Talk:Kenny Omega/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Unified Canadian Junior Heavyweight Championship

I've searched and I've not been able to find where it says that the Unified Canadian Junior Heavyweight Championship is promoted by MainStream Wrestling. I've checked Wrestling-Titles.com and it doesn't show that MSW has promoted any title like that. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 02:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

PCW Tag Team Championship

Last month Kenny won the PCW Tag Team Championship with Chris Stevens. "When the smoke cleared, Kenny reversed Knight for the three count as Omega & Stevens became the Undisputed PCW Tag Team Champions" Here is the link, if someone could make the correct edit and link that would be great.

http://www.premierchampionshipwrestling.com/ It is under the results for Boiling Point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.71.67.60 (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

New reliable source for addition

Came across a piece by media. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I added some basic stuff off the article. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) #GG (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Haruka (wrestler)

Could we mention this girl he delivered an enziguri to somewhere? Seems pretty legendary. Ranze (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this the nine-year-old girl he wrestled in Japan? Tigerboy1966  14:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I added a bit on the match in the article. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 16:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

6 Star Match

Didn't Meltzer give his match against Okada at WK11 six stars, not five? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.167.67.212 (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Apologies, should've added that this pertains to the Championships & Accomplishments section, not the main body text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.167.67.212 (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It was listed correctly until an IP changed it today. Changed back. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Kenny Omega. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 12:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Kenny Omega. 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) 20:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kenny Omega/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 10:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

  • It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria - Green tickY Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It contains copyright infringements - Checked all images - All are free Green tickY Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • CopyVio check brings up a 54% chance of an infringement, however, I don't buy it. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). - No tags, other than a dead link. Green tickY Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. - Green tickY Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Links

Prose

Lede

  • Wikilink Professional wrestler Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You should consider if you need to abbreviate a company name in the lede, if you don't use the abbreviation in the lede. Such as with AEW.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Omega is perhaps best known for his tenure - [according to whom?] Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • A full list of his titles in New Japan is irrelevent. Only major titles in the lede. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "Omega is also known for his time as part of the" - Bad word choice. Not GA level wordage. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This whole lead both goes into too much detail, and too little. It is not well written Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You've wikilinked the Young Bucks, you don't also need to say who they are. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The 6-man titles are hardly a career highlight. Shouldn't be in the lead. Read WP:WEIGHT. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • More information on a tonne of titles in the last paragraph. The lede should summarize, and give a bit of info on career progression. This lede says he's worked places, and won all this stuff. It's hardly a summary. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Career

  • Him having a sister should be in the personal life section. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I started to do a review of this, but it's just not going to pass. I'll summarize my issues with the prose below, but there's quite a lot:
  • WP:NPOV issues. Things like "impressive debut", " quickly became a rising star in PCW", can't be used, unless they are suitible [according to whom?] Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comments like "Smith has stated in several interviews that his time spent with DSW was poor and has been particularly critical of promoters DeMott and Jody Hamilton,[17] and trainer Bob Holly.[21]", are fine, but should mention who these interviews are with. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Each section after the WWE section starts with "on X date, Omega debuted for". I understand he worked a lot of places simultaneously, however, it has zero flow. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • every section just goes through a list of results (apart from NJPW, which has other issues, below)Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • NJPW has HUGE paragraphs. This needs serious cutting down. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Notes & References

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

  • I will start the review today, however, I may not finish the review, and will restart on Monday. Feel free to update the article to reflect any thing I have already highlighted, or discuss anything with me on this page, or my talk page. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
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.

RfC about the lead section

Which of the two versions of a paragraph in the lead section is more suitable for the article?

A. Omega has also performed as part of American Ring of Honor and several independent professional wrestling promotions worldwide, including DDT Pro-Wrestling, Jersey All Pro Wrestling, and Pro Wrestling Guerrilla. Omega additionally was assigned to WWE farm territory, Deep South Wrestling, between 2005 and 2006.

B. Omega has also performed as part of larger national and international promotions, such as WWE and Ring of Honor, as well as independent professional wrestling promotions worldwide, including DDT Pro-Wrestling, Jersey All Pro Wrestling, and Pro Wrestling Guerrilla.

Please enter your votes under Survey and conduct any discussions under Comments. Thank you! KyleJoantalk 09:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Survey

  • Option A. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Option A - "Developmental farm" is necessary to point out.LM2000 (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Option A - other option is misleading. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support B per WP:DUE and MOS:LEADREL. Omega's stint in DSW is documented in the span of three sentences in the body, therefore, it is sufficient to mention that he performed as part of WWE, the company under which he was contracted. Furthermore, singling out DSW creates a weird flow where we don't know what type of promotion it is; consequently, ROH is also mentioned without any description. Finally, detailing when he was in DSW is overly specific, as no other years are noted. KyleJoantalk 11:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments

I made the change. Option A is more accurate, while option B induce error. Omega signed a develoment contract with WWE, but he was assigned to Deep South Wrestling, the farm territory. He never worked outisde Georgia. Option B looks like he wrestled for WWE in the main roster, but he never had a match in a WWE ring. Kyle says it's overlyspecific, but other articles includes when a wrestler worked in WWE farm territry. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Examples: GA Brock Lesnar (He was assigned to its developmental promotion Ohio Valley Wrestling (OVW),) GA Dolph Ziggler (with WWE in 2004 and was sent to Ohio Valley Wrestling (OVW)/Nemeth was assigned to Florida Championship Wrestling (FCW), ) FA Shelton Benjamin (Benjamin started his professional wrestling career in WWE's developmental territory Ohio Valley Wrestling (OVW)) GA Charlie Haas ( The Haas Brothers were assigned to WWE's developmental territories,)
He never worked outisde Georgia. WP:OR; no citation in the article neither supports nor refutes this. The Lesnar article was promoted in '08, the Ziggler article in '10, the Benjamin article in '07, the Haas article in '09; do we really believe these articles could pass a reassesment? KyleJoantalk 17:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
During his time in DSW, he only wrestled 15 matches, all in Georgia. If you look in the promotion list, he never wrestled in WWE, not even a dark match in Heat or Velocity. Claimin he workd with WWE it's misleading. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
In that case, why mention DSW at all when his stint in PCW is more extensively documented? Sounds like WP:UNDUE. The notable part about his DSW stint is that he was under a WWE contract, which brings me back to how the body documents his WWE run–which was spent in DSW–in three sentences and how describing said WWE run in one full sentence in the lead does not adhere to MOS:LEADREL when there are paragraphs/sections that are only briefly mentioned or not mentioned at all. Furthermore, what is American Ring of Honor? KyleJoantalk 18:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
In that case, remove the DSW section. Again, he signed a develoment contract with WWE, but he never worked for them, just was assigned to other promotion as a develoment talent. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I struck the DSW sentence as requested. To clarify, your definition of working for WWE is appearing on WWE TV, correct? In relation, talents that were only in developmental territories didn't work for WWE because they were assigned to other promotion as a develoment talent? KyleJoantalk 18:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I mean, people who doesn't know Omega, read "he worked for WWE", without specification, they would think he wrestled on WWE TV, RAW, SmackDown. And people doesn't always read the entire article, justthe lead. The point it's to clarify he signed a develoment deal with WWE, but worked on another promotion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I feel a more accurate lede would read something like Omega wrestled for WWE's development territory Deep South Wrestling from 2005 to 2006. It is true that DSW talents were signed to a WWE contact, per Slam Sports! and PWInsider, the fact remains that he never made it to television, or even a house show. A distinction should be made. DTH89(sexy talk page) 02:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Also, regarding Omega's time in PCW, as KyleJoan (talk · contribs) pointed out that it was "more extensively documented" than his time in DSW, a quick sentence could be added summarising this, saying something along the lines of Omega also wrestled extensively for Premier Championship Wrestling in his home country of Canada for much of his career. DTH89(sexy talk page) 02:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmm… At this point, I'm more in favor of removing any mention of DSW from the lead altogether. My belief was PCW was not mentioned in the lead because the promotion didn't have its own article and therefore was arguably not as notable as the ones that were included. Per MOS:LEADREL (i.e., . . . emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources.), the lead shouldn't include every promotion in which he worked because there are more reliable sources supporting the documentation of his stints in more notable promotions. KyleJoantalk 04:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

PCW is where he debuted and got his start, even though it doesn't have a wiki page, surely it has some significance. Not sure if it's lede worthy though. WP:PW/MOS recommends that for the lede section that we should summarize the most significant events in the wrestler's career for which they are known, including their stints in promotions, surely some time in WWE is notable for the lede, as he was technically on the books and under contract. Omega also mentioned his time under the WWE system in several interviews, so it's not like it's been swept under the rug. I think his time in DSW should stay, but perhaps not his PCW stint. DTH89(sexy talk page) 06:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

In Ring Mannerisms

Kenny Omega's in ring style includes overly dramatic facial expressions, an excessive amount of finger pointing, hopping before he runs, and on occasion jazz hands. It is said that Kenny Omega has a striking resemblance to Harpo Marx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redskull1944 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Residence update maybe?

On the latest episode of the podcast AEW Unrestricted, Tony Khan mentions that Kenny now lives in Florida. I was wondering if that should be something that should be added to the page or if we'd need more information in order to add it? Techno Bacon (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Residence

It’s confirmed that Kenny now lives in Florida. He either lives in Jacksonville or Orlando, and I believe Michael Nakazawa lives with him.

He also has a cat named Dobby CF27 (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide sources to verify these claims? KyleJoantalk 04:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Criticism section

This article reads like a fanzine. Omega has also been commented on in a less flattering manner. But you wouldn't know that from reading this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.23 (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

"Canadian-born Japanese" or "Canadian professional wrestler living in Japan"

Just wondering what lede introduction sounds more appropriate to you guys. Should we stick with "Canadian born-Japanese" or maybe change to "Canadian professional wrestler living in Japan", or perhaps something else. Stating that he is a "Canadian born-Japanese" may make it sound like he is of Japanese descent, but he is just simply a Japanese citizen. A bit trivial I know, but might cause a bit of confusion. Just wondering what everyone thinks sounds better. Ducktech89 (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe what exists in the article is appropriate. Canadian-born Japanese means exactly that: Born in Canada, national of Japan. KyleJoantalk 14:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I think the same. Canadian professional wrestler living in Japan looks like he is not a Japanese citizen, just living in other country, like Sheamus. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I hope that I'm about to fix this with five letters "Yes...It's Raining" 20:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
@Yesitsraining: He is not an expatriate, as HHH Pedrigree outlined above, and it is improper to state Canadian-born expat Japanese professional wrestler. I don't believe there was any further issue with the first sentence, as the discussion had been dead for seven months. KyleJoantalk 02:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I thought I was helping but I wasn't. Sorry. "Yes...It's Raining" 20:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2020

Add to the section about Winter is Coming that Omega won after he feigned an injury, allowing Don Callis to slide a microphone into the ring for Omega to use turning Omega heel in the process 50.36.162.241 (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

"Canadian-born Japanese" again

I don't think the current phrasing in the lede is particularly well written. Describing him as Canadian-born Japanese gives WP:UNDUE attention to the Japanese part of his nationality -- it seems to imply that he's no longer Canadian, or doesn't hold Canadian citizenship. Most articles like this would call him Canadian but mention in the personal life section that he holds dual nationality of both countries. I suggest either we do it that way round, or change it to be Canadian-Japanese, as the current wording is rather misleading. Also his current residency in the personal life section needs updating -- does anyone know when he moved away from Japan? — Czello 13:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

At this point, I wouldn't be opposed to the first sentence stating that he is simply a Canadian-born professional wrestler and not stating any current national ties since it's been hard figuring out how his Japanese identity should factor into the opening paragraph. We can also note that he has multiple citizenships (i.e., Canadian and Japanese) in the infobox à la Olivia de Havilland and Timothée Chalamet. KyleJoantalk 13:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
That would suit me just fine. — Czello 13:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 Done. KyleJoantalk 13:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2021

Change the AEW section of championships and accomplishments to include the Dynamite Awards Omega won 50.36.91.100 (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2021

In the section "Professional wrestling style and persona", in the sentence "For his final appearance for NJPW at Wrestle Kingdom 13, Smith collaborated with Undertale creator Toby Fox to create a custom entrance video in the style of the game, scored to a remix of the final boss theme "Hopes and Dreams".", the entrance video was to a remix of "Your Best Nightmare" and the actual entrance was to a remix of San's fight music in the game: "Megalovania".

change '"Hopes and Dreams"' to '"Megalovania"' GamerJF25 (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done — Czello 15:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Triple World Champion

Let's leave it up to consensus.

Omega has the AEW World, Impact World, and AAA Mega Championships.

That makes him a triple world champion, and there is a reliable source, (Wrestling Observer) which says as much.

For some reason, KyleJoan is fighting me tooth and nail not to include it in the article.

What we need are outside eyes to take a look and give their $0.02.

I'm not seeing the issue here, but instead of going back and forth, let others have a look-see and see what they think.

Vjmlhds (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide the Wrestling Observer Newsletter article that includes the term triple world champion? That aside, how many descriptions of Omega as champion would you like to include? He's a cross-promotional champion (per Bleacher Report) as well, you know? KyleJoantalk 03:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
And I quote word for word from the article - "Omega would become a triple champion if he wins the title vs. title match at Rebellion. In addition to holding the AEW World Championship, he's also the AAA Mega Champion. That is about as cut and dry as it gets. Again, not seeing the problem. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't see the term triple world champion anywhere in that article. Where is it? KyleJoantalk 03:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Are we really being THAT nitpicky? As I said you and me going back and forth does no one any good, so let's see what others have to say, and we'll go from there. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
You're equating the terms triple champion and triple world champion, which fails WP:V and WP:OR. Per your logic, we should state that Bayley and Keith Lee were double world champions in their respective articles as well since Pro Wrestling Sheet and Digital Spy said they were double champions.
To save other editors' time: Vjmlhds opened this discussion to propose the inclusion of an unverified term based on their original research. It's as simple as that. KyleJoantalk 04:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
While I'm normally a stickler for avoiding WP:OR and making sure everything is properly sourced, I think this one falls into the realms of WP:COMMONSENSE. He clearly is a triple world champion. It's self-evident. — Czello 07:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
No one's disputing that he's a triple world champion; pretty much anyone can conclude that stat from reading the first paragraph. What we're discussing is whether we should include the term in the article. As I said before, we could also include that he's a cross-promotional champion. COMMONSENSE would also allow us to say that he's a multi-world champion per the same principle as well as an international champion since he's holding titles in national promotions in the US and Mexico. Where does it stop? Sources aside, I don't believe readers need us to outline for them that three championships equal one being a triple champion. And finally, let's remember that true ≠ verifiable and verifiable ≠ inclusion, and we haven't even reached verifiable. Should this discussion move into an RfC, think about how ridiculous the RfC statement would sound.
KyleJoantalk 07:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Well firstly I'd say that being a "triple world champion" is more notable than the other possibilities you mention (calling him a "triple champion" would be entirely superfluous). Although, now that you mention it, referencing his cross promotional status would also make sense. I wouldn't be opposed to him being called a "triple world champion across three different promotions", or words to that effect. I'm also not sure I agree that RfC sounds ridiculous at all (though a bit unnecessary as calling him a triple world champion seems uncontroversial to me). But, going back to your original point, I see no issue with the term "triple world champion" being mentioned. It appears to be fairly notable to me. — Czello 08:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
How notable is being a "triple world champion" when no source has made it such? What I personally believe remains irrelevant, as the term not existing in reliable sources makes it clear what the article should not state in Wikipedia's voice. Moreover, the other issue at hand is that citing COMMONSENSE opens the door for another editor to say that they would like to state that Omega is a multi-world champion instead or that it is more notable to specify that his titles span multiple countries. How do we decide which term to include if COMMONSENSE permits them all? Omega becoming a "multi-world champion with three world championships across three different promotions in the US and Mexico" reads undue. KyleJoantalk 08:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The term "Triple world champion" has a lot of meanings. What is wrong with saying "He holds three world championship belts: the...." or similar? We should be saying "three-time world champion"; the term "triple" isn't very helpful, as it sounds like it has special meaning. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The first paragraph already specifies which championships he holds as well as the promotions to which they belong in a neutral manner. I'm not sure how it could be more descriptive than that without dipping into OR territory. I think the proposed inclusion is to note the three titles at the same time as a feat, but how appropriate is it to note such a thing when reliable reliable sources aren't even aligned in the terminology to describe it? KyleJoantalk 08:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
"Three-time world champion" isn't adequate as it doesn't express the fact that he's holding these titles simultaneously. I'd say that "triple" rightly does have a special meaning for this very reason. That said, I'm not opposed to alternative wording. That's the rub, really: we need to express that he hasn't just held three world titles from three different companies, but that he's done this simultaneously. — Czello 09:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
(EDIT CONFLICT) Agree with Czello. The point is he is holding three world titles at the same time. Other wrestlers held three world titles (like AJ Styles, or Kevin Owens). Also, I think it's important to include he holds/held 3 world titles from 3 major wrestling promotions at the same time. It's not the same to win titles from small independent promotions and win titles in major promotions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
It's clear now that context is the core issue here because we all seem to want to assign a special meaning to the simultaneous world title reigns when no source has done so. Bleacher Report simply said he's a cross-promotional champion, highlighting the multiple promotions as the key description. The Wrestling Observer Newsletter simply said he would be a triple champion, highlighting the simultaneous multiple championship reigns rather than them being world championship reigns. I understand avid professional wrestling fans believe it's an accomplishment to hold three world titles at the same time, but I'll reiterate that no reliable source has shared this belief. KyleJoantalk 09:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
How about this source calling him a triple world champion? Or this source, this one, or this one. I think the notability of this could also be emphasised by this source which calls him the first-ever inter-promotional triple champion in wrestling history (through granted, doesn't say the word "world"). — Czello 10:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
WhatCulture and prowrestling.com are unreliable per WP:PW/RS, so let's not even go there. Whether true or not, information from unreliable sources should not be given any weight. FoxSportsTV is a random blog; every post was written by a Larry Jhon. EssentiallySports does not help the discussion for the exact point that you made. Inside the Ropes seems reliable (or unproven at worst), but now we're running into a different issue: due weight. Right now we have one reliable source that uses the term "triple champion" (The Wrestling Observer Newsletter), one limitedly reliable source that uses the term "cross-promotional champion" (Bleacher Report), and one unproven/seemingly reliable source that uses the term "triple world champion". In other words, two sources highlight there being three simultaneous title reigns, one highlights the cross-promotional aspect, and one highlights the fact that it is three simultaneous world title reigns (Inside the Ropes). The term "triple world champion" is now undue. Could we be working to a deadline to try to assign this much context to a stat that's only a few days old? Would it be that painful to wait a little longer for reliable sources to write about it–which they probably will? KyleJoantalk 10:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Please forgive me for sounding harsh, but this sounds like a convoluted way to assign the aforementioned context (i.e., three simultaneous world championship reigns) that reliable sources have not assigned. You said yourself that it would be superfluous to state that he is holding three titles simultaneously, so the intention to still highlight the notability of three simultaneous world title reigns remains questionable (and unverified). Also, where would we put this statement? In the first paragraph? If so, it seems that as written, the first paragraph already (more neutrally) includes the key points from the revision. KyleJoantalk 10:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
See above for some links which establish the notability of this -- though yes, it would be in place of the current text in the first paragraph given that he's the first person to ever do this. Though, in hindsight, now that we have sources that are calling him a "triple world champion", I think we can actually go with Vjmlhds's original phrasing. — Czello 10:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
You mean the first person to ever become a triple champion? How is that relevant in a discussion to establish the notability of holding three world titles simultaneously based on one unproven/seemingly reliable source? Not only that, but EssentiallySports describes themselves as a blog by fans on their Twitter, which has only amassed around 900 followers, so I'm not sure how reliable their statement about Omega being the first triple champion is. It still sounds like we're scrambling to find sources to support including our own conclusions rather than include what the sources themselves have concluded in a neutral, due manner. KyleJoantalk 11:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Another compromise How does this sound? I believe this highlights the "triple" quality without assigning undue weight to the stat that the three titles held are world championships.
KyleJoantalk 12:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Is a "triple world champion" a thing? I prefer Czello's suggestion: "Omega is currently the holder of three world championships from three different promotions: in AEW he is the current AEW World Champion, in Lucha Libre AAA Worldwide the current AAA Mega Champion, and in Impact Wrestling the current Impact World Champion, each in his first reign." (although maybe we could take out the second "three"). It says what is meant and needed without using a term with little to no generally accepted meaning or usage. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I prefer that wording. We certainly shouldn't be coining a phrase like "triple champion". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm glad the discussion has leaned toward excluding the term "triple (world) champion", but are we now considering making mass changes to the lede? If so, I don't believe the existing phrasing needs tweaking. He is signed to AEW, of which he is an executive, therefore, that bit comes first, followed by his work in AAA, then Impact. The titles are stated directly after the promotions for brevity, and readers can deduce how many titles he's holding. My understanding was that Czello's rationale for a revision revolved around the idea that Omega was the first person to ever [become a triple champion]. Since we've determined that the only source for the idea is (most likely) unreliable, why unnecessarily alter the first paragraph? KyleJoantalk 16:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
At the end of the day, this was a 3-3 tie, so using the terms "triple champion" or "triple world champion" is inconclusive. I'll put that aside since it was a stalemate, however, I did tweak the lede just to tighten things up a bit, again without using terminology that has no definite answer. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:NOCON, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit, and right now there's no consensus to include the term or make mass changes to the lede. More importantly, how was it appropriate to alter the first paragraph to a version that was never proposed in this entire discussion? I also disagree that it tightened things up. Please refrain from making any changes related to the discussion until we achieve a consensus. KyleJoantalk 00:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
(EDIT CONFLICT) What's disputable is the notion of calling these titles world championships, as there is no consensus. However, what's undisputable is that he won the top prize of these three promotions and he's reigning these top prizes simultaneously. While common sense doesnt prevail for the term "world champion", it prevails for the term "top champion", for lack of a better existing term. While the word "world" is pro wrestling jargon and is thus disputable unless rs undisputably call a title a world title, a title being called a top title for a promotion isn't wrestling jargon, as that is simply commenting on its status per common sense (ex. Paris is the capital of France) rather than the more subjective "world championship" claim. I approve of either compromise, provided it simply mentions the title's status as top championship of these promotions rather than world championship. In addition to that, we still await whether these promotions or even Omega himself (or other wrestling executives like Rhodes, Khan, young bucks, etc) refer to him as "triple world champion". If they do, it'll further legitimize the "triple world champion" claim as the sanctioning body will refer to this accomplishment as such. DrewieStewie (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Since the scope of the discussion has narrowed, I took the liberty of combining the existing paragraph with the three versions Czello, Vjmlhds, and I wrote in the most succinct manner possible. All we need to do now is state our view regarding whether it should include one of these terms (i.e., "three world championships", "three top championships", "three championships"). Does that sound good? Here's the final proposed version:
@Vjmlhds @Czello @Lee Vilenski @HHH Pedrigree @GaryColemanFan @DrewieStewie: Please state your preferred term out of the three as well as any other changes you'd like made. It would greatly help move the discussion along. Cheers! KyleJoantalk 01:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Are we really debating if these titles are actually world championships?!! This is veering off into the twilight zone. Both AEW and Impact literally call their top prizes World Championships, and the AAA Title was called the AAA World Heavyweight Championship, but later changed to Mega Championship just to be different. They're world titles, OK. And the proposed lede paragraph looks fine to me. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
OK, so your view is that we should include "three world championships" in the place of [up for discussion]? KyleJoantalk 02:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Uh...yeah. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@KyleJoan: Yeah, I'm not sure what you hope to gain by excluding "three world championships" from the lead. This isn't disputed -- they are world championships. Nor is it undue to mention that fact as you said earlier. Also re: your earlier comment, these are hardly "mass changes to the lead", it's one single sentence. I'm going to push again for my proposed wording: it seems a nice balance between your preference and Vjmlhds's, it doesn't coin a new phrase (though I don't think "triple world champion" is particular contentious), and it's both neutral and factual. — Czello 06:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
What do you mean by my preference? I thought my latest proposal struck the nice balance you mentioned. It does not include or exclude the term "three world championships". I simply asked you to pick a term to insert in the place of [up for discussion], and since "three world championships" remains an option, you could have easily picked it, which both Vjmlhds and DrewieStewie did. My question to Vjmlhds was to get final clarification on which one they preferred. All of that said, we can continue to pick the first paragraph apart if you insist that A is better than B.
A
B
Why do readers need us to spell out that the AEW World Championship belongs to AEW? Why do we need to say over and over that he's a champion in promotion A (and one in promotion B, and one in promotion C) rather than outright say what championships he holds? Why do we need to repeat the promotions' names as if the first paragraph isn't only four sentences long? Why is the sentence missing commas? You do know that if "three world championships" becomes the favored term to replace [up for discussion], then the only difference between our two proposals would be the number of words to essentially say the same thing? KyleJoantalk 07:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Well then, given that there are others above who also agree with my wording (including "world") then I suggest we just go with that, as I think this conversation is dragging on needlessly for something so innocuous. In answer to your questions, it's not missing commas? Where would you add commas that don't exist already? Also, "three world championships" isn't intended to be a "favored term", it's simply a statement of fact. There is no terminology being introduced here. If the extra use of the word "AEW" bothers you, then that's easy enough to cut out, though I think it's a bit unnecessary. — Czello 07:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Also as a suggestion for option B (I'm in favour of option A, in case that wasn't clear), I suggest you re-word it to "across their respective promotions", as "across the different promotions" is poor English. — Czello 07:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
There are those that agreed with my final wording too, are there not? The description in AEW he is the AEW World Champion is missing a comma, is it not? You didn't answer my other questions, but that's fine. Thank you for the phrasing suggestion; I'll make the change. I was simply incorporating GaryColemanFan's suggestion. How about this? I'll drop the preferred term query, and if anyone has an issue with "three world championships", then they can raise it at a later time. Let's settle this below. KyleJoantalk 08:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
That's fine; let's get this finished. I'm not sure why anyone would take issue with the "world championship" phrasing, as that seems notable enough for inclusion; but as you say, we can settle that if anyone opposes it. Thank you for creating the below section. — Czello 08:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Come to think of it, upon remembering that the Mega Championship was formerly the AAA World Heavyweight Championship, solely on account that all three titles have, at least at one point present and past, been referred to as World Championship by name and that they have been the top championships of their respective major promotions, my preferred wording would be "currently holds the three world championships across those promotions:". In this case, referring to them as World Championships when structuring the sentence the proposed way is common sense due to all of those belts having "world championship" contained in the title's name, present or past, and all three being considered major promotions. However, I have no opposition to "the three top championships" should consensus veer that way. DrewieStewie (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Final proposal

Let's make this brief. Which of the two versions of the first paragraph is more appropriate for the article?

A

B

Czello has stated that they favored A. I prefer B. Please respond at your leisure, Vjmlhds, HHH Pedrigree, Lee Vilenski, GaryColemanFan, DrewieStewie. Cheers! KyleJoantalk 08:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  • B. DrewieStewie (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • B. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • B - with links, obviously, but also why do we need to define "with which AEW has partnerships"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment it seems pretty clear consensus is leaning towards B, so I'm happy for that to just be implemented now. My main quibble was with the (rather odd) push to exclude "world championships" from the sentence, but B satisfies that so I have no issue with it. I do agree that we don't need to clarify "with which AEW has partnerships", however; though it's not a hill I'm going to die on. — Czello 09:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • B works for me. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • B. Looks fine. Wario-Man talk 16:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment and new suggestion

I was going to leave a comment yesterday, but decided not to. Maybe I should have. I honestly can't believe that this went into this much discussion over the term "triple world champion." I honestly don't know why KyleJoan had such an issue with this terminology. One of his issues was that RS's didn't call it that. They don't have to when it's COMMONSENSE. Triple world champion, triple champion, triple whatever means he holds three championships, in this case world championships, simultaneously (and there is no dispute that these are in fact world championships, that's what they have been designated as by the respective promotions; RS's don't make that decision). This is literally the same as when Becky Lynch, Bayley, and Sasha Banks all held two titles simultaneously in the past couple of years and were called a double champion (because they held two championships simultaneously). I also have an alternate proposal to writing this lead paragraph, which we can call option C. It combines elements of both A and B and also corrects some grammatical errors and redundancies. Pinging DrewieStewie, HHH Pedrigree, and Lee Vilenski as they had already voted but may prefer this new suggestion. Also pinging Czello since he commented before this post. Also, I believe the "with which AEW has partnerships" is important to note as Omega isn't contracted to the other two, at least not Impact. He's there via that partnership.

C

--JDC808 ♫ 09:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes, I agree with everything you're saying here JDC. I'd be fine with option C: it does seem to combine the best bits of A and B fairly neatly. — Czello 09:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Indifference betweem B and C. Prefer those two over A. DrewieStewie (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I like Option C. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Meh, there's no real content difference between B and C, just that one has had a bit of a copyedit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Well yeah, there's no content difference. They all contain the same content, just variations in how the content is presented. --JDC808 ♫ 11:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Not seeing the need for a third option. That said, if a fourth is presented later, I'm ready to continue the discussion. Regarding C, I'm missing how it incorporated anything from A. It sounds like B except with is currently the holder of the three promotions' respective world championships as opposed to currently holds three world championships across their respective promotions and each instead of all. If we want to get nitpicky, currently the holder sounds superfluous; I thought it when Czello originally presented it, and I think it now. If we lose currently, saying he is the holder sounds even more awkward because we could easily say he is the X Champion, Y Champion, and Z Champion. If we lose the adverb from B, the sentence would work just as well. I also don't believe it is correct to suggest that KyleJoan was the only person to take issue with "triple world champion" just because they were the most elaborate about it. KyleJoantalk 10:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I mean, I don't see the need for this extensive and nitpicky of a discussion over a term that when using COMMONSENSE is completely understood what it's saying, but here we are. Your resentment to a third option also gives the impression of OWN (which may in fact be a deeper issue here; you did help promote this to GA, so you understandably are being more protective of the article). C is a compromise to issues that were present in both A and B (and in response to something you mentioned, B incorporated bits from A, as such, C contains bits from both). Yes, you were the most elaborate, which is why I singled you out. --JDC808 ♫ 11:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Resentment? You're welcome to your impression of OWN, but I was simply alluding to the fact that a consensus had been achieved after five editors cast a !vote between the two binary options. Wikipedia must be a really boring place for you to hop on an already extensive and nitpicky discussion and make it more extensive and nitpicky. Cheers! KyleJoantalk 11:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Was there really a consensus met? Obviously not or a third option wouldn't be posed. Also, although voting helps, consensus isn't solely achieved by a vote, and there are still two others you pinged who haven't provided their input yet. And FYI, that could almost be considered a personal attack. --JDC808 ♫ 12:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't care which option is used, as long as it doesn't have "triple world champion". GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, we now have Bleacher Report - a fairly solid source - referring to Omega as a "Triple Champion"...does that do anything for anybody? Vjmlhds (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
And as a refresher, there is also a reference from Wrestling Observer (scroll up towards the beginning of the discussion) which uses the phrase "triple champion". So I see no reason not to use the term "triple champion". I originally wanted to use the phrase "triple world champion", but since we have 2 sources using "triple champion", I can live with that. So to sum everything up, "Option B" has the nod as far as phrasing (B wins out as some editors said they're fine with either B or C, and there are a few more who straight up said B), and we have 2 sources (both reliable) using the term "triple champion", so there's no reason for any real objection (other than stubbornness). Vjmlhds (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
We don't simply use the same verbiage as sources just because they use it, see WP:PEACOCK et al. We went to all the trouble of having specific paragraphs drawn up, none of which contained "triple champion", and then at the end you suggest chucking it in anyway. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion was over the term "triple world champion", to which no sources were found, thus it isn't used. However, there are 2 sources which use the term "triple champion" (no "world"). Yes, one word does make a difference, as there are sources (reliable ones at that) which use one phrase, while there are none that use the other. The one that has no sources isn't used, but the one that has 2 sources should have no trouble being used. I swear, I really do think some editors (no names please) just want to pick nits and split hairs just for the sake of getting to play gatekeeper or a term that rhymes with "rock stocker"..."You don't get to edit the article unless I say so". Vjmlhds (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

BTW - WP:Peacock doesn't apply here, as to say someone is a triple champion merely says he has 3 different championships (triple = 3, just as double = 2, quadruple = 4, etc.) Now, if I had said Omega was the greatest thing since slice bread or the world's greatest wrestler, or something along those lines, then that's getting into peacock territory, but to merely use the phrase "triple champion" when somebody has 3 championships doesn't get to that stage. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should be using the phrase "triple champion", "double champion", "quad champion" or anything as such. We should be saying it in plain English - "he holds three championships". Zero room for confusion. It's bizarre that we would go to this level of detail to just put something else into the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Everything Lee Vilenski said. We could re-litigate this entire discussion and regurgitate points like Bleacher Report also saying that he's a cross-promotional champion, but I'd rather not propose including a statement about him being a triple and cross-promotional champion. Not only that, but I found two reliable sources that say that Omega now holds four titles in total (since apparently the Unified Impact Championship counts as two to some): F4Wonline.com and Súper Luchas. Are you OK with the simple inclusion of the term "three world championships" without any monikers or would you like to continue the discussion to change that to "four championships"? Your choice. KyleJoantalk 16:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The first link says he has four belts, not championships -- that's not the same. I can't see where it says he holds four championships in the second link, but that might be the poor translation feature I'm using. Either way, four titles is obviously wrong and it'd be WP:UNDUE to include it. I think we should quickly abandon this idea of calling him a triple world champion (I personally don't have an issue with that phrase but there's clearly no consensus for it) and implement one of the three options above (B seems to be carrying the most support) as this debate has dragged on long enough. — Czello 17:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Right. To clarify, I don't care about the phrasing as long as it isn't "triple world champion" or "triple champion". Let's just be clear. Three championships or three world championships. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@GaryColemanFan: There is the technicality that the TNA World Heavyweight Championship and the Impact World Heavyweight Championship are the same title with the same lineage that means he isn't a "triple World Champion." If it did, we'd have to call Randy Orton, John Cena, and Daniel Bryan "double World Champions" since they had the WWE and World Heavyweight Championships at the same time. They were technically unified so it makes no sense to say "double World Champion." As far as Kenny Omega goes, it makes no sense to say "triple World Champion" since the TNA and Impact World Heavyweight Championships were "unified." Plus that term it is cringe anyways. So not saying "triple World Champion," I'm in agreeance with. Technically speaking, he isn't a "triple World Champion." He only holds two World Heavyweight Championships and the AAA Mega Championship. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 10:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: You've misinterpreted. No one is calling him a triple world champion by counting the Impact and TNA titles as two separate championships. It's the inclusion of the AAA Mega Championship (which is a world title) that would make him a "triple world champion" (though there's no consensus for the inclusion of that term). — Czello 10:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@Czello: That the basis of this discussion. Nothing misinterpreted at all. Plus, TNA and Impact Wrestling belts are the same title and lineage. Yes, I previously thought the Mega Championship was just a secondary title. My ignorance. Didn't know (don't keep up with AAA that closely) that they just renamed the title. C through E are the best options. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 11:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2021

Change Kenny's name to kenny Olivier 86.0.237.131 (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. TGHL ↗ 23:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

New images

I removed three new images that were included in the past week and provided my reasoning here. The addition also seemed undue because all three photos are from the same event. It's not as if the article is short on images. Thoughts? KyleJoantalk 18:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

During their time together in NJPW, Rhodes and Omega consistently butted heads over control of the Bullet Club faction...
...Eventually culminating in Rhodes attacking Omega at The New Beginning in Sapporo, leading to a "Civil War" within the group...
...but also to Omega and Ibushi reuniting after many years apart.
For anyone else looking at this conversation, The images myself and KyleJoan are referring to are in this box to the right >>>
@KyleJoan:
Firstly, Each image represents a major "storyline" that span over many months, not just the specific event the images are taken from. The first image represents the conflict between Rhodes and Omega in the many months up until that point. The second image represents not just the beginning of the Omega/Rhodes feud, but of the Civil War that occurred within Bullet Club coming out of the event. Finally, the third image represents the reunion of Omega and Ibushi, a "storyline" months if not years in the making and was a major "thread" coming out of the show. The images are not intended to represent the events of just one night, but taken in total, months and months and months of "plot". If the body of the article doesn't reflect those plot points enough (and really, it should by right...), then really is a case that the body of the article should be updated rather than these images removed.
Secondly, to address the point that "It's not as if the article is short on images", I would say that's a very subjective statement. I would say let's look at another high profile article rated "Good" for comparison, since articles rated "Good" are subject to vigorous reviews before earning that mark. Let's look at the Barack Obama article for example; almost every subsection in that article is accompanied by a relevant image, in many cases more than one image. Looking at that highly reviewed article in comparison, having relevant images throughout does not seem to be an issue. Also, I would suggest that if there are other images that you think are not relevant to the article, those could be reviewed.
Thirdly, I would point out that these images of actual moments from a televised wrestling show are extremely rare to have available. Instead, any images from major media are extremely difficult to use on Wikipedia outside of fair use because almost always they're strictly copyrighted. It's only by the grace of NJPW releasing some footage to Youtube under a Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 license that I was able to get these images. If more pieces of media, such as film or TV, did likewise, I am certain that Wikipedia would feature similar "plot" images such as these much more frequently. For example, in the Saving Private Ryan article, File:Into the Jaws of Death 23-0455M edit.jpg is basically used a stand-in for the infamous opening shots of the film. If actual stills from the film were freely available, I'm positive they would be used in its stead. The point I'm making here is that it's rare, if ever, that Wikipedia articles discussing media have access to such directly related material, and I think it would be very strange in one of the rare instances where we do have such images freely available to us that their use is blocked internally.
Fourthly, building off the third point, NJPW only releases a certain amount of footage under the CC BY 3.0 license. Getting alternatives to these images would be extremely, extremely difficult. That's part of the reason all three are the same event, we have to get "more bang for our buck" out of them as we don't really have the option to use images of Rhodes and Omega from other events.
I hope I've laid out a pretty conclusive logic for why I think it's absolutely fair to use these images. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Please see WP:TEXTWALL. The longer the text, the less likely others will read it.
Your first point does not apply to every image, as some of your months of "plot" does not exist in prose or sources (e.g., Civil War). Regardless of how significant it is to fans, Omega and Ibushi's moment is only suitable as a bare mention in prose since that's what the source gives it. Your second point does not indicate this article needs more images; Obama containing more does not mean that that article has too many or that this one has too few. I think it would be very strange in one of the rare instances where we do have such images No guideline states we must use rare files. While Omega and Cody's feud in NJPW is documented, it would be almost futile to include images that mainly (if not entirely) focus on Cody, as there are six from Omega's time in NJPW already.
Please feel free to ping other editors or open an RfC to obtain a consensus if you'd like. Cheers! KyleJoantalk 02:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Agree with CeltBrown. Images are for illustrate articles and help the readers. This 3 images, as he said, are different parts of the storyline and illustrate the article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Please direct me to the text and sources that say there were storylines involving a "Civil War" in Bullet Club and a reunion between Omega and Ibushi after many years apart. I genuinely don't see them. We could illustrate the article with many images (e.g., Omega performing the One-Winged Angel; Kazuchika Okada, with whom Omega had seven-star matches; the Bullet Club logo). All three examples, seen below, illustrate the article and help readers. Does that mean they should be included? Is the standard for inclusion that low?
KyleJoantalk 09:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
>Please direct me to the text and sources that [confirm] a reunion between Omega and Ibushi "after many years apart".
1. The two former tag team partners and close friends went their separate ways in 2014 [1]
2. English-language commentator Kevin Kelly extrapolated on [the reunion in 2018] we just saw before our very eyes: “This is what the fans have been waiting for literally for years" [2]
3. They last wrestled as a team in 2014 and their [first ] match [back together] last weekend [in 2018] was highly anticipated among the pro wrestling cognoscenti. [3]
>Please direct me to the text and sources that say there were storylines involving a "Civil War" in Bullet Club
1. “Bullet Club is fine” was a phrase Cody repeated time and again in an attempt to quell talk that trouble was brewing between him and Bullet Club leader Kenny Omega. However, to paraphrase a line from “Pulp Fiction,” it was evident that things were pretty far from fine. Cody obviously wanted to supplant Omega as the leader of the faction, and it forced their fellow Bullet Club members to choose sides in a civil war that played out in both Ring of Honor and New Japan Pro-Wrestling. A match between the two alpha males was inevitable, and it took place at Supercard of Honor in April. Cody scored a tainted victory by pinning Omega after The Young Bucks attempted to superkick Cody but inadvertently nailed Omega instead. Nothing was truly settled, and a rematch was booked for NJPW’s G1 Special -- and this time the stakes were even higher because Omega’s IWGP Heavyweight Title was on the line. In a wild and intense match that featured the use of tables and ladders as weapons, Omega emerged as the victor of the match and the feud. [4] "Feud Of The Year: Cody vs Kenny Omega" - ROHwrestling.com
2. The Week in Wrestling: Tama Tonga Says Bullet Club Civil War ‘Has Been a Long Time Coming’ [5]
3. I won't quote directly from this ESPN article interviewing the Young Bucks as it's quite long, but in it they discuss how the original plan for a split within Bullet Club was supposed to revolve around Omega vs Adam Cole, but then Adam Cole got signed to WWE, so they had to pivot to Omega vs Rhodes. [6] - ESPN.com
>We could illustrate the article with many images (e.g., Omega performing the One-Winged Angel; Kazuchika Okada, with whom Omega had seven-star matches; the Bullet Club logo).
I personally would quite favour that over having the "Championship Gallery" collection of images at the bottom of the page. I think it's more interesting to have different kinds of images across the article instead of 5 very similar profile shots of Omega together in one part of the article. CeltBrowne (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I was asking for sources highlighting the hug as significant in relation to a storyline rather than an isolated moment that happened during an event. Still not seeing them. 'Paste' and OutSports merely say Omega and Ibushi tagged. Uproxx quoted Kelly as saying fans cared about their hug.
The ROH website insinuates that the war was simply between Omega and Cody, which renders the second image even more futile because the first already shows the two at odds. 'Sports Illustrated' used "Civil War" to describe the attack by Tama Tonga, Tanga Loa, and King Haku on Omega and Cody after the two had united. Why include an image of Cody attacking Omega to illustrate an unrelated conflict that had them on the same side? KyleJoantalk 17:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm just going to be honest, You are becoming pedantic and obtuse now. The ROH article does not "insinuate" anything, it flat out explicitly states what the storyline was; a power struggle for control of the Bullet Club faction that forced members to side either with Cody, Omega, or as later emerged, a third side in the Tongan faction ("Bullet Club OGs/Bullet Club Firing Squad"). As for your request to "show you a source that highlights the significance of the hug", I find this to be exasperating. I have to ask at this point, genuinely, did you actually watch any of this wrestling as it happened? Because the way you're speaking, it comes across as if you've no memory or knowledge of any of this occurring. The hug is thee moment that Omega and Ibushi, the former "Golden Lovers" tag team, finally got together after years apart. Streamers literally fell from the roof to mark its importance. This Cagesideseats article recaps the entirety of the Omega/Ibushi storyline and notes the hug/embrace as the climactic moment they finally put aside their differences. [7]
Earlier you asked me to provide you with sources. I quoted you and provided specifically what you asked for. What you did in response was shift the goalposts. You asked for proof of a reunion, I provided that, then it becomes that I have to prove the significance of the hug. You ask for proof of a "Civil War", I provided you with a source using that exact term and you try and twist it the explict meaning. This does not encourage me to keep providing you with sources as you can just move the goalposts again.
At this point, I think the most productive thing to do is for me to wait and hope for more WikiProject Pro Wrestling members to comment. I think I've demonstrated what I'm referring to in the captions did in fact occur and I really don't want to have to keep linking to sources over and over again to prove that. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Never moved the goalposts. I asked for sources and text to show the images would support content that is in the article. Still not seeing them. Because ... it comes across as if you've no memory or knowledge of any of this occurring. I'm not comfortable with citing my personal memory or knowledge and violating WP:DUE to give the Omega and Ibushi reunion more weight than its actual prominence in sources. Maybe that's where you and I differ. Streamers literally fell from the roof to mark its importance. Streamers aren't reliable sources. KyleJoantalk 01:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
The following is from the thesis Real Fake Fighting: the Aesthetic of Qualified Realism in Japanese Professional Wrestling by Clara Marino of the University of Massachusetts Amherst. [8]
However, one of the most prominent types of angles in Japanese pro-wrestling is a less abstracted one: friendship and betrayal. Most real combat sports are isolated endeavors. Fights that involve teams in almost any form are incredibly rare. Rather, professional fights are commonly discussed as being the culmination of two skilled and dedicated individuals who compare each other’s training and physical condition to determine who can be considered stronger and more skilled, at least until they fight again. This highly individualistic narrative leaves little room for discussion of friendship. In pro-wrestling, though, there are ample opportunities to inject such stories. One of the most obvious ways is through tag team matches, which NJPW features quite prominently...
...One particularly famous example though, is that of the Golden Lovers, Kenny Omega and Kota Ibushi. Omega and Ibushi first met in 2008 in the Japanese promotion DDT, and in 2009 formed their tag team, the Golden Lovers, whose loose gimmick was the vague implication of being in a romantic relationship. The team quickly grew in popularity, in 2010 debuting in New Japan, where they went on to take the IWGP Junior Heavyweight Tag Team Championship from Apollo 55, a match that earned the magazine Tokyo Sports’ Best Bout Award for 2010.86 Eventually, both Omega and Ibushi would become regular members of NJPW, but their relationship soon appeared to sour, particularly as Omega joined the Bullet Club in 2014 under the leadership of A.J. Styles. Omega eventually became leader of the Bullet Club by attacking Styles and became one of NJPW’s most prominent heels. In time, though, tensions mounted between him and stablemate Cody. These tensions eventually came to a head when, at New Year Dash 2018, Omega interrupted a ritual Bullet Club attack on Ibushi led by Cody.87 Then, at New Beginning in Sapporo 2018, Cody attempted to usurp Omega and attack him with the rest of the Club, in a similar move to how Omega himself had taken over the faction from A.J. Styles. Ibushi, though, interrupted the attack, fended off the Bullet Club members, and warmly embraced Omega (see fig. 6) .88 With this, the Golden Lovers were reformed, and Ibushi would accompany Omega for many of his most important matches with the promotion, such as his title victory against Kazuchika Okada, as well as in a fight with Cody at the 2018 G1 Special in San Francisco that instigated Omega’s reconciliation with him as well.89 Being an IWGP Heavyweight Champion and an otherwise high profile member of NJPW’s roster, the fact that so many of Omega’s storylines during his time at the company revolved around friendship, betrayal, and reunion highlights these themes’ prevalence in Japanese wrestling.
What is figure 6 you might ask? Oh, it's only a screenshot of Omega and Ibushi embracing at New Beginnings in Sapporo, just like the one I was trying to add to this article.
Now, would you like to concede the point? Or are you going to contest this thesis which is literally using the moment that Ibushi and Omega embraced as an example of friendship and reunion as themes in the art of professional wrestling? CeltBrowne (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:SCHOLARSHIP: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. Well? KyleJoantalk 03:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
This is the most work I've ever had to do just to insert an image into an article. This surely must also be the highest standard the inclusion of an image on a pro wrestling article has ever been held to.
Kenny Omega and Kota Ibushi’s recent reunion stands to be the next great friendship story in wrestling, in large part because it’s based on (again) a very earnest and real friendship. An exhaustive history of the Golden Lovers was written in the aftermath of New Beginning by Emily Pratt and it’s worth reading in full, but the very general gist is that these two men met in the quasi-comedy/high weirdness of Japan’s DDT promotion, formed a remarkable tag team, and then went their separate ways, Ibushi to a sort of traveling free agent pro wrestling dilettante, Omega to headlining NJPW shows. When Ibushi saved Omega from a double-crossing attack by fellow Bullet Club member Cody Rhodes, they embraced and confetti actually fell from the rafters. The crowd went nuts. All of that is fairly standard, if extremely heartfelt due to just how beloved both men are in Japan. But the statements afterwards ratcheted up the raw emotion. “If we aren’t together, there’s no point. I want us to change the world together,” Omega told Tokyo Sports. - Kenny Omega and Kota Ibushi's Friendship is Why We Love Pro Wrestling by Ian Williams, Vice News. The article goes on to discuss the significance and undertones of their reunion. The image featured at the beginning of the article is...surprise, surprise, Omega and Ibushi embracing at New Beginnings in Sapporo.
It’s been 18 months since pro wrestlers Kenny Omega and Kota Ibushi, collectively known as the Golden Lovers, reunited with a tearful embrace in the middle of a New Japan Pro Wrestling ring. The moment was 10 years in the making, bringing two men with a unique love and history together in one of the industry’s most positive portrayals of coded same-sex relationships. - The LGBTQ pro wrestling movement is alive and well in the Golden Lovers’ wake by Brian C. Bell, Outsports [9]
OutSports has a distinct bias, so if you're citing it to illustrate one of the industry's ... coded same-sex relationships, then that source would not suffice. Vice Media, on the other hand, seems adequate, so congrats on that.
The standard is high because you're proposing to include an image to illustrate a narrative that the prose does not comprise. Do you not understand that? The article documents an isolated moment between Omega and Ibushi after a previous partnership, but it does not say they are friends or more. If images warrant inclusion for supporting one sentence rather than a major part of a section, I could easily include a sentence about Omega having a cat, supported by a reliable source, and an image of a cat. Should we do that? It's also interesting that you're pushing to include the file rather than any additional prose about Omega and Ibushi's partnership, which leads me to believe you also don't think DUE would be met if we were to write more content per these sources. Be honest. Are you trying to include the image to highlight the undertones of their reunion? KyleJoantalk 06:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Hey Celt, you're pro-cancer right? What? You're not? Well, you've never said you were anti-cancer, so therefore I must assume you're pro-cancer!
Where the hell are you getting the idea that I'm against adding additional prose? This entire thread has been you writing in such a way as to suggest that the things I referred to in the captions never happened, asking me to provide evidence and then me providing sources to demonstrate that they did in fact occur. I'm here reacting to your prompts (which was outstandingly foolish of myself, as you alone do not set the standard for what warrants inclusion in the article or not, yet I was out here letting you make me jump through hoops), and so far, you mainly made this about what the images represent, not the prose. If the issue was the prose, you simply should have said at the beginning of the thread "I'd be fine with the images so long as the prose was updated/expanded to reflect what they're discussing" and I'd have gone ahead and expanded the prose.
The only reason I quoted from those LGBT publications was because you demanded proof that the Golden Lovers reunion was significant or that it ever happened at all, and those publications, amongst others, just so happened to be ones which provided that evidence. But I'm so glad that I did include those sources, because maybe it explains why you're so adamant about these images not being included. Your reasoning for excluding these images has jumped all over the place. Firstly it was because we couldn't see Omega's face, then because they were all from the same event, then it was because the storylines I referenced never even happened, and even if they did, they're not relevant, and now it's because I have a secret gay agenda. Let me flip the question back to you; "Be Honest", Is the only reason you're opposing the inclusion of these images because you're not comfortable with the third one? I sincerely hope not, but at least there'd be a coherent reason behind this naked obstructionism.
I'm done trying to chase your ever-moving goalposts. I said that before and damn me, I should have kept to it. If you're actually here to discuss in good faith, outline the situation in which you would be happy to see the inclusion of these images, not this deal of sending me on fool's errands. And if it's no situation in which you'd be happy to see these images included, great job wasting my time. Either outline what it would reasonably take for you not to object to their inclusion, or I take this to dispute resolution, where it now belongs. And before you go setting those goalposts as high as possible, I'll remind you where we started out on this: "Please direct me to the text and sources that say there were storylines involving a ""Civil War"" in Bullet Club and a reunion between Omega and Ibushi "after many years apart". If your criteria for the inclusion of the images is radically different to expanding the prose to reflect those storylines, I'll know it's just more fool's errands. CeltBrowne (talk) 08:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Is the only reason you're opposing ... because you're not comfortable with the third one? Lol.
Your reasoning ... has jumped all over the place. Sorry that I'm able to hold and present multiple thoughts at once? Take it to dispute resolution if you'd like. Cheers! KyleJoantalk 09:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Kenny Omega does not train "in a ring that spins"

This addition was added in misunderstanding.

Smith has suffered from vertigo since 2018. Due to the condition, he trained to wrestle in a ring that spins.[199]

In the linked article, this is the statement made;

"“Yeah, it's been an issue since 2018. I just get really bad vertigo. I get dizzy in the ring. I can't — the room spins. It's been a new skill I've had to inherit is wrestling in a spinning ring. So to make sure I get that straightened out as much as I can, as often as I can is really paramount for my performances.""

This has nothing to do with Omega actually creating a spinning ring. Vertigo makes it feel to him like the ring is spinning when he wrestles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllYourKayfabeFriends (talk • contribs) 15:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Infobox picture, vandalism?

Is there a reason why the infobox image for Kenny Omega continues to be an unflattering image from 6 years ago?

Omega in Osaka, Japan in May 2016
Proposed infobox picture
  1. It's over half a decade old
  2. It no longer accurately portrays him
  3. There are plenty of more recent photos

I can't help but think that the constant reverting of this article to include this image as the main photo is being done so as an act of vandalism (i.e. editing an article intentionally to portray a subject in a negative/unappealing light). — Preceding unsigned comment added by PantinFR (talk • contribs) 18:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

What's the proposed alternative photo? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Is there a reason we shouldn't use File:WMC AEWOMEGA-CHAMP.jpg? It's more recent, a clearer picture, and higher quality. — Czello 19:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
There is no reason to not to include the picture. I think there is this idea of "picture with titles goes to C&A section", but no. You can include the title picture. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Done. — Czello 13:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2022

Requesting "Canadian-born" to be changed into "Canadian" as in other Wikipedia articles "x-born" is used for people who were born and raised in different countries which isn't the case for Kenny Omega. 46.106.110.247 (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Change "Canadian-born" to Canadian

"x-born" in other Wikipedia articles imply that the person was born and raised in different countries, which is not the case for Kenny Omega. Here's a source where's mentioned being a native Canadian: https://www.gamesradar.com/meet-kenny-omega-wrestler-every-gamer-should-know/ As per Wikipedia standards, in the first paragraph he should be addressed as "Canadian" and his dual-Japanese nationality should be mentioned in the "personal life" section. 46.106.110.247 (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Nationalities and such are a thing, so discuss this here on the talk page. You can see multiple times this has been discussed above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes but "x-born" is strictly used for what I mentioned above. Kenny Omega was born and raised in Canada and gained Japanese citizenship much later in life. As per Wikipedia standards, the opening paragraph should read "Canadian" professional wrestler. Gabagoolgoomar (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Define "raised". What's the maximum age one can be when they move from their native country to be regarded as "raised" there? "Canadian professional wrestler" has implications as well (i.e., that he only has national ties to Canada and nowhere else), which isn't accurate based on the discussion above. In addition to meeting MOS:ETHNICITY, "Canadian-born" is in line with MOS:ROLEBIO in that it is widely used in reliable sources. KyleJoantalk 17:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kenny_Omega/Archive_1&oldid=1160057175"