Talk:NBA Finals

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

Houston Rockets
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)

Dynasties
I changed the dynasties section to be more open-ended as there is no clear definition of what a dynasty is. While I don't agree that all the teams listed are a dynasty, they are the teams that could be considered dynasties based solely on winning a number of championships in a compact amount of time. Personally I would not consider the Laker and Celtics of the '80s or the spurs to be dynasties. -andreasjb

I agree that the Spurs are not a dynasty, however, the lakers and celtics of the 80's def are, 4 straight appearances by the celtics and winning a total of 3 championships in the 80s and then the lakers who were in 8/10 and winning 5, that is a dynasty no matter how you want to look at it.

the spurs never were even in back to back finals, let alone winning back to backs.

The reason I am not certain of the Lakers and Celts of the '80s is that usually when you think of a dynasty you say that the team was the dominant team during that period (i.e. the Bulls were clearly the dominant team during their dynasty). If you look at the '80s, it is difficult to determine which team was dominant as both were great teams. But then again it is always open to debate. -andreasjb

1994-1995
Why are the only two years missing in the Finals listings the 1994 and 1995 championships by the Houston Rockets?

I realize that the heading is the "Chicago Bulls dynasty" but under the other "dynasty" eras the lists of champions are comprehensive. * I've edited the section to reflect this gap.

Lakers/Celtics rivalry
i have twice deleted the portland-detroit game at the end of the column. a game between those two teams doesn't belong in the la/boston rivalry section, and its not like its sandwiched between other la/boston games....why is it still being added? Strawberryfire 12:17, 25 May 2006

Da Bulls
I would like to include the following fact: no Bulls player on the first three championship teams other than Jordan and Pippen were members of the last 3 championship teams and vice versa. But this fact needs to be double checked before its posted to make sure its true. This is an interesting face and one could make a number of inferences: its really two teams,...Jordan and Pippen were so good,...Phil Jackson was such a good coach,...the management made good trade moves, et cetra. -Jon in California (Laker Fan)

Format Gripe
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)

Goldstein brothers????

200x
What about that one moment where robert horry got the ball with half a second left and shot the three to win the game? that was 2003 i think... that should be included as one of the major moments... shaq misses the tip after someone shot it and vloody devac? hit the ball out straight to horry

Suggestion: separate the list
...and put them under List of NBA champions. What do you guys think? --Howard t he Du c k 10:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

Excellent
I think this article did an excellent job of breaking the finals into recognizable eras and accounting for the rise and fall of us. Nice work!

World Championship?
Why is suggesting the NBA championship as the World Championship so controversial? After all the NBA has many players that aren't from the US. Both Ginobili and Nocioni who led Argentina to Gold medal in 04 plays in the NBA. There is also Gasol, Parker, Yao, Nash, Stojavkvic, Llgauskas, etc who are mostly the best players from their repective countries. The list is fairly long.

Although many of the world's best players choose to play in the NBA, teams with zero NBA players have won against USA teams full with NBA regulars.

I do not believe that an NBA champion is necessarily a "world champion", because players from that league do not automatically dominate players from other leagues. It may be difficult to believe because of all the marketing hype around them, but we have seen how teams with no NBA players like Italy and Greece can shove off these so-called dream teams in international competition. Different court and rules? BS! The court and rules of FIBA were never an problem for NBA "superstars" in the 20th Century, when they were really capable of dominating.


 * To be a world champion you have to actually beat teams from the other leagues. Merely being the champion of the best league is not enough, as the champion of the second best league might actually be better. I doesn't take a genius to understand that. 86.198.202.5 09:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like this article to have some evidence cited that this has been controversial. Anyone have any besides blogs and their personal opinions? XINOPH | TALK 11:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that section should be removed as there is no similar controversy section for the World Series and Super Bowl pages, both of which sometimes refer to those teams as World Champions (despite the fact that MLB has only one and the NFL zero teams outside the lower 48 United States).76.177.160.69 (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * World Champions? American chauvinism I think. Especially when American players keep getting humped at the Olympics, and the American champions do not play teams from other countries. 8&quot;Jobby (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, it's not chauvinism. The NBA is by far the most competitive basketball league in the world, and I say that not because I'm trying to bias the page toward the US but because it's patently ridiculous to say otherwise. It's the reason why the top players from other countries fall all over themselves to come play here. Now, that being said, I do agree that it's a bit silly for people to call the NBA championship the "World" championship since there aren't teams outside the US in the league (except the Raptors, and briefly the Grizzlies).  The way the page reads now is a little confusing.  First it points out that the championship isn't really a world championship, then it seems to imply that there are teams outside the US which could be competitive with NBA teams, which isn't true (sorry, just because a hyped up Greek team might have taken a game or two from a tired out, unpracticed, un-unified group of NBA players isn't particularly meaningful), and then seems to double back on itself explaining why foreign stars want to play in the US.  I think the section ought to be re-written or possibly reduced in size.


 * You don't compete against worldwide teams, you dont' label yourself world champion, period. Is the US the most competitive league? Yes. Are many nationalities represented in the NBA? Yes. But the probability that a NBA team will systematically defeat Italian, Spanish, Greek, Russian or even Turkish Champion has fallen so reasonably low that World Champion is really not true. And even if it was the case, it's so pretentious...North-American Champion, or NBA Champion, would be very much more accurate. Look, UEFA Champion's League is, by far, the most competitive football/soccer competition, where players come from the entire world, the winners aren't labeled World Champions, even if it's everybody's dream to play in Europe and the salaries, the media exposure are higher than everywhere. The argument of popularity and competitiveness, along with higher salaries and "sex-appeal" doesn't stand the "nationality" of a competition.

8&quot;HowardW June 22, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardW (talk • contribs) 11:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Spur Dynasty?
They couldn't even win a back to back title and the first one has * all over it. If two non-consecutive titles equals a dynasty, what about the Knicks in the early 70s? I am changing the name of that chapter. Centralk 04:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, the ability of the Spurs to maintain as long of a stretch of excellence as they have constitutes as a kind of psudo-dynasty, and they were arguable a few calls here and therefrom pulling off a stretch of 4 in a row. With that said however, to label this whole section as the "Spurs" era is not acurate at all.  Too many other things have been going on (the rise and fall of the Lakers for instance).  It's gonna be a long while before we can come up with a proper name for this period of NBA history. Dknights411 01:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * the Spurs are not a dynasty. they only won the title in 2003 after the laker's had already won three in a row, and then lost the next year to the lakers in the playoffs.  the 2005 title was impressive, but the Pistons were trying to go back to back, a feat that is rare.  and i agree the 1999 title is an *.  the spurs are one of the better teams of this era, but this isn't the Spurs era by a long shot.Jbbrewer 22:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not just call this a post-MJ consolidation? -- Howard  the   Duck  04:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in another thread, if Spurs are discounted as a dynasty because they failed to repeat, we must discount the '80s Celtics because they never repeated. In addition, numerous outlets and an informal (unscientific) survey of the nation from ESPN, revealed that the majority of the country count the Spurs as a dynasty.  The only state to not elect the Spurs in the survey (it was broken down to reveal votes by states) was Arizona (obviously Suns fans).  There are a few voices in the media who discount the Spurs as a dynasty because they never repeated, but they do not include the '80s Celtics as a dynasty either.  In fact, from the articles I was able to accumulate, those who discount the Spurs as a dynasty believe that only two dynasties exist in the NBA, the '60s Celtics and the '90s Bulls.  Even Derek Fisher of the '00s Lakers claims that Spurs have surpassed them in terms of legacy.  Read the linked articles.
 * FYI, we don't call the 80s Celts a dynasty, at least in this page; they're under "Lakers-Celtics rivalry." -- Howard  the   Duck  12:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm.... the '80s Celtics were listed on the previously present 'Dynasty' section on this page. Please don't add a statement like this AFTER the section was deleted, especially considering that my statement was added when that aforementioned section was still on this page.  Thanks.
 * I don't remember this article having a "dynasty" section per se; with that said, I do not visit this article that frequently. The 80s section was previously named as "Lakers dynasty", I changed it (as an anon) to "Lakers-Celtics rivalry) -- Howard  the   Duck  03:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/hall-famer-heat-title-tainted-article-1.1461261 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaaceuclides (talk • contribs) 07:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

2006 Finals
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)
 * 2005 and 2006 should use some trimming. Especially 2006 since the Mavs lost that one. -- Howard  the   Duck  15:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed all dates but 1970s
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)
 * I have been thinking the same thing. Chris 20:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

2007 Finals
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)
 * 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)

A list?
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)
 * I'll be implementing this shortly. See above, too. -- Howard   the   Duck  15:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

Suns
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)

Rewrite
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!  c t 01:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Celtics?
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)
 * 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 Anchor Talk 16:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just cut out a bunch or what I thought was recentism and trivia so the description matches those of other finals series.  Frank Anchor Talk 16:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Serious Objectivity Problem
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)

(Added) I agree that the idea of the "list" itself is stupid, and amounts to something other than facts--something more like bar room commentary. It should simply be removed. 206.124.7.10 (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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 Anchor Talk 22:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Finals Appearances
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)
 * Just corrected it to 29 based on the NBA's website. Dextrosity (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Table Sonics/Thunder
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)

Section should not be rewritten, Template should be removed
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)

List or Finals?
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)

"Every NBA Finals from 1999 to 2010 featured either Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'Neal or Tim Duncan."
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)

Add Prize
Shouldn't the prize be added to this page? Idofen (talk &#124; contribs &#124; June 27)  —Preceding undated comment added 04:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Pistons
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)

--- Lakers didn't win the title in 1991, they lost to the Bulls that year. The Pistons are in fact the only team with titles in the 80's, 90's and 2000's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.14.12 (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Lakers 2000-2002 Championships Question
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)

The Spurs Title number
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)

NBA World Championship Series
Second lead sentence: "The series was named the NBA World Championship Series until 1986." --no source and the string 'world' does not appear again.

Do we have a source? The lead sentences of annual articles YYYY NBA Finals reveal our current interpretation that this means through 1985 NBA Finals, revised prior to the 1986 rendition. Our first "yyyy NBA World Championship Series" lead is 1955 NBA Finals, which suggests that the term was officially used from 1955 to 1985 inclusive. Our annual articles for 1947 to 1954 lead with "yyyy BAA Finals" and "yyyy NBA Finals" (capital F as if a proper noun, same as 1986 to date).

This article should overview(verb) and the annual articles should cover the official name of the series, if any, or official name of the championship. If we are right to imply that "World Championship Series" was the official name 1955 to 1985 inclusive, great interest in the 'world' appellation that the 1954, 1955, 1985, and 1986 articles are four places to begin.

None of those four annual articles provides a source for anything said (sometimes next to nothing) regarding 'world'. 1955 NBA Finals does cite for another purpose one newspaper article (no link) with title "City Hails Nats' World Title Triumph". There is no hit for 'world' in the 1947 to 1954 articles.

--P64 (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I found "Here Are Some Final Facts on NBA Playoffs", June 4, 1989, Los Angeles Times. Until 1982, it was NBA World Championship Series. 1983–1984 it was Showdown. It's been NBA Finals since 1985.—Bagumba (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and updated the article.—Bagumba (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This article has been updated concerning 1982 to 1986 and thereafter. 1983 NBA Finals and 1984 NBA Finals still lead with "The YYYY NBA World Championship Series was ...".
 * We use that lead phrase from 1955 to 1985 inclusive. (I confirm now, having fixed several of 1960 to 1970 today. Sometimes the first word is bold, The, which I did not bother to fix.)
 * I have found some "world" language in 1955 sources and plan to cover the matter at 1955 NBA Finals, also to check for "world" language in 1954 (not found yet) and 1956 (not looked yet) sources, and not to work any further forward. I may or may not cover 1950s introduction of "world" talk in this article, depending on the nature of 1954 to 1956 sources that I find, material. --P64 (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Pistons vs. Lakers
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)

Washington Wizards
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)

Need a lock on this article
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)


 * 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)

Consensus on Heat section
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2018
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)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Jamietw (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Cavaliers–Warriors rivalry
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)
 * No, "Warriors Dynasty" is more appropriate. Frank Anchor Talk 14:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Franchises without a finals appearance
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)
 * It is referring to the Pelicans’ brief time in OKC, not to the Thunder franchise.—Bagumba (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

'90s headline
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)
 * You make a valid point. The Pistons should be removed from the 80s  title as well.  Thanks for pointing that out  Frank Anchor Talk  (inadvertantly not logged in. Made contribution as 2607:FCC8:9B8B:9F00:68D1:A385:9BA4:D1FC (talk)) 22:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC))

Year span of Warriors' dynasty
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)
 * 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 Anchor Talk 12:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

I HATE the Golden State Warriors because I hate super teams. Super teams are the antithesis of competition. 207.233.45.12 (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:NOTAFORUM.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

Leave it 2015-present til you know its over for sure the San Antonio Spurs, New England Patriots and even the Chicago Bulls didn't end when they lost a championship or didn't make a finals they had breaks between titles and not all the same players where apart of all the championship wins just there best player. If the Warriors make another finals or win a championship within the next few years or until Stephen Curry and Klay Thompson retire then you can mark it the end of a Dynasty. Its way to soon to tell if its over yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:D3C1:5100:E019:5C19:28C4:6742 (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Combining Heat Wave and Warriors Dynasty Sections
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)
 * 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)

Color
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)