Talk:List of professional wrestling attendance records

Factual numbers should take precedence over the claimed number

The article currently has this disclaimer "Although many professional wrestling attendance figures are disputed, for the purpose of this list, the promotions' announced attendance figures are shown. " over the table. This statement should be removed and where possible the claimed and actual number of attendees (if a reliable source is found) should be presented together with the actual, sourced and cited, number of attendees taking precedence. No reason for PR to take precedence over sourced fact on Wikipedia. 203.220.163.29 (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, though I think it is best to list the numbers in two separate columns. If no reliable numbers are available for an event, so be it. Drickfire (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Similar to title reigns in a way. Actual number of days held vs recognized number of days held. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC) ColeTrain4EVER

Agreed. For example, WrestleMania III did not draw 93,000 fans. Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer newsletter obtained data from event promoter Zane Bresloff that said the attendance number was around 78,000, while wrestling journalist David Bixenspan wrote an article on Deadspin and his own blog that puts it at 88,000. When we use numbers the promoter freely admits is a lie, are we really serving the Wikipedia community?

Furthermore, I am deeply skeptical of the timing of this move, given the proximity to All Out 2023 and how it would break almost all of these records if not for the decision to combine multiple show attendances into one number. Semicorrect (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The same Dave Meltzer said 90,000 people were at WrestleMania 32 so why isn't that listed? You can't just pick and choose your sources. If you're using him for one attendance, you better use him for all. 90.247.241.251 (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Although Meltzer is a reliable citation, we use the best sourcing possible for attendance numbers. Meltzer has the best sourcing for WrestleMania III; Thurston has better sourcing for WrestleMania 32, to the degree that Meltzer advocates for the 80K number. There is further discussion in the "WrestleMania 32 attendance" section of this page. Semicorrect (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

78,000 is a factual number. Got it. Not a person more. Sounds like a random number pulled out out of a random conversation. Beyond ridiculous. ~~ RamshackleMan (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

This sort of line of thought is nonsense, yeah.

The WWF had no sort of stage setup for the Silverdome. They had the ring and the area around it. They were packed to the gills. It looks *very* similar to the reported numbers the Pope drew physically. They were pulling 10s on Cable television at the time. Their entire organization was *everywhere* pop-culturally. It happened.

Some of these "actual numbers" are quotes from Meltzer on twitter with no citations/sources. This is not a valid standard to judge by. Just because "Meltzer says so," doesn't mean it's reliable. Even the WrestleMania 3 wiki page uses a quote from Meltzer on his podcast, with *no* other evidence, as proof of the "real" number. And when you listen to his quote, he's talking about "paid attendance versus comped attendance". Which is disingenuous because it's not what most people mean when they talk about "attendance".

They don't differentiate between this in real sports when announcing attendances either. By the by. Nor do any entertainment mediums. The NBA does this all the time. There still are probably that many people *there*. Does it really matter if they were paid or not?

On that note, Meltzer provides *no* actual evidence of what he's saying anytime he does. I don't know how he can be taken as a reliable source on this. There are images out there of the "90,000+" at the Pontiac Silverdome, and if you compare that to the AEW All-In Show, for example, it sure looks like a lot hell of a lot more people than AEW's show 81,000+. Not a single tarped section, either. And if that 78,000+ is the real, then AEW's reported number is probably a lie too - so why isn't that the "reported number" until we learn the "real" number?

The "real" number for 'Mania 3 is 93,173. Unless you include "comped seats", which Meltzer can't possibly know without going through WWE's financials. Which he doesn't have access to. Which makes this a moot point and this just gets into weird territory, where without the receipts from WWE and AEW's financials, we're never going to actually *know*, and it's all going to be speculative takes, including Meltzer. 71.135.1.82 (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

WWE attendance figures

Given that AEW is about to set the non-North Korean record for attendance, it seems wrong to continue to list WWE attendance figures that Vince McMahon has publicly admitted are provided "for entertainment purposes." Others may view this differently, and it's not a perfect solution, but my view is that we should rely on attendance estimates that are provided by credible reporters, rather than WWE PR. This would be keeping in the spirit of Wikipedia, and the WWE PR numbers could be noted separately if we felt that was the most appropriate action. Drickfire (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Same applies to the Tokyo Dome events. The building can't fit more than about 55k with a full wrestling setup so those old attendance records from 1990s are inflated. Issue is that we don't have actual reporting or police records to dispute what the promotions have told us. But in cases where we have factual non-promotion reporting, it should be used instead of the inflated numbers provided by the promotions.

Both numbers can be mentioned, but the number that should weight the list should be the factual one. 2001:14BB:113:493:599C:AE43:DFBD:5554 (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Rolling Loud 2021 and Hog/Road Wild and combined attendances

Adding Smackdown at Rolling Loud 2021 to the list brings up the question, should the WCW PPVs of Hog Wild and Road Wild be added as well, as they are quite similar to Rolling Loud. If the total attendance of Rolling Loud is accepted, then Hog/Road Wilds total attendances at Sturgis should be accepted as well.

On combined attendances, I think they should be separated and not counted together. You can mention it, but you shouldn't combine them as this isn't a list of combined attendance records. 2001:14BB:113:493:599C:AE43:DFBD:5554 (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed on combined attendances. It's largely double dipping on people who attended multiple nights. 2603:900B:A09:5854:9526:208D:6F08:CA34 (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed Drickfire (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think these sorts of events should really count, especially saying getting attendance numbers for it that are even close to accurate is virtually impossible.

The attendance number that was listed for Smackdown at Rolling Loud 2021, for example, was taken from an article that was created a day before the event actually happened, and was not talking about the Smackdown at Rolling Loud 2021, it was talking about Rolling Loud 2021 as a whole. Worlds biggest obama fan (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree with all points made here. Drickfire (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Combined Numbers

Proposal: 2 day events should be listed separately WaimiriMaina (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed Drickfire (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

100 percent agree. They were listed as separate things for basically the entirety of this page's existence, but somebody just changed it to combined attendances, which was quite clearly because of AEW All In. Minimania18 (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Combined Attendance

Multi-night shows have always had their attendance treated as separate nights, so there is no good reason to combine them now. Minimania18 (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Someone's gotta bite the bullet and change it back, which will start an edit war. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Actual Attendance and PR Attendance

I went through and edited the page to include actual attendance numbers in one column and PR attendance claims in a number. I also edited the page to separate different attendance numbers that had very recently been combined into one total. Another user undid it and accused me of vandalism.

I don't see a rationale for eliminating reliable reports of numbers and for combining different attendance numbers. Drickfire (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

"Although many professional wrestling attendance figures are disputed, for the purpose of this list, the promotions' announced attendance figures are shown"

I agree with you and raise the question, what is the argument to just use the PR attendance numbers if we have more accurate numbers from legitimate sources available? What is the argument to use combined attendances instead of splitting them by the day? Who decided that this list should go with the inaccurate numbers?

Doesn't make sense to go with PR numbers just because we have a note put by someone which says that. 2001:14BB:113:493:0:0:4D59:4201 (talk) 04:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. If anything, the argument could be made PR numbers should not be displayed in the article at all, in the same way Wikipedia should not present a storyline as if it were a shoot. That said, as a compromise, and because the PR numbers are "out there in the world," I am fine with displaying them in a separate column. Drickfire (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree with splitting actual attendance from combined. I think it's madness that we, as an encyclopedia, for some reason prioritise kayfabe/marketing numbers compared to the actual figure reported by independent sourcing. — Czello ^(music) 08:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, in fixing certain things I restored the combined figures - but I agree with you that it's better to separate the numbers of the shows as it's otherwise misleading (WWE deliberately combine them to make the shows look twice as big as they actually are, for example). It's never sat well with me that we combine them, so I've separated them again. — Czello ^(music) 08:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for making the changes.

Going through this article's edit history, there's been a deliberate effort by two editors to misrepresent the facts in a way that prioritizes WWE.

Additionally, one of the editors threatening people with IP bans for trying to correct an egregious mistake is quite concerning.

Is there a concerted effort by WWE to use Wikipedia to misrepresent facts? WaimiriMaina (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's actual WWE employees. Wikipedia has always had a problem with over-enthusiastic fans who either take WWE at face value with their data or even actively sit in the "stand up for WWE" camp, thereby acting as free PR for them. — Czello ^(music) 08:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Wait a minute,you haven’t been following the trolling in the page? I know it is so long to follow but there are literally people who put a match at a video game comic con at 265K and it wasn’t even me who added the combined numbers or anything,people who put a show that didn’t even happen yet,people who removed a huge chunk of the page,i was the one who was reversing those edits back like they were also this page of the highest wrestling attendance ever has been around forever and never had 2 seperate columns of pr attendance and real attendance and you can follow it,why change it now? It has been around for many years,i wonder who has the agenda? We would have to do 2 seperate columns on every single wwe wikipedia page that mention attendances in any fashion,there aren’t 2 attendances numbers in the PPV pages also there is a difference between paid tickets and people in the building that is missing people heads,Also there was legit trolling from people that don’t unusually use wikipedia,seems like they are coming from twitter or a forum since a lot of them don’t even have accounts or just created accounts specifically for them and for that gentleman,he didn’t even put sources,he just edited it,the combined numbers should be put out since if you click on Wrestlemania 38 or Wrestlemania 39,it’s a single event on two nights,the current column doesn’t make sense if the north korean shows and Wrestlemanias aren’t combined

which was done by another user by the way

i’m actuallu huge fan of your Czello Contributions,i actually wanted you to deal with what is going on for days from non wikipedia users to protect the page Bigboss9893 (talk) 11:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Every number that I put into the Actual Attendance had a citation in the row for the attendance. Drickfire (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

If any given row didn't, that was an oversight on my part. Drickfire (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Some of those numbers and citations were added by me as I did the edit, by the way, to try to ensure accurate numbers were represented. Drickfire (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Going to reply here rather than on your talk page. I appreciate the work you've done undoing vandalism and other disruptive editing. I'm not implying you put the combined numbers there - that's separate. Onto the main point about having actual vs PR numbers: in short you asked why change it now? Ultimately our articles can always be improved, as Wikipedia is a perpetual work in progress. It's always bothered me that we put more weight on WWE's inflated numbers over actual, so I'm glad there's other editors who feel the same. — Czello ^(music) 11:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

And you see why the 2 columns isn’t a good idea now? because it will look empty and doesn’t exist in any other sport page but it only happened here because wrestling fans are weird and there is no other explanation? Those are reports from journalists who said they talked to a guy that used to work in wwe? Those are the legit sources? A tweet? anyway,the current rankings looks like a mess because of the 2 columns if you really take a look at it,how are 80K or 67K attendnce shows above 150K for the north korean show but there is another north korean show at number 1,the order is actually a mess because it isn’t obvious that you are combining them,the previous edit was even more acceptable than this one if you wanna go with 2 columns which i think is a crazy idea and make other people laugh at us Bigboss9893 (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

And the other editors who feels the same are people that are coming from twitter or another forum Bigboss9893 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Not just the north korean show (which should be combined as well) please take a look at the columns again,the rankings will be a mess,it isn’t just the north korean show,how is a show that had 67K in attendance above shows that did 77K,80K,82K or 101K or a show that had 78K above show that did 80K take a look at it again to see what i’m trying to explain Bigboss9893 (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The fact there's empty space doesn't really matter - in fact if anything it might encourage editors to hunt down the actual figures for other shows. Yes, Meltzer and Alvarez are considered reliable per WP:PW/RS, they're very respected. As for other people "laughing" at us - believe me, the thing that gets the pro wrestling corner of Wikipedia laughed at is the fact that we sometimes bear more resemblance to Fandom, including our reliance on WP:INUNIVERSE content (such as attendance records). — Czello ^(music) 12:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Czello,Please tell me that you don’t think those people don’t have agenda? Do you even realize that meltzer changed that number many times? Here is a tweet from his saying mania 32 had 94K in attendance https://x.com/bryanalvarez/status/716892368188780548?s=46&t=Q0eCaopwq24B2Z53Rc57Zw Bigboss9893 (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

This discrepancy is accounted for in the citation, here, which is a more recent tweet. As the first link was Alvarez relaying information then Meltzer's own words should take priority. — Czello ^(music) 12:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Big Boss, I'd like to take the time to respond to all of the issues that you raised.

> doesn’t exist in any other sport page but it only happened here because wrestling fans are weird and there is no other explanation

The reason why we have two columns is because WWE are the only organization constantly inflating attendance figures. Vince McMahon has said that the attendance figures they use are for entertainment purposes only. WWE also count the number of workers, attendants etc. to inflate their attendance. It's a very well documented practice.

>Those are reports from journalists who said they talked to a guy that used to work in wwe? Those are the lefit sources?

Yes, despite your personal feelings on the matter, and WWE's attempt to paint him in a negative light, Dave Meltzer is one of the world's most well-respected sports reporters. And he does provide additional sources to back up the numbers he says such as WWE investor reports. In those reports, WWE is bound by the law to tell the truth. I would be happy to help you look through WWE's investor reports and show you where the numbers can be found.

>make other people laugh at us

Who is laughing at us? WaimiriMaina (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Vince McMahon, on a WWE earnings call, said the Wrestlemania 32 announced attendance of 101,763 included "ushers and ticket-takers and all of that. It wasn't 101,000 paid, but nonetheless, it was a record for us." That’s what vince said publicly about this subject regarding the attendance of that specific wrestlemania on Feb 12,2017 and he was the one who brought the subject up,he said not all were paid but didn’t dispute the attendance,he was talking about Paid attendance and no,wwe isn’t the only company who may inflate their numbers,WCW and AEW did when public data was revealed,why would nobody want their numbers to look good,all those tokyo dome shows are inflated as well,do you actually think the tokyo dome is 90K capacity for wrestling? Or even 70-80K? because that’s not even true,a lot of those Japanese shows aren’t real numbers and actually one of the users who was editing the page brought this point up a couple of days ago not me about japan and tokyo dome capacity,that’s why columns don’t make sense,i would have to bring his comment up Bigboss9893 (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Then if we have real numbers for those shows they should be added to the actual column — Czello ^(music) 12:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

By laughing at us is the crazy edits that happened in the last 2 days by users that don’t even use wikipedia and i know for a fact there was a target on this page from non wikipedia users which started all of this,this poor page barely had any activity Bigboss9893 (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

But here is the problem,we are actually currently reporting the attendance numbers for those Japanese shows as actual real numbers not PR numbers when in fact all of the wrestling shows are PR numbers,that’s what i’m trying to say Bigboss9893 (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

If any citations can be provided to demonstrate they should be in the PR column rather than the actual column then we can easily fix that. — Czello ^(music) 12:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Here is another suggestion,shouldn’t we switch the 2 columns? That would be simlair to attendance/disputed attendance on the wrestlemania pages becsuse the lower number/the higher number is making the rankings a mess

it should be the claimed number first/disputed number last

that should be the priority

not the disbuted/claimed number 67K/81K

or 78K/93K

80K/101K

there is a big gap

The columns should be switched like they are in all pages Bigboss9893 (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Claimed and disputed are the same thing. Really the actual number should be first (as it's the actual number) and we're an encyclopedia, not WWE's PR. I would like it if PPV articles prioritised actual, but currently there's no consensus for that. — Czello ^(music) 12:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

WWE's reported number should be first. As should AEW's and WCW's. Like you said, the article isn't a PR piece for WWE, but it's not a PR piece for Meltzer's claims either.

The disputed/"real" number should be second. There's no proof of the disputed number in most cases other than Meltzer saying something is true without proof himself. "I heard from.." "Um, that's the kayfabe number." Or a twitter post.

That's *not* a standard of proof. Fact is, we don't know the "real" number, and shouldn't be pretending that Meltzer is the arbiter of it here by claiming his number is the "factual" real number. His claims are just as factual as WWE/AEW/WCW's. He doesn't have access to internal financials for these companies, nor do we, so it can't be fact-checked, unfortunately, and all of it remains in speculative territory. 71.135.1.82 (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem with this argument is that it violates WP:INDY and WP:PRIMARY. Independent sources always come first if they're considered reliable, and the Wikiproject indeed deems Meltzer to be reliable. — Czello ^(music) 14:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

It technically doesn't. Meltzer falls under the tabloid category if we're being honest about his credentials. And he *also* falls into the category of not having a reputation for fact-checking his sources. He often reports wild hearsay that turns out not to be true later.

Simply because he's an independent business of the WWE does not lend him credibility, under Wiki's own rules, when he often reports a sensationalized version of a story that *often* turns out not to be true, or to be lacking context or additional details because it came from a single source. 71.135.1.82 (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

It absolutely fails INDY and PRIMARY to prioritise WWE's numbers, especially when they notoriously inflate them. As for Meltzer, the crux of the matter is that the Wikiproject has deemed him reliable (and, let's face it, the majority of the wrestling world accepts him as the most reliable journalist in the industry). Until that changes he's the best source to go with. — Czello ^(music) 06:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

With how often questioning Meltzer's credentials keeps coming up, even though it's irrelevant so long as he is listed as a reliable source by Wikiproject, do you think we should add a specific item to the talk page spelling that out?

It might be a feeble attempt, but it would be nice to not see this being relitigated in every conversation on this page. Njiska (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Czello,I just saw your edit and i don’t understand,why are you seperating those north korean shows from each others? Is there something different about about this show than wrestlemania 2 nights i’m not aware of? And which rankings are we going by? Actual attendance or PR attendance? And since you are combining both mania 38 and 39 and we are on the same page,shouldn’t you make a note about them being combined in a better way like i just did? Because it doesn’t make sense that a show that did 67K being number 2,They are combined in the wikipedia pages for all those shows already,same for formula 1 grand prix races Bigboss9893 (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

No, I put them in the wrong order by mistake. I've fixed this now. It's probably best we go by actual number where possible, marketed number otherwise. The WrestleManias aren't combined. — Czello ^(music) 12:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The North Korean show,Wrestlemania 38 and Wrestlemania 39,Formula 1 Grand Prix are all the same event on 2 nights (parts),when wwe or literally anyone talk about wrestlemania 38 or 39,they don’t say how much they made each night

Here is more importantly,when you click on their wikipedia pages,they are both in the same page and the combined numbers in the page because it is wrestlemania 38 and 39

there isn’t a seperate wikipedia page for the first night and another page for the second night

this is getting crazy

it is kinda not credible when you claim something and then change your mind in few minutes and you did it on mutliple times

It’s in reliale sources like variety

WrestleMania 39 There isn’t a wikipedia page for night 1 and night 2,it is the same wrestlemania Bigboss9893 (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Combining them is misleading, though. 134,856 people didn't attend WrestleMania 39, it was about half that, with most people attending twice. There aren't separate pages because both nights are the same show - with mostly the same audience. Anyone who wants to combine them (for some reason) can work it out themselves.

What have I claimed and then changed my mind on? — Czello ^(music) 13:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter if there are the same people who attended twice,there have never been a source on that,there are a lot of people that have only attended one night but that’s not the problem,there are 135K-160K tickets that have been sold or distributed for wrestlmenaia 38 and 39,more than any event in history,should we also change the attendance number from night 1 and night 2 and say there are only 67K people that attended night 1 and 2 combined? Common sense please,this is simple math,i’m a huge fan of your work by the way Bigboss9893 (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s literally inside the pages for wm 38 and 39

the combined attendance

i want you to revert the edit back to the combined number for a single event for the north korean shows,wm38,wm39 respectfuly for you and i also don’t want to make a mess for your awesome workBigboss9893 (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Your argument about ticket sold doesn't hold up when you realize people can buy multiple tickets WaimiriMaina (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

the combined attendance is literally reported everywhere including wikipedia itself the combined attendance multiple and multiple times inside the wm 38 and 39 pages,20 other pages in many sentences and other pages that talk about wrestlemania

161K

I can’t believe i’m having that conversation when czello himself put the combined numbers for 5 hours and we were on the same page,i just wanted it to make more sense math wise and now he changed his mind completely which i find it strange Bigboss9893 (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I initially reverted to the combined numbers before I saw this talk page discussion. Even then I was against having it combined, as I said above. Once I did I reverted myself, as I agree with the other users. — Czello ^(music) 13:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Realistically it is going to be the same 67k people attending twice, but if you're going to make the argument that we don't have a source on that then realistically that's a reason to separate the shows - it's more neutral and objective as it presents the facts as they are. Also what other articles do is irrelevant to this one, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. — Czello ^(music) 13:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

This is completely different,Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x.3F

it doesn’t mean we should report different figures on different pages

You yourself edited many times the combined attendance for those pages and just did 2 hours ago

it’s a single event

it isn’t 2 events

wrestlemania 38

and Wrestlemania 39

are both one events

It says attendance

Doesn’t matter if it’s the same people or not

the combined attendance for that event

there aren’t a stadium in the world that could have 355K for the north korean show for example

it’s called attendance for a reason Bigboss9893 (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Because it's a different article. The consensus of how to display figures on one kind of article (PPV) doesn't transition automatically to other articles. While we're at it, those articles are also problematic for prioritising WWE's figures over independent sources. That needs to change. It's also going to become difficult to list them as combined if ever a show performs better than one night and not another - then they'll have to be separate on our list. Ultimately I see no actual arguments against having them separate and only problems with having them combined. — Czello ^(music) 13:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that's what I keep saying. Keeping them combined fundamentally alters the meaning of the article WaimiriMaina (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

should it not be paid attendance and total attendance? 2A00:23C3:C286:6A01:6185:10F9:FC8:6BA2 (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

‘It's also going to become difficult to list them as combined if ever a show performs better than one night and not another’

you were late here,look at my last edit,it was absolutely perfect,we are gonna put the combined number for all 3 shows like this: 355K 134K 131K it was actually perfect By the way The north korean show,when people talks about that show that literally had documentaries made on it,they don’t seperate It wasn’t separate and shouldn’t be separate Bigboss9893 (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

this edit make more sense

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_professional_wrestling_attendance_records&oldid=1169962344

This is your edit that lasted for 3 hours:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_professional_wrestling_attendance_records&oldid=1169941803

and then i started the talk and you made it even more complicated,it made me regret asking as funny as that sounds Bigboss9893 (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I still see no advantage to doing it that way outside of PPV articles combining them (they also show them individually, so there's that). — Czello ^(music) 14:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

You already did it and left it for 3 hours,you are just making me regret i started this discussion from the start,it is making me angry Bigboss9893 (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Like I shouldn’t have talked from the start

how can someone change his mind by putting wrestlemania 38 and wrestlemania 39 as number 2 and 3

but then dropped them all the way down since you don’t consider combined event make sense after you already did? Bigboss9893 (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

You literally left that edit for 3 hours,it’s a single event Bigboss9893 (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

As I've already said, I was reverting to the status quo at the time before I saw this talk page discussion - and also as I said, despite what the status quo is, I've never agreed with the combined figure. Nonetheless, WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, and as others are in favour of separating them, I'd say it has changed. — Czello ^(music) 14:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The user who actually did the combined attendance (as he should) was a longtime member and editor of the wrestling community on Wikipedia Mt.FijiBoiz and me

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mt.FijiBoiz&action=view

the people who want the opposite are bunch of trolls or non wikipedia users

who are they? Bigboss9893 (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

You've just called myself and two other users trolls. Please see WP:NPA and don't do that again. — Czello ^(music) 14:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I’m talking about the people that were trolling inside the page,it was happening by multiple people

i literally said many times that i respect you and i’m a big fan of your work

there was actually trolling and vandalism for the page,you can actually go back and see it

i thought you were saying you changed the page because a lot people wanted it which isn’t really the case

some of them created a wikipedia accounts or haven’t used it for years Bigboss9893 (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, don't appreciate being called a troll. Drickfire (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

If you're talking about me, among other people, it's true that I've been inactive for years. Here is how I found this page: I went to Wikipedia looking to see if All In 2023 would be in a list of highest attended shows, found this page, and saw the trolling and edit warring instigated by My.FijiBoiz's decision to start grouping shows with multiple dates into one attendance number.

Assume good faith of editors, as I'll assume good faith of him, but this is asinine. If we had a list of highest attended Philadelphia Eagles games, we wouldn't group all of the 1983 season into one cell, because those aren't continuous events. Wikipedia articles don't say that 600 million Americans watched Seinfeld every year, because those episodes aren't continuous events. Shows like WrestleMania 38 Night One and Night Two aren't continuous events either.

I would LOVE to revert everything back to Druckfire's edit before Mt.FujiBoiz started this controversy, as long as we keep the good edits as WP:REVERT prescribes. Semicorrect (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not a troll, neither I am an active contributor to Wikipedia. When I noticed that someone had added the Smackdown at Rolling Loud to the list, I brought up the Hog/Road Wild as allowing festivals and such to be added to the list would open a considerable can of worms regarding attendances. And at the same time I took an opportunity to raise my opinion regarding combined attendances.

Of course as wrestling is rather tribalistic and allowing Rolling Loud to stay, some cheeky lad decided to add the Gamescom AEW presentation. If Rolling Loud was accepted, then the Gamescom was fine as well. Of course because people finds this silly elsewhere on the internet, fun was poked at it and then we got the actual real trolls here. Thankfully they were dealt with easily.

I don't know Mt.FijiBoiz or their accomplishments here, nor should they even matter as the merits of edits and arguments behind them should be able to stand on their own two feet and not be propped by someone's reputation. The move to combine the attendances is a move away from factual and encyclopedic listing of largest wrestling events and due to that I wholeheartedly support the changes Czello has made and Drickfire has built upon. The attendance numbers presented should be based first and foremost on the most accurate numbers available and now that we have both Actual and Marketed Attendances, we are approaching said accuracy and actually moved to an even more factual situation than before the combining of the numbers. 2001:14BB:CE:EEE8:0:0:2632:5D01 (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

why did you and Fiji make the unilateral decision to combine the attendance? 154.159.237.17 (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Where's all in at wembly?

Wasnt that at like 80k? I get it if whoevers editing it doesnt like aew but i feel like we should prioritize facts over favoritism Pattogo899 (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It hasn't happened yet, so including it at this point would be WP:CRYSTAL. — Czello ^(music) 19:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Fine I'll do it myself

I added All in to this. Update the numbers and references accordingly as the number will continue to rise. There is no reason to wait any longer on this. Keep facts as facts and opinions as opinions. Wikipedia is for fact not opinion. 2600:1017:B125:70D4:0:50:DD69:C701 (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

See previous discussion; we don't add it until it happens, otherwise it violates WP:CRYSTAL — Czello ^(music) 13:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

so how's that fact looking now? 72k is 9k shy of 81k. That's fact 2600:100E:B081:C4A4:0:47:88B9:2401 (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

WrestleMania 32 attendance

We have seen a lot of edit warring, particularly over this show, so please discuss it here before unilaterally changing the article.

WWE claimed during and after WrestleMania 32 that the attendance was 101,763. Source We are using this as the claimed attendance. However, Vince McMahon stated in February 2017 that the numbers given during the show are for entertainment purposes only and included "ushers and ticket takers and all that", so we should not use that as the actual attendance. Source

The current consensus actual attendance for WrestleMania 32 is 80,709. The primary source for this is the Arlington Police Department, who reported this number to reporter Brandon Thurston, then of Fightful, now of Wrestlenomics. Source 1 Source 2.

In the months following WrestleMania 32, Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter stated several attendance numbers going as high as 97K fans. However, Meltzer did not have a primary source, and today believes 80,709 is the right number. Source If you think Meltzer is unreliable, remove him from the equation and you have Thurston's reporting alone as the best actual attendance number.

Semicorrect (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this reasoning. We have both Meltzer and Brandon Thurston using the 80,709 number - that seems to be more than enough. It's worth reminding, too, that despite some editors apprehension towards Meltzer, the Wikiproject deems him reliable, so I think there's added assurances to his revised number, too. — Czello ^(music) 15:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

On a side note, I think Wrestlenomics should be considered a reliable source. Under Brandon Thurston, it has been the go-to for weekly TV ratings for the last couple of years. I don't really know how to make this happen or want to make too many waves. Semicorrect (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, it's demonstrated reliability for a while now. You could propose it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling if you wanted, and I'd support it. — Czello ^(music) 15:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

So none of you see the problem with both Meltzer and Alvarez saying it was 90k+ but the moment AEW holds a stadium show, they change their number? 90.247.241.251 (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

You have the timeline wrong. Here is Meltzer saying on Twitter in April 2022 that the number is 80,709. All In London was not announced until mid-2023. Semicorrect (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect gate information

Why is it, that in this article, it says All In has the largest gate at $10 million, when WrestleMania 32 has a reported gate of over 17 million (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WrestleMania_32).

If the reference in the article was referring to AEW's record for live gate, that's one thing, but the way it is worded makes it seem like it's claiming to be the highest gate in all of wrestling history, which it clearly is not. NewWikiBaby (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I blame myself for still being exhausted from last night’s show. You’re right, and I read the reference wrongly; it’s AEW’s highest gate (obviously), and even though the attendance figure for Mania 32 is clearly inflated (Mania typically blocks off an entire end zone, but with floor seats added, the sell-out figure is around the stadium capacity), nobody thinks the WWE would be so stupid to have risked legal action for doing the same with the financials. Sceptre (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments in article lead about WWE

The information about many events on the list being promoted by WWE, a WWE event being a prior record holder, and a WWE event holding the gate record do not seem like they belong in the article lead. The gate record is interesting, but seems particularly immaterial. The other two bits are germane to the article, but not info for the lead.

I recommend deleting this paragraph of info from the lead. Drickfire (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, while nice tidbits, this isn't a list of highest gates in pro-wrestling. I would also raise the combined record of Collision in Korea being there with the same argument. This is a list of individual shows, not combined records list. 2001:14BB:C1:F644:0:0:E54:5201 (talk) 07:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

kayfabe

seems odd to try and pretend like aew are 100 percent legit with their numbers and not kayfabing it. they totally could be. unless there's reports to the contrary numbers from companies should be listed as the 'advertised'. we dont know if aew made it up or notMuur (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Should the events with a marketed attendance of 40,000+ but an actual attendance of below 40,000 be removed?

The Super Woman Great War: Big Egg Wrestling Universe, Toukon Shidou: Chapter 1, King's Road New Century 2001, Wrestling World 2003, Wrestle Kingdom III, Wrestle Kingdom VI, Wrestle Kingdom IV, and Wrestle Kingdom V events all drew less than 40,000 but announced attendance figures of 40,000 spectators or greater. This discrepancy is shown in the table, but should these events be listed at all? The least attended event in the group – Wrestle Kingdom V – had an audience of 18,000. Numerous episodes of WWE Raw, WCW Monday Nitro, and AEW Dynamite have drawn 18,000 or over. Using the logic of including events that had less than 40,000 people, shouldn't those episodes be included? I'm personally for removing the events with actual attendances of less than 40,000 as the current standard for the article is the inclusion of events with "Minimum attendance of 40,000". Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Good spot. I'm inclined to remove them, given we're now prioritising actual numbers. — Czello ^(music) 18:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree 100% 72.28.39.77 (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

If you two agree, I'll remove them. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Drickfire (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

All In attendance sources

As always happens with wrestling events, numbers are disputed and discussed for years. If you need any proof, just look at the edition history of this article. In that vein, I believe the All In record setting attendance numbers need more sources that discuss this kind of issues. Today, for example, PWInsider released info revealing that the attendance number revealed during the event was the paid number, not the whole of the actual attendance (which was around 85000). Now, sites that discurse this in detail are paywalled, so the notes and source matters are complicated. e.g. https://twitter.com/WrestlePurists/status/1696670853574820053?s=20 38.9.203.33 (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I have access to most of the paywalled wrestling sites if there's something specific you'd like referenced please let me know WaimiriMaina (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Paid Attendance VS Actual Attendance

I'm not certain where I stand here, but I would like to open up the discussion of whether paid or total attendance should take precedent when both numbers are available. I'm leaning a bit towards total attendance, but would like to hear what others think. Worlds biggest obama fan (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I think total actual fan attendance should be listed in the table, with paid attendance listed as a note. For one thing, for most events on the list that have accurate reports of attendance, they are reports of total fan attendance, not paid attendance (e.g., who knows how many tickets were free vs paid for Inoki's match in Pakistan). My understanding in general for sports events, concerts, etc. is that total attendance is provided (paid + comps) as the typical attendance number. Paid attendance is interesting, but of secondary importance.

[Please note that by actual attendance, I do not mean "for entertainment purposes" numbers nor numbers that include, for example, arena staff.] Drickfire (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd consider ranking precedence to favour accuracy as much as possible. So something like:

---------------------------

1. Exact Number, "butts in seats" (Every paid, comp'd and skybox ticket, but no staff)

2. Exact Number, Paid attendance

3. Estimated Number, "butts in seats" (Every paid, comp'd and skybox ticket, but no staff)

4. Estimated Number, Paid attendance Njiska (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

https://wrestlenomics.com/2023/09/13/aew-all-ins-turnstile-count-was-72265-according-to-local-government/

Well, guess we have another question now. What do we do with Turnstile numbers? I would argue based on what was done with Wrestlemania 32, this should replace the paid attendance number for All In. Suite attendees may not be included, that's not clear, but for consistencies sake 72,265 should probably be the published number. Njiska (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

There was a talk about this in WOR last week. Meltzers opinion basically is that paid attendance is what counts the most, after all you don't get money out of comps, paid tickets generate the gate. But outside of AEW now, no one really has touted the paid attendance numbers before. It has for the most part been total attendance which has been released to the public.

Of course you can argue that comped tickets do buy merch, but I wouldn't necessarily put too much weight to that argument, because neither does the companies themselves. If they did, we would have everyone releasing thousands of free tickets to every show that is struggling.

So I would go with paid attendance first, then hard known minimums like WM3's WWE internal archives number or WM32's turnstiles number. After that whatever the most accurate number we have available until finally total attendance and/or marketed attendance. 2001:14BB:118:3988:0:0:2C6C:4001 (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a good question, and it's not just a question about which is better/easier to track. Paid attendance makes might be a better gauge of interest in an event, as it's easier to paper over a show to inflate an attendance number than to sell the same number of tickets. Collision on Korea had an $8.5 million gate, but it's not like many of the unpaid North Korean citizens who were there had much of a choice to be there.

On the other hand, by prioritizing actual attendance, we are gauging the vastness of crowds. This may be easier for promoters to game, but ordering this list by vastness seems fair to me too.

I'd prefer actual attendance because it's easier to verify than paid attendance. Semicorrect (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

A follow-up now that I've thought about this more: I prefer whatever method is easier to verify, which for modern shows is paid attendance and for older shows is actual attendance. If we have both numbers and they are both credible, I'd lean towards paid attendance. Semicorrect (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Trying to Establish Consensus on the Jim Londos vs. Kola Kwariani Attendance

At the moment, the Jim Londos vs. Kola Kwariani event has a listed attendance of 80,000+ with the following note attached: There are different reports on the attendance of the event with numbers ranging from 60,000 to as high as 110,000 or 125,000.

In the most recent edition of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter, Dave says the following

>Steve Johnson, who is doing a book on Londos that will be released soon, has researched it and said that at the time Pantheatic Stadium was set up to hold 60,000 at the time, but ticket sellers would split tickets and resell them and that 70,000 were in the stadium and 15,000 to 20,000 more were watching on hillsides outside of the stadium, which was in a valley. But those people, who were spectators, wouldn’t be counted as attendees in the stadium which would also explain the wide variation in how the number was reported at the time. I have seen old footage of the crowd and it looked gigantic, even bigger than the modern shows aside from North Korea. You know the saying that people were jammed in like sardines, well in this case, they really were. It also should be noted Wikipedia listed the capacity for the stadium as 80,000 during that period and it was clearly sold out and there was an overflow because of the way they gimmicked tickets to overflow capacity. But Johnson’s research indicates 70,000 as the number of ticketed spectators at the show.

How should we view Steve Johnson's research? WaimiriMaina (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this. My initial reaction is to count the spectators on the hillside as attendees, since it strikes me as somewhat arbitrary to only count attendees as those who made it through the stadium gate: if you watched the show live in-person, you attended. But I don't have a strong feeling on this. Drickfire (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Just for the sake of comparison, do we have a point of reference for how these kinds of spectators are counted in records for other sports? Racing, for example, often has lot of people watching from greenspaces around the track. Njiska (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Great question. I don't know. I would be in favor of handling it like other sports do. Drickfire (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Doing a quick search for Steve Johnson, I see article that says the Cauliflower Alley Club gave him a historian award in 2022. Here is his profile. I'd say he counts as a reliable source for this number, once his book comes out. Semicorrect (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed WaimiriMaina (talk) 05:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

aew real attendence

we now know the real attendance was 72,265 https://old.reddit.com/r/SquaredCircle/comments/16hzbas/aew_all_ins_turnstile_count_was_72265_according/Muur (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

That isn't "real" attendance number though, only the turnstile count as reported by the local council. The same source was asked later about full attendance, and bumped up the number by over ten thousand. AEW's reported number of paid attendance is between those two totals. Simply going by the turnstile number of the gates ignores all other methods of payment, other methods of entry, and other methods of ticketing. This page has also been a source of people with WWE-centric agendas trying to downplay AEW's statistics (such as the Rolling Loud attendance), so an average/aggregate amount would be more accurate. Reporting paid attendance solely by turnstile count is both inaccurate and in bad faith.Snerp111 (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

no, that was a fake source of a guy making stuff up. there was no second time asking them.Muur (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Replace Actual and Marketed Attendance with Verified and Claimed attendance

At first these headings made sense, but now we have a real paid tickets number in the marketed column and we can't agree what number should count for actual attendance (Paid, turnstile, people in seats). Maybe it would be easier and more accurate to have a Verified Attendance column, for figures independently verified by a WikiProject reliable source, and a Claimed Attendance column for numbers released by the promoter. Njiska (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

actual attendance and marked attendance are just fine. Any way you polish it, a turds is still a turd 2600:100E:B081:C4A4:0:47:88B9:2401 (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Please cite your sources on something being "a turd", because your opinion isn't a reason to change recorded totals.Snerp111 (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Dave Meltzer and Bryan Alvarez

Should those two even be used as sources as they are biased and not credible? Shouldn't we be using real journalists as sources, not glorified fans? 2600:100E:B081:C4A4:0:47:88B9:2401 (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed endlessly at WP:PW and there presently isn't any consensus to remove them from WP:PW/RS. — Czello ^(music) 12:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)