This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Antigua and Barbuda, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antigua and Barbuda 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.Antigua and BarbudaWikipedia:WikiProject Antigua and BarbudaTemplate:WikiProject Antigua and BarbudaAntigua and Barbuda articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football 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.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
This article is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project and talk pages for more details.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket articles
There is a toolserver based WikiProject Cricket cleanup list that automatically updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available in one big list and in CSV format)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan Super League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the Pakistan Super League on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Viv Richards is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
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 @Blue Square Thing and Lugnuts: for response. 2409:4051:2080:30E4:B73C:3AB0:FEBE:4D45 (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Blue Square Thing: Your cricket knowledge is largely hearsey or ill-informed. You don't know the thing about great man either, all those who saw him knew he was indeed a no.3 batter for close to decade. The source was from Cricinfo by a cricket historian which hardly needs any pudding. After dreaded 1975-76 tour of Australia where he opened after Greenidge confidence is crushed by Lillee and Thomson he scored two hundreds and one fifty since then from January 1976 to January 1984 he remained at no.3 always in some cases night watchman Croft or Holding came after fall of either of Gordon or Desmond. This simply belongs in lead about his central batting position. I agree may be not about stats and aggregates. I will add a cricinfo piece written by Chappelli. (Ian Chappell) 2409:4051:2080:30E4:92F3:5434:8C65:E820 (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here are exact quotes:-
Despairing of Richards' nervous, mid-order struggles in 1975-76, West Indies opted to use him as an opener in Adelaide. As Richards proceeded to flay an extremely strong Australian pace attack in scoring a brilliant 101, I mentioned to Rod Marsh: "When the West Indies realise it, they'll have one of the best No. 3s going round.
The Windies cottoned on quickly. In his next series, Richards' 556 runs against India included three centuries. He exceeded that outstanding output in the series after that, aggregating 829 in just four Tests against England with two doubles and a century. All 1385 of those runs were amassed at No. 3. Richards went on to become the pre-eminent batsman of his era and the flagbearer for aggressive, counterattacking No. 3s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4051:2080:30E4:92F3:5434:8C65:E820 (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
Viv Richards → Vivian 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 [1][2], and that we should follow his preferred usage here. 162 etc. (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I don't believe what the individual uses themselves should be taken into account in cases like this (and you point out he uses this for official socials, but not how he does it in other contexts), but if you can point to policy to the contrary that would be fine. I assume you aren't arguing to put 'Sir' in the page title; that's not something we do here. If it's evenly split then someone could quite easily argue back the other way, so I don't see this as compelling evidence. His first name is Isaac apparently; didn't know that. YorkshireExpat (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:AINTBROKE. Even the nomination recognises that the sources are split reasonably evenly. That said, I would say that overall, he remains more commonly known as "Viv" than "Vivian". Harrias(he/him) •talk12:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONAME — Use commonly recognizable names. Viv Richards is commonly recognizable, and is widely supported by reliable sources, as far back as July 1975, and is still commonly recognizable in 2024. There really needs to be an exceptional reason to change the article title after a ~20 year consensus.Isaidnoway(talk)16:42, 3 January 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.
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
