Talk:NBA Finals

message: I think much of the 2005 content should be moved to a new page.  Any thoughts? Muhgcee 10:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

message: The table incorrectly credits Clyde Drexler with being on both championships, he was only on the second team (1994-1995).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.211.56 (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Houston Rockets 

message: sorry to whoever made this but it hard to follow when the western confernce teams are listed on the "winner side" of table and the eastern team is on the loser side of table. 
The table in my opinion should be winner 4-3 loser not  western 2-4 Eastern Smith03 03:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format Gripe 

message: ...and put them under List of NBA champions. What do you guys think? --Howard the Duck 10:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really planning to remove the lists and place it there in a few days if no one objects... --Howard the Duck 12:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: separate the list 

message: I removed the passage about the '06 Finals in the "Noteworthy Series" portion of the article.  I don't really feel that they were that memorable, or that noteable as a whole to be mentioned in this passage.  What does everyone else thik? Dknights411 01:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 2005 and 2006 should use some trimming. Especially 2006 since the Mavs lost that one. --Howard the Duck 15:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 Finals 

message: Many of the dates overlapped into other decade sections, and I think it's better to group everything by certain periods in the NBAs history, not just by decades.Cnota 07:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been thinking the same thing. Chris 20:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed all dates but 1970s 

message: I don't the 2007 finals deserve to be in the "noteworthy" finals section as it was a sweep and nothing spectacular happened except possibly the Spurs winning their fourth title in nine years, which is also included in the "Dynasties" and "Lakers/Spurs Dominance" Sections Ben1283 22:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and delete it. I put in there in the first place because Spurs won their fourth title. But you are right, it was a sweep and nothing spectacular happened. Chris 20:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 Finals 

message: Is it just me, or is there no simple listing of champions similar to List of Super Bowl champions ?  The current layout is nice, but for those just looking to see a simple rundown of champions, this page is kinda clunky. Tarc 14:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be implementing this shortly. See #Suggestion: separate the list above, too. --Howard the Duck 15:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree, there needs to be a list of champions. That's more important than the current list of participants and their records. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A list? 

message: The Suns have been in the Finals twice as stated in the table of teams in the Finals. But, it states that the Suns have not made a Finals apperance in the Headline containing active teams with no Finals apperances. March 3, 2008 (UTC) 
:Just take out the Suns in the section with active NBA franchises with no NBA Finals apperance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.137.107 (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suns 

message: I made some changes and rewrite some parts of the introduction paragraph. I also plan to remove the highlight section in the history section because it is redundant to the rest of the article. If people want to read about each final series, then they can go directly to those article. Any thoughts? —Chris! ct 01:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Any good reason why the Celtics' win in 2008 gets its own section? Seems like a mix of recentism and maybe a little favoritism towards that franchise. Mr. Darcy talk 16:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is definately recentism, however I would leave the section there for now.  Should the C's win the title in 2009, then they deserve their own section.  If the Lakers or Spurs win it, then give the Celtics 2008 win a few sentences in the Lakers/Spurs dominance section and change its title back to 1999-Present.  Should some other team win, then I would keep the two sections separate, but take off the resurrection or the Celtics banner and leave that section's title as "2008-Present:" with no subtitle.Frank AnchorTalk 16:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just cut out a bunch or what I thought was recentism and trivia so the description matches those of other finals series.  Frank AnchorTalk 16:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celtics? 

message: What kind of goon is responsible for the listing of supposed eras?  I especially found the last two disgusting.  The "Lakers/Spurs Dominance" from 1999-2007 sees a Lakers team that hasn't won since 2002 (over half the "era.")  The "Resurrection of the Celtics" refers to a single year in which the Celtics won a championship.  How about those "dominant" years other teams not mentioned participated, say twice in a row, in the championship?!  Reminds me of an old saying: "A dynasty is a Chinese family that rules for a thousand years, or a Boston team that wins a sporting championship or makes it to the finals more than once in a decade." 206.124.7.10 (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree about the Lakers/Spurs dominance part.  The Lakers and Spurs have combined to be in 9 of the last 10 NBA finals (LAL 5 SA 4) and won 7 of them (LAL 3 SA 4), when no other team has been to the finals more than twice.  I would consider that dominance by both teams rather than a single team.  You can see my comments about the Boston issue in the Celtics? section of the page.  Frank AnchorTalk 22:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious Objectivity Problem 

message: Does anyone know why the Lakers are listed as having 30 appearances (considering they're 14-15, something doesn't add up)? Dextrosity (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just corrected it to 29 based on the NBA's website. Dextrosity (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finals Appearances 

message: I understand the team and the city of Seattle reach a deal where the team had to leave the nickname behind. However I do belive the league considers the Thunder and Sonics the same franchise like the Rochester Royals/ Sac Kings. I think the table should reflect that. Smith03 (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Table Sonics/Thunder

message: I find the Highlights section well written and interesting.  If template writer wants to add additional material, he or she should do so or put suggested changes up for discussion.  The template without additional explanation is of no value and should be removed. RHB100 (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Section should not be rewritten, Template should be removed

message: This looks more like a list than an article.  How many games are in the championship?  How have the finals changed over the years?  What effect does the championship have upon the next season?  -- SEWilco (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  List or Finals? 

message: This is not a very informative sentence for 2 reasons:
:1. We already know, based on the previous sentence, that all but one of these championships featured either the Lakers or the Spurs. 
:2. You could replace Shaquille O'Neal with any other member of the 2006 Heat or Mavericks and this would still be true.  Originalname37 (Talk?) 16:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Every NBA Finals from 1999 to 2010 featured either Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'Neal or Tim Duncan." 

message: Shouldn't the prize be added to this page? Idofen (talk | contribs |  June 27)   —Preceding undated comment added 04:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Prize 

message: incorrectly attribute the pistons as being the only team with rings in the 80s 90s and 2000s, but the lakers had a bunch in the 80s one in 91 and 2000-2002 I am unsure of anything significant to replace the false factoid with.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mthguy (talk • contribs) 15:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pistons 

message: Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the Lakers were led by Shaq, with Kobe supporting - similar to the way the bulls section describes Pippen. Kobe got better each year, but those were clearly Shaq dominant teams.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.17.34 (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lakers 2000-2002 Championships Question 

message: The Spurs are 5-2 in the NBA Finals. Not 5-1  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.178.130 (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Spurs Title number 

message: I just corrected the Pistons vs. Lakers listing under "Most common matchups".  The listing previously indicated 4 matchups between the teams, with the Pistons winning 3.  The correct numbers are 3 matchups between the teams (1988, 1989, and 2004), Pistons won 2 of those matchups (1989 and 2004).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.198.207 (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pistons vs. Lakers 

message: I don't see the Wizards anywhere in the list of most Finals appearances. They're in the list of most games won, but not most appearances. They should be listed as having 1 appearance in 1978, correct?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waunakonor (talk • contribs) 23:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington Wizards 

message: This should only be updated once a year, but right now I'm seeing a LeBron James era edit battle going on.
Section 1.7 was just entitled "2011–Present: LeBron James' Dominance of the East and Golden State Warriors Dominance of the West". 
24.99.100.208 (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: LeBron James made championships with the Heat from 2011-2014, and with the Cavaliers from 2015-2017. The Warriors didn't start becoming dominant until 2015 when they won against LeBron's Cavs. I agree that LeBron's Heat era and the Warriors' dominance should remain separate sections.  TNats  3  05:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a lock on this article 

message: We need consensus on the name of the section involving LeBron's era with the Heat and their championship appearances with him. The name has been changed several times over the past few months and nobody can agree on a title for the section. I've seen "Rise of the Heat", "Heat surge", and "Heat wave", with the section going back and forth between these titles. What can we decide the name of the section to be? I would this to be settled so it won't get changed again in the future.  TNats  3  06:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus on Heat section 

message: Change "Won 4-1 in their last Finals appearance in 2017." to "Won 4-0 in their last Finals appearance in 2018." Chloe2330 (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done Jamietw (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2018 

message: Ever since the Warriors won the 2018 NBA Finals section 1.7 has been renamed to "Warriors dynasty." Despite the Warriors' dominance throughout their four straight Finals matchups with the Cavaliers (with the exception of 2016), I feel like the fact that the two teams have played in the Finals four times in a row warrants mentioning the rivalry between them. Can someone update the section or change its name to note this?  TNats  3  08:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "Warriors Dynasty" is more appropriate. Frank AnchorTalk 14:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cavaliers–Warriors rivalry 

message: The Thunder lost to the Heat in the finals and need to be removed from the never been to the finals list.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobusteach (talk • contribs) 02:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is referring to the Pelicans’ brief time in OKC, not to the Thunder franchise.—Bagumba (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franchises without a finals appearance 

message: Why can't the Rockets be in that '90s headline along with the Bulls? As in "Bulls dynasty and Rockets repeat"? Sure, the Bulls were the bigger team but it makes no sense to gloss over the Rockets back-to-back championships in the headline. The Pistons won two in a row and are co-headlining the section with the Lakers/Celtics.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.215.89.126 (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a valid point.  The Pistons should be removed from the 80s  title as well.  Thanks for pointing that out Frank AnchorTalk  (inadvertantly not logged in.  Made contribution as 2607:FCC8:9B8B:9F00:68D1:A385:9BA4:D1FC (talk)) 22:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  '90s headline 

message: There has been a dispute over the section title for the Warriors' dynasty. It's been alternating year spans from the last stable version of "2015–present: Warriors' dynasty" to the recent changes to "2015–2019: Warriors' dynasty". Please reach consensus here in lieu of continued edit warring. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It must remain "2015–present" at least through the 2020 2021 Finals.  The Warriors have been to five consecutive NBA Finals, having won three of them.  It can not be assumed that the Warriors' dynasty is over just because they lost one Finals. Many different teams across all sports have lost championship games/series within a run of a dynasty.  Likewise, it can not be assumed that their dynasty is over simply because of the departures of one of their key contributors and a decent role player.  If the Warriors struggle and/or don't make it back to the 2020 and 2021 Finals, then the title could change to something along the lines of "2020-present" (with no subheading), but for right now, the section needs to remain "2015-present." Frank AnchorTalk 12:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Frank Anchor. The Warriors, especially after their reported signings and trades of D'Angelo Russell, Willie Cauley-Stein, and other role players, could definitely still have the fire power to make another run at a title next year. Even if they lost everyone, you can't mark the end of a dynasty until they don't have success which is still yet to be determined. RichieConant34 (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

text: WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:NOTAFORUM.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Note The same user appears to be using 107.209.199.196 and IP range 2600:1700:BBD0:8050:*.—Bagumba (talk) 02:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year span of Warriors' dynasty 

message: The Heat Wave and Warriors Dynasty sections should be combined for two reasons. First, the other sections are roughly broken up by decades, while these two sections cover only four and five years. Second, Lebron James's involvement in all of the finals but one between 2011 and 2020, creates a natural period for the section on par with the others. My suggestion would be Lebron's dominance and Warrior dynasty (or rivalry).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrkwv (talk • contribs) 17:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it works out better to leave as separate sections.  LeBron James shouldn't be in a title since all of the titles focus on teams rather than players (e.g. the 90s art the Bulls' Dynasty, rather than the "Michael Jordan era" or Jordan/Pippen era).  LeBron's dominance is misleading since he only won four titles (2020 included) in ten years.  There was enough differences in the Heat era and the Cavs/Warriors era that leaving them separate is the better choice. Frank Anchor 13:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combining Heat Wave and Warriors Dynasty Sections 

message: Starting a discussion here about the use of color in the tables in the Team records section. This is , which was reverted.
I believe that this use of color serves an aesthetic purpose, albeit not an Earth-shakingly important one, but I do think that there is a place for including relevant and accessible graphical elements in this section.  With regard to the idea that "this is not some kid coloring book," I don't think that the use of color detracts from addressing sporting events with the level of importance that they deserve. It's worth noting that similar tables exist on the Super Bowl, March Madness, and NCAA Division I men's ice hockey tournament pages. After all, if these templates exist, we may as well use them. Puhala,ny (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose the use of color templates on this page, as adding 30 of them to a page distract from the main purpose of listing which teams were in the Finals how many times. If anything, the NCAA tables you mentioned should have the colors removed. Frank Anchor 18:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Frank Anchor on colors. Just because something exists in those pages (colors there should be removed) that does not mean that the same should be here. – sbaio 19:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I wouldn't go so far as to remove the colors from the other pages, but if consensus is reached on those instances as well, then so it goes. Puhala,ny (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color