Talk:2010 NBA Finals

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

proper noun?[edit]

"Game 6" or "game 6"? I think these games are proper nouns (they're one-time events). Shall we homogenize the rest of the article / other articles using this standard? JustAddPeter (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. "Game 6" is more correct.—Chris!c/t 21:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Coverage[edit]

What information should be put in terms of the 2010 NBA Finals being broadcasted outside the United States? Tropical Cyclone K (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge from 2010 Finals Info from "Celtics-Lakers rivalry"to "2010 NBA Finals"[edit]

There is a lot of detail in Celtics–Lakers_rivalry#2010_NBA_Finals that should be looked to merged (if it is new info) into 2010 NBA Finals. The rivalry article already lists 2010 NBA Finals as a main article, so there should only be a summary of the series and not game by game detail, which belong in the specific article about the finals. Bagumba (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Game 7 - 4th Quarter Conspiracy?[edit]

Twenty extra free throws in a single quarter of the NBA FINALS in a 1 possession game is pretty un-heard of —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.168.137 (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJnXxQlPC48&feature=player_embedded

If you know of reliable sources (the video not being one of them), then be bold and improve the article. —Bagumba (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:2010NBAFinals.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:2010NBAFinals.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2010 NBA Finals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Impact and Aftermath: Father and Son info outdated[edit]

The tidbit about Bill and Luke Walton being the only father+son duo to win multiple NBA championships is outdated. Mychal and Klay Thompson are now also on that list. How best to update? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khubilai22 (talkcontribs) 04:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does say "as of 2011", so it's not exactly dated (MOS:DATED). Still, one could simply say they were the "first", which would always be true, and doesnt require future updates.—Bagumba (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]