This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Professional wrestling Low‑importance All In (2025) is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Texas Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas.

3 days of edit warring, and not one word on this talk page attempting to come to a consensus? That's shameful. Work it out here. Continued warring after the protection expires will be followed up by blocks. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi moderator. I tried to come to a consensus with this user and stopped editing after being warned so. However, while I was trying to come to a resolution with them, they were actively editing the page and were completely ignoring my counter-points. I kept responding to each point they made, yet they wouldn't listen and would continuously repeat their same sentiments over and over again. I took to the warning, but the other party didn't. Jakeburtonz (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to resolve this dispute on my talk page for reference, not via petty warring. Jakeburtonz (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the misunderstanding. I just wanted to re-iterate that I did make the effort of coming to a resolution, is all. Jakeburtonz (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a "moderator" - Wikipedia doesn't have moderators. However, I am willing to make uncontroversial or consensus-based changes to this article in response to edit requests on this page while the protection is in place. See Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard to walk you through the steps. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the misunderstanding. I just wanted to re-iterate that I did make the effort of coming to a resolution, is all. Jakeburtonz (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that conversation, and I commend you for trying. Even so, it seems the edit war continued while that discussion was underway, and this talk page remained blank. Preserving stability of articles is one of the jobs of an administrator; and that's why the article is now protected from editing. Everyone involved in the dispute should read WP:BRD and follow it as a "best practice"; this is what the old-timers on Wikipedia tend to do. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m waiting for the user Czello to confirm my statement about in Wikipedia we use turnstile count especially coming from local government for wrestling attendance on Wikipedia 2600:4809:1130:4D00:F565:B13D:6DC8:D7AE (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did Jakeburtonz break the rules by using 3 accounts to make edits? logged out then another account with simlair name and then this account? It was unusual and should be looked into with all due respect 2600:4809:1130:4D00:F565:B13D:6DC8:D7AE (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should this user be punished for accusing me of something I did not do? How about you listen to your warning instead of making random accusations. You've broken the rules several times, and you didn't even try to resolve this with me. You're very clearly a nuisance to wikipedia as an editor. Jakeburtonz (talk) 03:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly not going to understand, so I'm going to re-iterate it. Total attendance for this event is far more accurate than the turnstile because several people in the venue did not go through a turnstiles, and had their tickets scanned by a gun, or were rushed inside. I was at this event, and did not go through a turnstile. This automatically makes the turnstile n umber incorrect, and there were SEVERAL people rushed/scan gun in as I've pointed out, hence why the total attendance is far more accurate than the turnstile number. Jakeburtonz (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The admin here literally mentioned that you kept editing in the midst of our "resolution". You were actively breaking rules for someone who claims they've been on wikipedia for the longest. And also, it's very clear you're reverting the attendances in bad faith because you keep bringing up how unfair it was for the WWE to be aggregated by turnstile. It's clear you were never intent on resolving this problem. Jakeburtonz (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In our conversations, you were mentioning that AEW was giving away tickets like they "usually do in their weekly shows" (his words btw).You literally got REPORTED for breaking the rules. How about you listen to my points before re-iterating the same points over and over again. Stop being a public nuisance. Jakeburtonz (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to bring a source from a website saying how many people were at all in and that thousands didn’t go through the turnstile,you won’t find any,you just created your account to edit this page by the way 2600:4809:1130:4D00:F565:B13D:6DC8:D7AE (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are literally proving my point,do you understand how wikipedia works? You bring a source

saying stuff like ‘ i was at the event and didn’t go through the turnstile’ isn’t a source and proves that you shouldn’t have edited at all

there is a source being used

a source linked that doesn’t say anything that you just said

if you literally heard michael Cole announce an attendance and just put it without linking a source,it means nothing 2600:4809:1130:4D00:F565:B13D:6DC8:D7AE (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Czello i’m waiting for him to respond to you that we go with the turnstile count 2600:4809:1130:4D00:F565:B13D:6DC8:D7AE (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear you have not read a single message I've sent out to you, because I've told you time and time again this isn't an actual source, I'm just recounting my experience. The ACTUAL SOURCE is the wrestlenomics article, which stated 23,759 in attendance. Brandon literally says that the turnstile count is always lower than attendance in that article, so it's never the confirmed attendance. We're both using the same source, only you're upset that what's being aggregated is not one number over the other. Stop it. I find it funny that you're making snide comments about my wikipedia page when you yourself are typing from an anonymous IP. For someone who claims to have perused around wikipedia for a long time, you sure do know how to break rules and not maintain them. Save me with that. You're coming off as extremely bitter who isn't willing to come to a mutual understanding, but instead making off topic comments about how I'm new to this, or so on. This is pathetic behaviour. I will ask you one more time, resolve this. You're discarding what I'm saying just because it's not a source, when I never claimed it to be. Jakeburtonz (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're being difficult, and again you incessantly reverting the wikipedia shows that you're stuckup on doing only what you want. Just because people aren't agreeing with you, you start throwing accusations instead of ACTUALLY trying to resolve this. Pathetic behaviour. Jakeburtonz (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The admin asked you to fix this, not to come begging to another person for validation. How about you discuss this instead of being difficult. Jakeburtonz (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And if you wanna refer to that user, don't forget I've asked you to point to me the "turnstile rule" you always refer to, and have not yet. Instead you tell me to wait for his answer, which implies it was never there to begin with . If there actually was a rule, then why is it almost impossible for you to link me to it? Anyways, the total attendance (23,759) is far closer than the turnstile, as Brandon himself says turnstile is never a good measurer for the actual attendance. Jakeburtonz (talk) 05:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Czello should confirm what i said,he is busy nowadays 2600:4809:1130:4D00:A10D:617E:9C2F:D1B8 (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I have been summoned a few times here - the consensus is that we default to the official, announced number unless/until an independent reliable source states a new number. That might include turnstyle account (as we used at All In 2023), or it might be other metrics, figures, or information that reliable sources have used. What I'm saying is that it doesn't have to be turnstyle count (although that would take priority over the official, announced number). After all, as has been stated there are people who are sometimes in attendance (not staff) who don't go through the turnstyles.

That being said, the source in question says After the July 12 show, officials submitted documentation certifying actual attendance at 23,759, including 21,973 spectators. I'm not entirely sure what this "documentation" is that "certifies" the number (is that immune to kayfabe numbers, or is it some kind of legal document?) However, as it says including 21,973 spectators I'm inclined to believe that the upper number includes staff. Most of the time, attendance figures don't separate spectators from personnel like this; however in the rare instances that it has come up we have indeed defaulted to just the spectator number, as it's been the more verifiable figure. Consequently, I'm inclined to say the attendance figure should read 21,973. — Czello ^(music) 07:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much czello,i was waiting for you

and yes it states clearly in the article that the turnstile count is 21,973 and the rest includes staff,stadium personnel,workers,production and others

this is a local texas government documents,they literally had a partnership with AEW for this event

i’m waiting for it to be changed to 21,973

i was trying to explainc to jakeburtonz that there has been many conversations about this in the past already but he is new to wikipedia 2600:4809:1130:4D00:28A1:1F3B:E1:3447 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Jakeburtonz cannot reply here at the moment due to being blocked for socking. If there is nothing controversial remaining, let me know and I can lift the protection of the article. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist there is nothing controversial remaining

we have been in an agreement with czello that the attendance should be changed back to 21,973

you can lift the protection 2600:4809:1130:4D00:BCFA:3DDF:DF8D:D10C (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, unprotected. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was the one who created the report on you 2600. The warring was getting out of hand, either discuss or stop Willyjackiestar (talk) 05:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My take is usually you'll need a turnstile count to verify the total attendance which cheked out. 23 thousand in attendance with 21 thousand going through the scanner makes it clearer that 23 thousand is the better number to bounce of Willyjackiestar (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and 1 more thing it's mentioned in the article sourced, so that's the source Willyjackiestar (talk) 05:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Your take" is WP:OR. Plus you're a sockpuppet who has used two accounts in order to edit war. You're lucky an admin hasn't caught you. Lemonademan22 (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue for sockpuppetry accusations. Open a case at WP:SPI if you suspect it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all im referring to the source which said total attendance was 23000. Second of all i have only edited this page twice whereas you people have edited over 10 times. I stayed out of this because it was getting crazy so how are you accusing me of sockpuppetry? Willyjackiestar (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So me trying to find peace by reporting this page means Im sockpuppeteering you guys will never reach a conclusion. Ur more set on deescalating Willyjackiestar (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The number listed is completely inaccurate, and entirely based on Dave Meltzer's analysis of Google Trends. This should, in now way, be allowed to be presented as fact. ~2025-33186-24 (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:All In: London (2023) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]