetime" and while it does go to state a number of things for how he was highly regarded I just believe this to be a bit of a misinforming way to open the paragraph that's all. Catatfrommarvelrivals (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I politely ask if there is room for negotiating Shakespeare's status as quoted: 'widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language'. Perhaps I may be arguing semantics, but the term 'writer' is far to generic, and I feel leaving Shakespeare's claim to fame as the greatest playwright and/or poet in the English language (or the world's pre-eminent dramatist, as it was so eloquently put in the initial paragraphs) would be more of a streamlined and refined take on his legacy, as opposed to adopting the phrase 'writer'; for this term broadens things way too much and places Shakespeare in a realm of far too many contenders of 'writers' who have also displayed exquisite mastery and manipulation of language, i.e. James Joyce. Granted, this is not an argument against the apparent influence, fame, legacy, or worth of Shakespeare's works and abilities as a writer. This is just a suggestion and food for thought, for the hope that we adopt a more boundary-based, precise, respectful and mindful understanding of his importance and presence. Thank you. ~2026-30818-51 (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
First off, thank you for the considered and thoughtful way in which you have made your point. As always with Wikipedia, the key issue is not what we, as editors, think about X or Y, but are we accurately reflecting what a range of Reliable Sources have said about X or Y? In this instance, if you take a look at the conclusion of the Legacy section, you will see that Gary Taylor uses the term “writer” four times in relation to Shakespeare, while other scholars also describe him as the greatest, and most performed, dramatist. For this reason, I think it is appropriate to use the term “writer” in the lead. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cadddr (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2026 (UTC)