Talk:Viv Richards

message: Hello I want to start a discussion here about lead no doubt Viv is one of greatest ever and arguably finest post war player and also best no.3 batsman of our lifetimes but here in lead it is written that Viv avg highest at 3 after Bradman and Hammond of who scored 3500 runs at spot which is true but that really can be taken into any consideration...
We should simply wrote that Viv was no.3 in that Windies XI behind Greenidge & Haynes (for a decade 1976 to 1984) and he is rated as finest no.3 batter instead of adding his aggregates...
I am pinging  for response. 2409:4051:2080:30E4:B73C:3AB0:FEBE:4D45 (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever the outcome, the recent edit is unclear to the reader as it states Richards at 3 (not 2) after Bradman of those who scored over 3500 runs. It seems from the source that he ranks 3 overall (including Hammond) but 2 of those scoring more than 3500. Eagleash (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

text: I've just massively simplified it all. It's far too complex for the lead. If we can find a clear source - presumably Wisden - that says that he played predominantly at 3 (I don't remember that well - I was quite young when he was in his pomp) then maybe - **maybe** - that could be added. But this is the lead - the detail belongs in the article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viv's no.3 batting lead summary 

message: The spelling error "maintaing" occurs twice in this article in two copies of a quote from Dennis Lillee's book "Menace". When I tried to check the source, I found that the quote is considerably different in the version of the text indexed by Google snippet view. Can anyone check the quote against a printed copy of the book? -- John of Reading (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "maintaing better consistency" 

message: There is currently very poor grammar in the second paragraph of the first section. 2A02:C7F:245D:F200:2D61:9415:E2CD:5C1A (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please can you be a little more specific, and detail any changes you would like to see made. Eagleash (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor grammar 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below.  Dekimasuよ! 10:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Viv Richards →  – Sources cited in the article seem pretty evenly split between "Viv Richards" and "Vivian Richards".  A Google search also finds many instances of both names in reliable sources.  There doesn't appear to be a clear indication that "Viv Richards" is the WP:COMMONAME.  While one might be inclined to keep the status quo in a case like this, I'll note that Mr. Richards himself uses "Sir Vivian Richards" in his official socials  , and that we should follow his preferred usage here. 162 etc. (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 2 January 2024