Talk:Daniel Bryan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Summary of all title defenses necessary?[edit]

I understand that it's become sort of the meat of the article, but since the guidelines of the Pro Wrestling Wiki Project suggest articles shouldn't include week by week events, should we consider cutting down on the inclusion of each title defense (past and future)?

WWE World Wrestling Entertainment[edit]

Danielson has wrestled in a few matches on Sunday Night Heat and on Velocity.

                * Heat
        +       * vs Rico, February 9, 2003.
        +       
        +       * Velocity
        +       * vs Jamie Noble, January 18, 2003.
        +       * vs John Cena, February 8, 2003.
        +       * Tag Match with John Walters vs Paul London & Brian Kendrick, November 15, 2003.

So what is wrong with this, why do you ppl keep deleting it? Govvy 08:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not particularly important, doesn't fit anywhere else in the article, doesn't follow the guidelines of any other wrestling pages, and we don't list a wrestlers appearance in every federation like that. --- Lid 08:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
How about a little paragraph under where there was WWE vs TNA bit is, I feel it be good to state that he also wrestled Cena, what do you think of that idea? Govvy 09:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
How about we at least make mention that he was used as a jobber by WWE in early and late 2003. This way we avoid week-by-week summary while acknowledging his past appearances. And, in answer to the question of mentioning his match against Cena, no. It has no importance at the moment to Danielson's future. Unless he suffered an injury that cost him to miss time after participating in the match, it doesn't impact his career, as he probably put over Cena, anyway. 70.21.216.202 13:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Bio[edit]

While it may not have sources, this rule strongly applies here, I believe. Kris Classic 02:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. WP:BLP and WP:ATT apply. If you carry on edit warring you will be blocked. Tyrenius 02:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
This user has already been blocked for three hours. Naconkantari 02:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
OK! Tyrenius 03:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

ECW Tag Team Champion[edit]

Bryan Danielson was not an ECW Tag Team Champion. I found now source stating otherwise. Mr. C.C. (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WWE Development Talent[edit]

Shouldn't it be mentioned that he was under a development deal with WWE? I'm not sure of the exact year, but I do know that it was in their Memphis territory and he was released when that was shut down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.220.22 (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

  • He was a WWE developmental talent two years into his career, that was the earliest someone was a developmental talent at that time. Mr. C.C. (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

TNA[edit]

Wasn't he in TNA in like mid-2003 or something? I recall seeing him one day as American Dragon. 05:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Bryan Danielson[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bryan Danielson's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "OWW":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 22:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done - problem fixed. ♥NiciVampireHeart♥ 00:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

2007-2008, 2009[edit]

What would be good titles for these sections. They don't have to be big. I just think a summary of those years would be nice.

He signed on to wwe[edit]

check wrestling observer their pretty legit about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.55.234 (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, according to ROH, he agreed to a contract with WWE "in principle", and in any case, it's already mentioned in the article, and has been since shortly after it was announced on ROH's website. ♥NiciVampireHeart♥ 14:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Cattle Mutilation?[edit]

Shouldn't it still be a finishing or signature move? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.59.230 (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Duffs101 (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Bryan[edit]

This "new" name is not totally confirmed. According to some sources it's Daniel Bryanson such as on "Trent Barrett's Twitter".  (current FCW wrestler) so nobodys really sure.

My guess is that it's another botch from Savannah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.124.78 (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I Came to Play[edit]

He DOES use "I Came to Play" as his theme song right now, so I'll put it in the article again. --79.204.109.177 (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Miz as Trainer[edit]

Hey I noticed that Mike Mizanin, aka the Miz, is not included as one of Danielson's mentors and trainers under his pic.

I've updated it to reflect his current status as a student of the Miz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.114.242 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Miz is not his trainer, he is just a storyline mentor. TJ Spyke 20:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't it still be included? I mean he's obviously taught him a lot of stuff so far in terms of personality, charisma, confidence, etc. Couldn't he also have taught him some of those moves he used on NXT? I'm not real familiar with Daniel Bryan outside of WWE, but maybe Miz taught him some of those flashier moves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.114.242 (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Miz didn't teach him ANY of the moves he has used in WWE. The stuff that are saying in the storyline is true, Danielson knows more about wrestling than Miz probably ever will (in terms of wrestling skills, Danielson would be Miz's trainer). Anyways, see the section about NXT, where it mentions this already. TJ Spyke 01:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any proof he didn't teach Danielson any moves or are you just dismissing facts in favor of conjecture, lest your smark darling be tarnished? 66.63.222.198 (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any proof he taught Danielson any moves or are you believing that a storyline mentorship (which specifically mentions that wrestling skills is not what they are teaching) is real? TJ Spyke 21:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It's rude to answer a question with a question. Being a pro-wrestler is about more than just wrestling moves. At this point, Bryan Danielson is being trained by Mike Mizanin. You can keep crying like all the other ROHbots, or you can accept reality.66.63.216.236 (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't get mad because you have no proof. It's your job to prove it's true, not mine to probe it's false. As for calling me a ROHBot, I have only seen 1 ROH match before. TJ Spyke 23:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The onus is on the person inserting information to source it with a reliable source. In this case, a source is required to state that The Miz is legitimately training Danielson. ♥NiciVampireHeart♥ 21:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the Miz could be listed as a manager--tired time (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Bryan a heel?[edit]

What did Daniel Bryan do to become a heel? He simply attacked an announcer who is pretty much a heel now. I'm thinking that whoever put the fact that Daniel Bryan turned heel in the process was probably putting their opinion. But that's just my suspicion. Chrismaster1 (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably Michael Cole putting it in there. Was there any mention of "Vintage" or "A kick to the skull?" 198.135.242.14 (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

WWE release reason[edit]

Added more info on why he was released from WWE. Mike Johnson of PWInsider.com put up more info at this link http://www.pwinsiderelite.com/article.php?id=48267&p=1, and I didnt really know how to cite my edit.

That link is to the pay, elite site, and as of writing this isnt up on the free version of the site. But Elites get more info sooner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.201.249 (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

pwinsider is not counted as a reliable source, and so cannopt be used to cite information in the article. See WP:PW/SG#Sources for a listing of reliable, wrestling-related sources. Thanks, ♥NiciVampireHeart♥ 07:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


And how would we get PWInsider.com as one? Sorry, if I'm doing wrong, Im very new to this. They have a proven track record, regarded with Wrestling Observer and the Torch, as a viable news source for wrestling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.201.249 (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You would need to start a section at WT:PW, outlining your reasons for believing that pwinsider is a reliable source, and would to be able to demonstrate that they have a proven track record as being reliable, have a fact-checking system in place, etc. Other people will comment, either agreeing or disagreeing with you. If consensus dictates that it is reliable, then the style guide will be adjusted accordingly, and it can be used in articles. Welcome to wikipedia by the way. :) ♥NiciVampireHeart♥ 07:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't been released[edit]

It's part of a storyline, who would've thought Wikipedia would get fooled lol 90.210.44.149 (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually more upset Wikipedia are using the Observer as a source on a story (the story being he got fired for choking Roberts, which makes no sense because Heath Slater choked Cena in the same segment, Roberts went along with it and the camera focused on it for a good period of time) that contradicts many "reports". Until we have one, completely certifiable story either from WWE or Danielson or it's revealed to be a work, I think citing any dirtsheets is a poor idea. --  L. T. Dangerous  (Talk to me!)  23:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
It's being reported everywhere that it's not kayfabe. The Matt Hardy/Lita situation was treated the same way when it happened, so I say leave the article as it is until more information is released by WWE or leaked to dirtsheets. Dele3344 (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm completely fine with it being a legit scenario, my issue is we're crediting a dirtsheet as being completely correct when there are numerous conflicting reports and it's entirely possible none of them are accurate. One wouldn't use a downmarket tabloid newspaper as a legitimate source, it seems wrong to use a dirtsheet as a source until we have concrete proof. ----  L. T. Dangerous  (Talk to me!)  08:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
He hasn't been release. see this News on WWE Corperate's site this is a corperate side of the company, all news are real if they release their employee from their contract, it'll show up here. We can see Carlito news but not for Bryan. Romangelo (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
They only post it on there when they violate the wellness policy. If you notice the posts on there go back to December yet Carlito's is the only firing posted even though there have been several that have been released within the past six months. 138.163.106.71 (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

ROH contract expiring in "Other promotions" section[edit]

"In 2009, Danielson's contract with Ring of Honor expired; this opened up Danielson to travel to other companies more freely while competing in his home promotion. He made his debut with Philadelphia-based promotion, Chikara to compete in their King of Trios tournament, which saw him team with Claudio Castagnoli and Dave Taylor in a contingency called Team Uppercut. In the same year, it was announced Danielson would compete in Dragon Gate USA in their second show, which saw him lose to Open the Dream Gate Champion Naruki Doi." That is extremely misleading. ROH's contracts did/do not prevent their talent from going to compete for other independent promotions, its prevents them from jumping ship to WWE and TNA without notice and/or being used as jobbers on their television shows. It didn't even prevent their contracted wrestlers from competing on DGUSA pay-per-views as Davey Richards competed on several DGUSA shows under ROH contract. 138.163.106.72 (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"Persona" section useless[edit]

I think the Persona section should be removed. It is unusual for a wrestler article and adds nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.53.7.107 (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree; many wrestlers stand on the turnbuckle, many wrestlers have specific chants, many have specific heel/bad guy mannerisms. This seems like a fanboy attempt to make him seem more special and is both out-dated and does not contribute to the article. —Preceding Mr. Smith) 00:55, 02 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the section (i.e. the way it is titled) is common or not for a wrestling article, the information in it is important. Having it as its own separate section might not be the best idea, but the information should not be removed from the article.173.70.208.224 (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

World titles won[edit]

Bryan Danielson is not a one-time world champion he was won numerous world championships. Despite him winning them all in independent promotions they are still considered world championships and should be referred to as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto360 (talkcontribs) 06:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Return to WWE[edit]

Danielson has been rehired by the WWE as of today (8/15/2010).

He was seen walking around Los Angeles and the current rumor is that he will be the 7th man on team WWE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.182.185 (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Bryan comes back in the following raw because of his contract with WWE and possible that they will return at the Royal Rumble match Stjepan bisak (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Bryan DanielsonDaniel Bryan[edit]

Since it's his WWE name, he should be redirected to the name. Does anybody think so or wait until he wins a title in WWE as Daniel Bryan?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that Daniel Bryan is his common name yet. Why do you think the page should be moved? ♥NiciVampireHeart♥ 06:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I thought since he's back in the WWE, the page should reflect it more with thename change. I guess we should wait until he wins a title in the WWE to change it.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I say that a several more months. He isn't that close to it being his common name.--WillC 02:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I know he main evented Summerslam in the 7 on 7 match against the Nexus. Does that warrant a move?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
No, compare one main event to wrestling in several promotions in several countries, winning several titles, and also having that announced on WWE TV. Danielson is pretty much easily his common name at this time imo.--WillC 07:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed with WillC. Daniel Bryan has been on WWE programming for around 6 months, whil Bryan Danielson has wrestled all over the world for 10 years. SimonKSK 21:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
But Desmond Wolfe wrestled under that name in TNA for less than 6 months before his article was changed and he is arguably just as famous worldwide as Daniel Bryan is. --66.26.57.194 (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Probably worth noting though that neither Nigel McGuinness or Desmond Wolfe is his real name. It's possible the name of his article should be changed to Steven Haworth, as is usually the case when someone's known prominently by more than one name (or not prominently by any at all). In the case of Danielson, his real name is also one of his ring names. 67.193.131.153 (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

However painful it is for fans of proper wrestling such as myself to recognise him as Daniel Bryan, with my Wikipedia hat on it would probably be best to change the title to Daniel Bryan as he as now known as that to the WWE audience which is much more mainstream and more importantly MUCH larger than ROH and other independent promotions' audiences so the majority of people who will now look him up will be thinking of Daniel Bryan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.72.84 (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Obvious move to Daniel Bryan. Just obvious. Wwewrestlingmadman (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Even most fans of his career before WWE will now be looking up his name as a result of his achievements and exposure under the moniker "Daniel Bryan" Icosahedron (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Googled "Bryan Danielson": 812,000 results; Googled "Daniel Bryan": 2,880,000 results. Starship.paint (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)



Bryan DanielsonDaniel Bryan – I would like to see this article moved to Daniel Bryan per WP:COMMONNAME. I say this because I think it could be justly argued that he is better known internationally now for his time in WWE as Daniel Bryan now. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 02:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said earlier... googled "Bryan Danielson": 812,000 results; Googled "Daniel Bryan": 2,880,000 results. Starship.paint (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:GOOGLE - "The Google Test" is not a valid method of determining notability with few exceptions far between. There's far to much bias. Besides, you're easily going to find more results for WWE than Ring of Honor. It's not even a fair metric. Raw hit counts are meaningless. Just to prove a point, I googled "Daniel Bryan" (with quotes) and saw this, this, and this, none of which have anything to do with the subject in the present context of the wrestler, Bryan Danielson. I won't go into what happens when you start playing around with query formatting (quotes, no quotes, extra parameters, etc.). While I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the proposal to change the name, no specific valid citations have been given for why it should occur. The nominator also did not provide a justification beyond the words "I think" which effectively equates to WP:NPOV. If you're going to cite WP:COMMONNAME, you're going to have to show such - and, in the case of wrestlers, unless the case is easily drawn (such as it was with renaming Dwayne Johnson), you're going to have a difficult time of it. I'm not trying to discourage you or put you down, I'm just trying to draw the point that you'll have to provide specifics in these regards. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ 05:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
If by bias you mean that google will give more hits to the more popular terms, then yes, there is far too much bias for popular terms. And yet, Wikipedia also has a bias towards popular terms, it's called WP:COMMONNAME. If most people in the world know him as Daniel Bryan, then his article should be under Daniel Bryan. Us here at WT:PW know he's travelled the world as Bryan Danielson, but most people don't. This is based on the fact that WWE has a far greater outreach than any of Bryan's former promotions combined. I used to refer to him as "Bryan Danielson" and now I call him "Daniel Bryan". It's time for the change. Everyone who knows him as Bryan Danielson, also know him as Daniel Bryan. But not everyone who knows him as Daniel Bryan, knows him as Bryan Danielson. Full Support. Feedback 07:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
That's not what I mean by bias. I refer to Search Engine bias which would be far to lengthy a topic to explain. The research on how Search Engines aggregate data is fully available (such as SEO ratings, alexa's broken rating / aggregation system, etc.) and is why WP:GOOGLE was published in the first place. It is not a valid metric. I personally believe that it is true: He most likely is known more as Daniel Bryan now than as Bryan Danielson simply based on WWE outreach, but that ignores his worldwide outreach under Bryan Danielson having wrestled all over the world - especially with the outreach of NJPW across the eastern-Asia and Pacific regions. Also, "Everyone who knows his" is the definition of a WP:PEACOCK statement - implying that you've quite literally polled the entire world (see: Improbable and Impossible) to determine such a statement. Additionally, once again, you've only cited yourself as now referring to him as D.B. as opposed to B.D. but that still does not extend beyond WP:NPOV. As I said, WP:COMMONNAME is a difficult thing to argue. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ 16:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not WP:PEACOCK, its WP:COMMONSENSE. Bryan has two common names, "Bryan Danielson" and "Daniel Bryan", but the latter is his most common one. You even agree to this when you say he is most likely known as Daniel because of WWE's outreach. That's because it is a fairer assumption that everyone who has seen him on the independent circuit is aware of his tenure in WWE as Daniel Bryan, while not everyone who knows him as Daniel Bryan is aware of his tenure in the independent circuit. And not only has he wrestled all over the world with the WWE as well, but he is on far more TV screens world-wide than he could ever have dreamed of in his indie days. This is a no-brainer, really. I don't see what you aren't "getting". Feedback 17:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Are we seriously circling back to this again? Back to incivility, here we come. As I suggested the last time you brought up WP:COMMON, you might need to read the whole non-policy (WP:COMMON is not a policy) before citing it. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ 18:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
So, Evilgohan, could you provide some proof of NJPW's international outreach? Starship.paint (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll make you a deal, without citing one single Nielsen Media Research statistic or a first party source such as: their "Did You Know?"'s or, what may have trended on Twitter for a few moments; prove (Burden of Proof) WWE's international outreach, and I'll do the same for NJPW. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ 17:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I find the disinclusion of this Nielsen thingy fishy, but whatever. Pakistan, Singapore, South Africa, New Zealand, Peru Starship.paint (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
International outreach proven, therefore Support Starship.paint (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Go to our very own WWE Raw article and view the many countries that broadcast the show, all of which are backed up by reliable sources. This is beyond pointless though. WWE is far more popular than NJPW. How that is up to discussion is beyond me. Just a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU I suppose. Feedback 21:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to put aside your uncivil tone for a moment and say that it's not a case of ignoring rationale, it is a case of me, as an editor, asking you to justify your claims beyond the level of weasel words or using peacock terminology such as "everyone", "much more popular", etc. with only a few sources cited of broadcasting countries - which, I'll point out, does not determine actual viewership nor does it account for internet viewership (we could run circles all day on who reaches a greater potential audience with things such as video online or iPPVs). You seem to have misinterpreted my purpose here which I explained in my initial challenge to the proposal: I'm neither for nor against the renaming, I'm merely asking if you can prove it beyond what is termed as reasonable doubt (yes, I know good and well this isn't a court room but it helps to have all bases covered when bringing forth a proposal to the table). As for Nielsen Media Research ratings, there's a reason for that (and it's outlined in the link there). Nielsen Ratings are even less accurate than Metacritic ratings. Seriously, if you guys believe that it should be renamed, why is my commentary stopping you? That was simple enough. Also, Feedback, I'm seriously going to need you to read WP:CIVIL because you have a way of wording things that come off just short of being completely insulting. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ 03:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
So, what do you think about WWE's international outreach? Starship.paint (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but I hate using Google results to determine anything. They will give a good indication of which is a more recent term, but that's about it, unless you also believe that Ron Paul (70 million results) is 80% more significant than Abraham Lincoln (39 million results). GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Supported - "Daniel Bryan" beats "Bryan Danielson" comfortably on a Google News search. Also, I'd tend to assume that most people who think of him as "Danielson" know he's now "Bryan" but vice versa is probably not the case. He's been visible to a far larger audience under the "Daniel Bryan" name. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 12:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I say no, since Danielson wrestled for 10+ years before becoming Daniel Bryan. No.--Deely talk 16:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It might be helpful to say what it would take for you to think the name should be changed. He could hold the World Title for the next year, and your logic that he "wrestled for 10+ years before becoming Daniel Bryan" would still stand. 31.220.203.90 (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit request on 1 March 2012[edit]

I'm requesting that the photo caption under the "Founding Father" section change from "Danielson posing in 2004 as "Count Danielson" to "Bryan Danielson circa 2004". The reason for this request is because I can not find any source that indicates that Bryan Danielson ever wrestled with the name "The Count". All sources indicate that his only ring names were Bryan Danielson, The American Dragon, and Daniel Bryan.

98.204.200.221 (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  •  Done - Thanks for pointing that out. I'm unsure if the "Count Danielson" caption was intended as a joke or a genuine mistake based on the image's title. It is now corrected. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 04:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal life[edit]

it was reported by several (not reliable) sources that he is in a relationship with Brie bella. As i know we need provable sources but aren´t pictures of them and there tweets enough? Because ei think its anyway hard to find a proof that they are in a relationship, because stars try to hide such things for obvious reasons. So what we do? --Nakurio (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there again. This article is covered under WP:BLP, so it's held to a high standard regarding details such as these. As a result, it is necessary to wait until there are reliable sources. This is particularly true given the scripted nature of professional wrestling, in which it is commonplace to "work" the audience. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


  • ok so we just wait but what would be a reliable source in this case? As daniel is in a on screen relationship with AJ lee he won't go out there and tell hey i am together die brie bella. WHat would be reliable in this case?--Nakurio (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:PW/SG#Sources has a nonexhaustive list of reliable sources. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


* On Brie Bella's Wiki page it said that they had been dating since March 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.102.21 (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC) 


Bryan is no longer a vegan. He gave it up due to a soy allergy and most vegan food is soy or soy based. So any references to him being a vegan and the linking of him with the categories "American vegans" and "vegan sportspeople" needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.57.121 (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Back Yard Wreslting Claim[edit]

According to the article, Daniel Bryan was a "back yard wrestler" and this is cited. However, this claim appears to be false as he has said, on video, he never did any back yard wrestling. I will remove those sentences, and reference, and place them here. Also, I have included a link of the video in which he denies it.

The video link....http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_7A0SfjIAsU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.159.185.33 (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Good call. The reference used seems to be "Online World of Wrestling", which is fast developing a reputation for being unreliable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 23:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Lobo's back[edit]

Can somebody explain why, if his nickname is American Dragon, American Dolphin redirects here? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It was his nickname while he was teaming with Paul London. See Daniel Bryan#Independent promotions (2003–2009). --Jtalledo (talk) 04:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Thx. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The dazzler[edit]

Why isn't the dazzler under ring names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.45.84 (talk) 07:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reference? noq (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

"The Third Brother Of Destruction"[edit]

Can we remove this contribution? Not only is the spelling incorrect but it's based purely on speculation with no facts to back it up as it's well-known that The Undertaker won't be sticking around much longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoktorMonster (talkcontribs) 15:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Dropping his vegan lifestyle[edit]

The source linked to says nothing about him doing this, only that health reasons were why he became a vegan. Spartan198 (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Article[edit]

WWE has created an article about D-BR, his carrer before WWE, including ROH O.O http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/history-of-daniel-bryan-part-one-26149550 Do you think that we can use it for the article? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Running Knee, NOT Busaiku knee.[edit]

It's quickly becoming apparent that Bryan has NOT adopted the name busaiku knee along with the hold itself. On the 12/13/2013 episode of Smackdown, it was clearly referred to as the Running Knee in writing, which lines up with what the announcers have referred to it as. The referenced article was written shortly after he debuted it, and it hadn't been given a name yet, so it makes sense that the author would refer to it as where Bryan got it. During this time, anytime Bryan would do it the announcers would refer to it as "that's the knee that beat John Cena!"

Further References: http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/2013-12-09/wwe-raw-results-26169042

http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/2013/cm-punk-daniel-bryan-luke-harper-erick-rowan-26163199/page-2

http://www.wwe.com/shows/hellinacell/2013/daniel-bryan-vs-randy-orton-wwe-championship-hell-in-a-cell-match-26154131/page-4

http://pl.wwe.com/photos/2013/10/22/daniel-bryan-and-randy-orton-sign-their-wwe-championship-hell-in-a-cell-match-contract-photos?r30_r1_r1:page=19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispy385 (talkcontribs) 18:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: So I've changed it accordingly, and RealDealBillMcNeal has repeatedly reverted it, saying it needs to be named on television for him to accept it, despite the fact that Busaiku Knee has never once been said on camera. Still, I'll work through that double standard, if so somebody can explain the proper procedure for referencing an episode of Smackdown. Should I find a youtube upload and link to that? Busaiku Knee is simply wrong, but obviously declaring edit war isn't the way to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispy385 (talkcontribs) 13:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Have to agree with this one, admittedly I don't watch Raw or Smackdown as much as I used to but as far as I can tell it has never once been referred to as the Busaiku Knee either on commentary or by Bryan himself.
Which leads to my second point; the Busaiku Knee is what Kenta Kobayashi calls it - It is not the name of the move, at the end of the day it is still just a running knee strike, he didn't invent it. It's no different to Big Show naming his punch the WMD or Randy Orton naming his Cutter the RKO.
I mean we don't know for sure, maybe Bryan is using it as tribute to Kenta, but on the same side maybe he's using it as tribute to William Regal and we should re-name it the Knee Trembler. My point is unless we hear it called that on TV or listed on his WWE bio we shouldn't just assume. Duffs101 (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The fact is, it has been named on WWE.com thrice out of all the times Bryan has used it: 1, 2 and 3. Yet, I do agree with the decision to not name it as "Busaiku Knee" because a) it has not been named at all on television and b) the three instances on WWE.com are the minority, all the other times, it has been referred to as the running knee (strike), like when it was considered for a Slammy Award. Note that they named AJ's Black Widow and the Cesaro Swing but not Bryan's knee. Starship.paint (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Bryan referred to his finisher as the "Knee Plus" in a backstage pass interview on Smackdown last week. Can somebody look into that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisishammy (talkcontribs) 01:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Wyatt?[edit]

Daniel Bryan doesn't use Daniel Wyatt. He hasn't been referred to as Daniel Wyatt on WWE programming. It will be removed. If a citation is provided stating such, than it can be put back. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 03:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


So, on one side of the debate/argument is that there is a source for it. The other is that it happened on a house show. Let's discuss it lads, instead of a boring edit war. Not sure of the rules on pro-wrestling Wiki so somebody more knowledgeable will have to help settle it I'm afraid. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

1, we have a source, a report of a house show where he was called Daniel Wyatt. 2, house show, TV Show or PPV it doesn't matter. Bryan was introduced and wrestled as Daniel Wyatt, so it must we listed. We have a lot of wrestler with one match name. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
It is a tricky one, the only similar occurrence that comes to mind for me was during the storyline when John Cena was 'fired' in November 2010, then had a spell of performing as his Mexican cousin - 'Juan Cena' for live events. I don't think that ever made it to TV but there is reference to it in his infobox. Personally I'm not a fan of mentioning one off appearances that happened at live events, keep in mind we generally don't include anything else that happens during house shows, but I'll leave it for the more knowledgeable to make the call. Duffs101 (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The infobox lists the names of the wrestler. Cena wrestled a lot of times as Juan Cena, we have sources... infobox. Bryan wrestled once as Daniel Wyatt, we have sources... infobox. Miz wrestled one time as The Calgary Kid, Cesareo wrestled one time as Very Misterious Ice Cream, Edge and Christian wrestled once as Los Conquistadores, Flair as The Black Scorpion, Rhodes as The Midnight Rider... one in enough to include in the infobox. Pure logic, the infobox isn't limited to house shows, TV or PPV. The fact is that Daniel wrestled as Daniel Wyatt and we have a source. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
HHH Pedrigree just nailed it 100%. There's nothing tricky about this; he wrestled under the name and there's a clear and reliable source for it.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, I suppose it's no different to names getting tweaked in developmental, we still have a record of those despite not being televised. My hesitancy came more from the fact that the main source was just second hand information from a house show, I'm not disputing it, but it's not exactly 100% verifiable as far as sources go. Duffs101 (talk) 08:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
"Infobox isn't limited to house shows, TV, or PPV..." Yes, it kind of is limited to those things. You are making reference to things that did happen on TV with Dusty Rhodes' Midnight Rider gimmick plus he used it more than once, the Los Conquistadores when portrayed by Edge and Christian had a pay-per-view match, Ric Flair was one of twenty or thirty guys who portrayed Black Scorpion which he used in a WCW World Heavyweight Championship match. Is the name "Daniel Wyatt" an official WWE change or just something he was called by the fans? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 11:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
" Yes, it kind of is limited to those things." Where I can read the rules? Infobox says "names" and Daniel Wyatt is a name with sources. I don't read Names uused only in TV or PPV. I don't see any difference between a name used once in Starrcade, a name used once in a house show/live event in USA or a name used once in RAW. The fact is that Danielson wrestled Once as Daniel Wyatt in front of, maybe, 2.000 people. Whats the problem, the event wasn't taped? And? Millions of wrestling events aren't taped, but with sources, we include the information if the info is important. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:NTEMP. If it happens on television, sure. The only house show things that should matter are title changes. Which is why I think Juan Cena should also be removed. One time on a house show? RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that WP:NTEMP applies here. From reading the description, it seems to refer to the entire subject of an article (for example is the individual DB notable?), instead of a part of an article - the ring name here. Starship.paint (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Again, why? We listed the names of the wrestler. if a wrestler uses a name Once or 1000 times in his career and we have sources, we must to include it. A hundred articles are similar. Roderick Strong is listed as Jester and you'll never found a tv taping of his matches. We write the ENTIRE list of championships. the major promotions and the indys because we have sources. Same with the names. Seriously, this is absurd. We have two reliable sources about Daniel Bryan used the name of Daniel Wyatt, it's a name that he used (and the infobox says all his ring names), but we delete it because "it wasn't televised". What do other users think (outside th Wikiproject) about delete information and sources because "an event wasn't televised"? It's like delete a director/actor films because "the movies are direct to DVD and we list only theater movies" --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean, why? Because notability matters. The entire list of championships isn't listed as far as I know, only the notable ones. We don't need a list of every single ring name, we need a list of every single notable name. Juan Cena? Gone. In fact, here's two examples for you - Big Show and Charlie Haas. Both had a spell for WWE where they were wrestling week-by-week using different ring names as part of their parody gimmicks, yet they don't have all these ring names listed. Or should we go and edit Charlie Haas' page and clog up the info-box with ringnames he used once? Daniel Wyatt should not be added until he has used it on multiple televised events. Notability. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
What? Do you read other articles about wrestling? Hass and Show (I think) are exceptions because they imitates other wrestler. however, take a look on articles like Billy Gunn (15 ringnames) X-Pac (10 sourced ringnames) Mike Rotunda (8 ringnames) (Billy DeMott (7 ringnames) James Maritato (8 ringnames) Takuya Sugi (<10 ringnames). And articles like Jerry Lawler, Kevin Steen, AJ Styles Chris Daniels. We list all their championships. Again, Bryan wrestled as Daniel Wyatt and we have two sources. Discussion about it was TV or live, it's doesn't matter to list the name under the list of his ringnames, because the fact is Bryan Danielson wrestled as Daniel Wyatt. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, Billy Gunn and X-Pac used the majority of those ring names on television/in a big promotion, and the majority of those were used on television/in a big promotion for months/years.
If Lawler et al all have clogged up championship history's, it doesn't mean we should start listing everybody's ring names and everybody's championships all over the shop, despite the Wikipedia policy of other stuff existing. It means that somebody needs to start a discussion, preferably on the pro-wrestling project page, about this.
I feel that, for now, in this discussion (a discussion about the ring-name of a wrestler that didn't even use the ring-name on television after the usage in question) that we should leave it alone until further use of said name or until somebody can resolve the debate in a concise manner. And a concise manner isn't bringing up clogged up title history's filled with unnotable championship victories. I'm not an expert on low-level professional wrestling and, aside from the obvious, which can be described as notable professional wrestling promotions so this isn't a discussion I can give a particularly meaningful contribution too, but I thoroughly believe that one usage at a house-show is not remotely notable. As I have said that, should he bring the name to television (notability) it will be included. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I suggest "Daniel Wyatt" be a nickname. srsrox BlahBlahBlah... 16:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It's worth noting that you actually removed Juan Cena after making this post, and it has since been restored. — Richard BB 23:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Just no note, I added sources from PWInsider and Wrestling Observer, which also state that he was introduced as Daniel Wyatt, so this was not a misheard announcement from one reporter. However, that was reverted by RealDealBillMcNeal, the apparent emperor of the Daniel Bryan article.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Just to note I reverted the edits because of WP:BRD. As I did the other day. To prevent a boring edit war, as I mentioned at the top of this section if you had bothered to read it. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Bill, I feel as though you're taking this far too personally. The editing is getting heated so I suggest WP:COOL. Now then, I believe, with any disputed edit, there needs to be a consensus. As far as I'm concerned with 'Juan Cena', there is no problem. The nickname has a source, it's reliable and it shouldn't be removed. Your main argument is that it's not notable. The source says otherwise. Antoshi 01:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
If multiple sources heard him being introduced as Daniel Wyatt, I fail to see how it is a nickname. It's a ring name, and should go in the leading infobox. Starship.paint (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Yep, if he was announced as Daniel Wyatt then it should be added back to the infobox. STATic message me! 15:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Err, just to clarify for anyone getting confused, I'm actually speaking to Bill about the ring name 'Juan Cena' due to edit warring on John Cena. Antoshi 16:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I see that's why Cena is one of the top 100 most controversial topics on Wikipedia. Anyway, 'Juan Cena' and 'Daniel Wyatt' are similar examples. Both are ring names mentioned by reliable sources and thus, notable. Starship.paint (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Thus the reason both should be included in their respective infoboxes. Unless there is any guideline backed opposition why not? STATic message me! 02:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the debate here it seems like only RealDealBillMcNeal (but possibly srsrox too) is in active opposition to the addition of the ring name. Well if you do feel that passionate about this Bill, why don't you raise a topic at WT:PW (just suggesting) along the lines of "what is notable at house shows" and "what's notable for the infobox? Starship.paint (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, screw this. The ring name has three reliable sources, that's more than enough. I'm re-adding it and if it gets removed again, well, I guess we're just going to have to have one of those good old fashioned edit wars.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Ribbon, do not threaten other editors over a controversial edit. For someone who's been on Wikipedia over 3 years, you should know by now that edit warring does not accomplish anything. Even if something does have "three reliable sources," that does not automatically make it worthy of addition to the encyclopedia. Antoshi 14:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
What does the video game call him? Oh, sorry. Was just having a flashback to the months-long Lita DDT saga. Erm... "Daniel Wyatt" was his ringname at least once and we know that because of the citations. Might as well leave it in the infobox. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 21:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
link to saga - whoa didn't know McPhail has been around since 2006. ~old~ To make my post relevant, let's start an edit war right here on whether JBL has the authority to give Bryan's diving headbutt and suicide dive the horrendous names of FLYING GOAT and AIR GOAT, given that he talks about a flying goat every damn time when Bryan is not on the ground. Starship.paint (talk) 07:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
May I add that JBL calling Goldust's diving 'rana Goldierana is equally ridiculous. Starship.paint (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Who's maintaining this semi-protected article?[edit]

On this Talk page, in April of 2013, user Spartan198 pointed out that the statement about Danielson dropping his vegan lifestyle has a citation which does not support the statement. Nothing was done about it; the statement is still there with the same citation. --MateoSans (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Really? Ref 252 had become a dead-link, which I have now repaired, but didn't ref 253 the RVAMAG source support the statement anyway? This should be settled now. Also moving to the end of the page. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 12:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
No, this is not settled. The current citation (http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/WWE_News_3/article_59384.shtml#.Uz13286Irn4) does not support the statement about Danielson dropping his vegan lifestyle, and I'd like to know why you couldn't take thirty seconds to check the citation and see that it does not support the statement. --MateoSans (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
@MateoSans: - there seems to be a misunderstanding here. Look at my edit on 5 Feb. I clearly did what I said - I edited the vegan info that I saw in the Personal life section, see that RVAMAG source I mentioned? I didn't realise there was another mention of the vegan lifestyle in the Wrestling persona section, so of course I didn't edit that part.
I have removed the offending sentence which was not supported by the source. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Wyatt: ring name or nickname?[edit]

The numbers of edits I'm seeing of moving the name from ring name to nickname and back are getting really excessive. Please talk this over like civil editors and work out a solution. Personally, I don't care either way. But I'd like the reverting in this case to stop. Antoshi 03:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a ring name. Look at the two sources cited. Both Torch and Observer said he was introduced as Daniel Wyatt. Torch also says "Bryan is now Daniel Wyatt". starship.paint "YES!" 05:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, we already discussed this and there are reliable sources to back it up. The single user that has been changing it has a long history of disruption, so this is nothing new. STATic message me! 06:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BEGIN[edit]

I've tried to bring the lede into compliance with the Manual of Style and was promptly reverted with a dismissive edit summary. I've posted a request to the reverting editor, asking him to rescind his reversion. I'd like to hear what others think. I think my edit is squarely within the four corners of the rule found here: WP:BEGIN, which says, in part: "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence.[3] However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text."

Please opine. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

As expalined in WP:FULLNAME, take a look at the opening sentences of articles for wrestlers such as The Undertaker, Triple H, Randy Savage, Hulk Hogan, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Shawn Michaels, CM Punk, and Sting the wrestler. Maybe even go to Sting the musician, Bono, Madonna, Lady Gaga, Pelé, Cristiano Ronaldo. The format is basically "Birth name (born on such and such a date), better known as more familiar name". The intro used on the articles of The Ultimate Warrior, Elton John and Freddy Mercury is, I presume, because they legally changed their names. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • David, thanks for your contribution, but as an editor of professional wrestling biographies, that is largely how it is for such biographies.
  • On second thought, until maybe one or two years ago, quite a lot wrestler biographies were located at their real name. Then there was a push for the ring names (WP:COMMONNAME) to become the article title. While we changed the article names, I guess we didn't change the leads, and here we are now. starship.paint "YES!" 01:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't care enough to fight over this but neither WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS nor "That's the way we do it in wrestling articles" seem like particularly good reasons to deviate from the Manual of Style's guidance at WP:BEGIN. I urge the community of wrestling editors to rethink this. Life is too short, so at this point, you can count on me to STFU. David in DC (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
@David in DC: I should have clicked RealDealBillMcNeal's link... as per WP:FULLNAME, For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. starship.paint "YES!" 09:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2014[edit]

Add Brie Bella as his manager 216.8.174.108 (talk) 01:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Bella Twins are already listed in the managers section. NiciVampireHeart 01:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2014[edit]

Cjhubbard27 (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Theres more themes that needs to be put in.[edit]

There's more roh themes that need to be put in like the ultimate countdown and generation. RandomGuyBabbling (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There's still about two themes to be added.ultimate countdown and generation. RandomGuyBabbling (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

WWE section headings[edit]

I am an advocate of keeping section headers short, but I don't understand why each championship is being continually removed from the section headings. There are five distinct sections now, each pertaining to a championship Bryan has won. I would like to propose:

2.6.1 United States Champion (2010–2011)
2.6.2 World Heavyweight Champion (2011–2012)
2.6.3 Team Hell No; Tag Team Champion (2012–2013)
2.6.4 "Yes!" Movement; WWE Champion (2013–2014)
2.6.5 Injuries; Intercontinental Champion (2014–present)

Feedback is welcome. The longest section header is 2.6.5 but they are all quite even in length. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I removed them, but I did it because I think header sections should be more about what he did rather than list all the championships he won, even though the first two section headers are actually fine to me. Also, I have noticed that in all other pages' section headers about either a tag team or a stable, the text simply list the name of the tag team or the stable. For example, Triple H's page section about Evolution isn't "Evolution; World Heavyweight Champion", but just "Evolution", which I think is better. Same thing about the following header, I would put the "Yes!" Movement" as text, because what it says in the section is more about all the support he got from the crowd rather than his world championship reigns that were also cut short. So, the same way Steve Austin's page header section about 1996–1997 is texted as "Austin 3:16", Daniel Bryan's header section about 2013–2014 should be texted just as "Yes!" Movement", in my opinion. For last, the most recent section, as I said, is sadly more about his injuries rather than his Intercontinental Championship reign, so as for now I would say that putting simply "Injuries" is the best header text for this section. So, my purpose is this:

2.6.1 United States Champion (2010–2011)
2.6.2 World Heavyweight Champion (2011–2012)
2.6.3 Team Hell No (2012–2013)
2.6.4 "Yes!" Movement (2013–2014)
2.6.5 Injuries (2014–present)

I'm actually not a native English speaker, therefore sorry if my English isn't perfect. Cheers.--Davide King (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Davide King: - I don't doubt that Team Hell No / "Yes!" Movement / Injuries are important. That's why they are listed first. But why can't we list the championships second? It's not as if I'm proposing...

2.6.3 Tag Team Champion (2012–2013)
2.6.4 WWE Champion (2013–2014)
2.6.5 Intercontinental Champion (2014–present)

  • When we look back at his career, the championships are indeed significant. Not important enough to be mentioned first, but important enough to be mentioned second. Wikipedia isn't only for hardcore wrestling fans. To a person who's never heard of Daniel Bryan, the championships serve as a good marker for his biography.
  • Furthermore, the point of "keep the headers short" when I proposed it, was that I didn't want to stretch the Contents box. Right now the longest section header is 2.6.2 World Heavyweight Champion (2011–2012). We do have the space to write extra stuff for the other shorter headers. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Starship.paint: for your reply. I do understand and respect this and I'm actually agree. But I don't think it's necessary to add it, at least not in this case, also because there's already the section about the championship he won, right here, and even in the intro. I think a header section shouldn't list the titles the wrestler won, but should instead list what he did in that particular period; feuds or storyines, and also the eventually championships the wrestler won. Now I tell you why I'm actually agree with the first two section headers being about the championships he won;

  • Bryan returned to SummerSlam in August 2010, then reinstated his feud with The Miz and won the United States Championship one month later. He successfully defended the title all through the year and finally lost it in March 2011 against Sheamus, after 176 days. Then he had his rematches for the title, but didn't regain it. As you can see, the prominent narrative in this section header is about the United States Championship and he was basically United States Champion for all this period, which is why I'm totally agree to put "United States Champion" as text;
  • From 2011 to 2012, even though he wasn't World Heavyweight Champion for all this period, he actually chased this championship, feuded with then champion Mark Henry and had his pursuits for the title before finally winning it. So, despite not being really World Heavyweight Champion for all this time, the narrative in this second header section is basically all about the World Heavyweight Championship, which is why I'm agree again to put "World Heavyweight Champion" as text;
  • From 2012 to 2013 he pursued the WWE Championship, then formed Team Hell No and won the WWE Tag Team Championship; however, a text like this would be too long, so simply "Team Hell No" is still the best one for me. As I already told you, in all other pages' section headers about either a tag team or a stable, the text simply list the name of the tag team or the stable; which is why Triple H's section about Evolution isn't "Evolution; World Heavyweight Champion", which is why Dean Ambrose's section about The Shield isn't "The Shield; United States Champion", which is why Seth Rollins and Roman Reigns' section about The Shield isn't "The Shield; Tag Team Champion", and I can give you a lot of other examples. There's no need to add the championships a wrestler won while part of a tag team or a stable, because if you want to know which titles he won, or if you just want to know more about it, you can just click to the main article linked. For all these reasons, the best text for the third header section is simply "Team Hell No".
  • From 2013 to 2014 he had chased and won the WWE Championship, then known as the WWE World Heavyweight Championship, feuded with The Authority and The Wyatt Family, and then then finally won the world title to have a real reign that lasted more than 1 day. However, the main narrative about all this is his "Yes!" Movement" and the fact that after Hell in a Cell the WWE hold him back, despite the crowd behind all over him which lead to the Royal Rumble thing we all know. And that's why I think the header for the fourth section should just be "Yes!" Movement", also because, as I already said, his world championship reigns were cut short. And exactly the same way Steve Austin's page header section about 1996–1997 is texted as "Austin 3:16", Daniel Bryan's header section about 2013–2014 should be texted just as "Yes!" Movement", in my opinion, because that was the main narrative.
  • From 2014 to present he had fight with injuries, then finally returned, didn't win the Royal Rumble match, lost to Reigns at Fastlane, won the Intercontinental Championship at WrestleMania 31, then got another injury and had to vacate the title again. As I already said, the main narrative is sadly more about his injuries rather than his Intercontinental Championship reign, which is why I said that putting simply "Injuries" is the best header text for this section, as for now. So, in short, I'm not against putting the championships a wrestler won as the header section text, but by my point of view the header section should be about the main narrative (which can also be a championship, of course, especially if the reign was long or if the wrestler had many reigns), about what the wrestler did in that particular period, rather than just make a list of the championships he won.

I'm sorry for writing all this, but I wanted to explain my point of view and I hope you did understand it.--Davide King (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2016[edit]


Copypaste of entire article removed

27.2.128.98 (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done
As it clearly states in the instructions to submit an edit request:-
"Please don't copy the entire article into the request. Only copy the part you're changing. If you copy the entire article into the request ... another editor may remove your entire request."
This is not a "spot the difference competition" If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Bryan's book[edit]

There's a book published by Daniel Bryan named Yes!: My Improbable Journey to the Main Event of WrestleMania in 2015. It is mentioned in the article WWE Books, but unfortunately no references are there. Other professional wrestlers' biographies like Rey Mysterio have their books mentioned in the Other media section. Ikhtiar H (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2016[edit]

he is a vegetarian 123.231.123.24 (talk) 06:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Daniel Bryan. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Scandinavian and Scottish descent.[edit]

The article is categorized under Category:American people of Scandinavian descent and Category:American people of Scottish descent. No such reference exists in the text of the article. Should this reference be removed? --JoeyofScotia (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. DexDor (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Daniel Bryan. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Daniel Bryan. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)