This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it 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
Other talk page banners
This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 77 million views since December 2007.
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:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Shakespeare is a name associated with William, arguably the best to ever do it in multiple realms. Several writers of the same era, and previous ones, with a less known body of work, only have 1 name on their articles. The redirect is already his, no (disambiguation). I understand both reasons against and in support, just want to test the waters to see where we stand on this. It seems a reasonable move:
Support move to Shakespeare, the article subject is consistently refered to as such-and was during his time.
Oppose - Assuming I’ve correctly understood the proposal as; rename the “William Shakespeare” article as “Shakespeare”. His name was William Shakespeare, and if you’re thinking about ease for readers, “Shakespeare” already redirects here, as you say. You suggest there are other authors whose pages follow the proposed approach. Could you give a couple of examples? That might help me better understand your thinking. KJP1 (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some Ancient Greeks came to mind. But the proposer suggests there are writers broadly contemporary to Shakespeare where this approach is followed. KJP1 (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per WP:MONONYM: "Using the last name as the page title for a person, when the first name is also known and used, is discouraged, even if that name would be unambiguous, and even if it consists of more than one word. Unambiguous last names are usually redirects: for example, Ludwig van Beethoven is the title of an article, while Van Beethoven and Beethoven redirect to that article."Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Under "Legacy": "Shakespeare remains the world's best-selling playwright, with sales of his plays and poetry believed to have achieved in excess of four billion copies in the almost 400 years since his death." We are considerably beyond the 400 year mark. 47.221.100.154 (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The line is a quote from Guinness World Records (2014 edition), and is correct in that sense. You'll need to get a more recent edition of Guinness, quoting the appropriate entry to correct this. Mediatech492 (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If sales of Shakespeare's plays and poetry were in excess of four billion copies ten years ago, they are still in excess of four billion copies. The number of sales cannot fall. The 2014 Guiness World Records source would still support the updated sentence. It's just a technicality. 47.221.100.154 (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "four billion copies" is not the fact at issue here. The fact at issue is the "almost 400 years"., which is correct if you are quoting the 2014 issue of Guinness (which it is). As I stated above, a more recent issue of Guinness (2016 or later) will have the updated factoid (more than 400 years). Yes, it is a technicality, but an encyclopedia is all about the technicalities. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see there's been an unsourced edit to the lead to make Shakespeare "one of" the most influential writers in English. Such edits have been controversial in the past. I'm just mentioning it and don't intend to revert. AndyJones (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted it. It is surely unarguable to state that WS was “arguably” the most influential writer in English ever. KJP1 (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remsense, it would be beneficial if you had actually read the body of the article before editing the lead and removing other editors' contributions. The material regarding the modern reception of Shakespeare is thoroughly covered in the section "Critical reputation" and serves as a fair and balanced overview of how Shakespeare has been perceived, particularly in the age of modern drama since the 19th century.
The mention of bardolatry, a term coined by George Bernard Shaw—a Nobel Prize laureate in literature—is far from undue. On the contrary, it highlights a critical aspect of Shakespeare's legacy: the tension between reverence and critique. The modern reception of Shakespeare should include this nuanced perspective, especially given the transformative influence of Ibsen on drama and the contrasting views of T. S. Eliot, who found Shakespeare's "primitiveness" a hallmark of his enduring modernity. These contrasting views are crucial for understanding how Shakespeare's relevance has been debated in modern theatrical contexts.
To excise this material risks creating an overly hagiographic portrayal of Shakespeare. Wikipedia's objective is to present a balanced narrative, not one that veers into idolization by suppressing critical perspectives. Including this context acknowledges both Shakespeare's towering achievements and the evolving discourse about his place in literature.
The lead should reflect this nuanced understanding, which is consistent with the evidence presented in the body of the article. To ignore such discussions may inadvertently contribute to the very bardolatry that Shaw critiqued. --Msbmt (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is meant to be a brief summary of key facts about a subject, proportional to their representation in the article body. Very often, it absolutely should not describe nuances of this kind as there is simply no time to do so without throwing the reader's initial assessment totally out of whack. Juxtaposing a well-cited claim with one that is contrary or dissenting but clearly less well represented is an antipattern. Such nuances belong in the body . Remsense ‥ 论06:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is ignoring anything. The "bardolatory" criticism of Shaw is already mentioned in the Critical reputation section, which points to two, fuller, sub-articles where it is covered in greater detail. To lob an uncontextualised mention of Ibsen into the lead would be of no help to the reader. KJP1 (talk) 07:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
