Talk:Chess World Cup 2025

Seeds and etc.

@~2025-33105-53 Instead of pulling assumptions out of nowhere, can you tell my why you're so adamant on putting every single seed into that section? To answer you directly, no I am not diminishing their achievements, they are all assigned a seed based on their rating. This is also done in tennis, badminton and etc. to distinguish the competitors. If we started putting every player's seed for the other sports (e.g. tennis), the list will go on longer than it needs to. The seeds should be cut off at 50 as under the current format, these 50 players have been given byes due to their rating. This holds more weight then including everyone else's seed which becomes repetitive and hard to follow for a general reader.

Furthermore, rather than having to scroll down 16 different sections to edit the bracket for the latter rounds, I purposefully moved it up so a general reader can navigate the information that matters for the lede and more broadly, the qualification for the Candidates Tournament. Rather than jump straight to the emotional appeal (which isn't particularly relevant), I am making the edits for brevity and for efficiency reasons. General readers can still check the brackets as the names haven't been removed, but just reverting it by just saying "it's not badminton" is frankly ridiculous considering I've provided reasons for my edits. SpyroeBM (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Having all seeds allows readers to quickly navigate to their sections with one click. Bircheq (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bircheq Whilst I'm inclined to agree, it also proves to clutter up the section, especially with the inclusion of the italics which provides the reader of when the player was eliminated. Most of the players (especially in the lower seeds) tend to be eliminated out of Round 1, and the 50 players who received byes is more standout rather than adding every single seed. You see it in Wikipedia pages relating to tennis grand slams (e.g. Wimbeldon) and other single-elimination tournaments, where a certain fraction of seeds are mentioned as those seeds reflect the top players of the tournament (rather than adding every single other player who are asssigned seeds based off their ranking). Furthermore, I'd argue this practice is also used on the top open players of the FIDE rankings, where 20 players are shown for each section instead of 100. It's not done to diminish the others on that list, but to prove a succinct and simple table for general readers to understand.

On the point of brackets, I strongly believe that having the latter rounds bracket above is important, as the page currently has 16 sections with brackets of 4 rounds. Rather than having to scroll every single time to the bottom to access this, it would be beneficial for both editors and readers to see the information at the top. Once again, this is utilised in other single-elimination brackets and it also proves to be important for a reader to understand how the bracket unfolds in relation to the qualification to the Candidates tournament. SpyroeBM (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

This World Cup has seen many upsets from lower seeds; what do you mean? If a lower seed ends up winning, it would be ridiculous in hindsight to omit them from the listing.

Virtually every major sport playoff displays their results in chronological order. And if a reader wanted to view the results of the later rounds, they can simply view the Rounds 5-8 section. Bircheq (talk) 12:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

And in the case of lower seeds causing upsets or even a lower seed winning the tournament, it would warrant it's own paragraph in the lede or etc. Why would you include that information in the seeds, where there is 206 entries? The formatting when including said number of entries is already too cluttered (take the seeding information of the World Darts Championship 2025 as an example). Lower seeds winning events isn't uncommon (e.g. in tennis grand slams) but your taking that point as a argument of putting 205 (including the top ranked 50 seeds) other entries into a section, which with all due respect, is ridiculous.

Furthermore, your point about every major sport playoff displaying it in chronological order is questionable at best. Taking the commonly cited example in this page about tennis, badminton, NFL playoffs, NBA playoffs, FIFA World Cup and especially the World Darts Championship, the bracket that is significant to the outcome (in this case the Candidates Tournament) is placed above the preliminary entities as it is more important than showing 16 sections of rounds 1-4 which does not matter as much as the final rounds (5-8). Wikipedia policy, specifically the technique section of the summary page highlights that "Sections that are less important for understanding the topic will tend to be lower in the article, while more important sections will tend to be higher, except for articles on history or that are otherwise chronologically based, unless there is some type of analysis section. Ordering sections in this way is important because many readers will not finish reading the article.". Hence, the bracket from rounds 5-8 should be higher in the article. SpyroeBM (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

By that logic, why bother putting in any preliminary rounds? Why bother displaying any of the first four rounds, when in actuality people are curious how a top seed was eliminated early? The truth is that players outside of the top 50 are very close in strength and hold many popular names as well, if not more. Your concern that the page is too cluttered is moot.

You clearly did not do your research. The 2024-25 NFL playoffs page have sections ordered Wild Card Playoffs, Divisional playoffs, Conference Championships, Super Bowl. Similarly, the 2022 FIFA World Cup wiki is ordered chronologically. And virtually all the other wikis. If you have a problem with that, go ahead and edit those articles. Bircheq (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Where are you getting the idea that I'm saying that the preliminary rounds are not important enough to be kept in the article? You're clearly pulling anything out of thin air so let me break it down for you, I've simply stated that the bracket that contains the fifth round and the finals is more important than the preliminary rounds as it highlights the rounds that relates to Candidates qualification, in no way shape or form did I say that it should be removed, but the latter rounds bracket should be placed above the rounds 1-4 bracket (which is done for most single-elimination tournaments). Speaking of examples, I've done my research, more than you in fact as the 2024–25 NFL playoffs page has the bracket first then the other stuff so on that point you're just plain wrong. On the point of the 2022 FIFA World Cup, it is not comparable as it uses a group stage, unlike the Chess World Cup which uses single-elimination throughout the entire tournament (did I mention the part about the fact that this page uses 16 preliminary brackets that isn't as relevant (but shouldn't be deleted)?). Also on your point about the strength of top 50 players thing, it's pretty common in other sports (e.g. tennis, badminton) but you don't see them including every single seed.

Furthermore, where do you get off telling me what I should and what I shouldn't edit on Wikipedia? Because as far as I'm concerned, you're too busy telling me what I should and shouldn't do when you can't dispute the fact that the formatting for single-elimination competitions has the finals bracket above the preliminary brackets. Considering I haven't given an opinion on what you should edit on Wikipedia, I'd recommend you do the same. As far as I'm concerned, it's reasonable to put the finals bracket above the preliminary, but truthfully you're just stubborn on it for some reason. But sure, pull out the strawman arguments and tone about what I should do on Wikipedia :). SpyroeBM (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Also since you want more examples, the 2025 World Snooker Championship (which uses single-elimination throughout) puts the main draw (rounds 5-8) and the final over the qualifiying draw (rounds 1-4), so your whole argument about chronological is in fact, moot. SpyroeBM (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I can only presume you think displaying all 206 players is cumbersome due to its length, yes? Naturally, the bracket with its 206 elements in vertical length is equally cumbersome by your argument.

This article does not cover every match game-by-game like the NFL playoffs. The NFL bracket is still displayed chronologically, and the finals are not displayed first, so it is hypocritical of you to want the final rounds posted before the initial ones. The snooker article is a poor example because there is a distinct main tournament, which is not the case for the World Cup, in case it isn't evident to you. Bircheq (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah the bracket isn't big enough to host all 8 rounds, hence why it's split up. Even still, rounds 5-8 includes the quarterfinals and etc so that holds more weight than rounds 1-4 for practical and formatting reasons. Also another good example is the 2025 Men's World Squash Championship and 2025 Women's World Squash Championship that split the brackets up (as just to let you know, there is no physical way of putting 8 rounds into a single bracket on Wikipedia) and even better, does not include the seed of everyone due to brevity. Also on your NFL point, I mentioned that the bracket itself (yes the bracket) is above the text that explains the rounds before it as whether it's the NFL playoffs, squash, snooker, darts, tennis and badminton world championships, the bracket that relates a lot closer to the end result in regards to single-elimination brackets. I'll take the point about the snooker thing on the chin, but in all senses you're just wrong to say that a majority of single-elimination tournaments have the preliminary rounds over the final rounds SpyroeBM (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about single elimination tournaments? Even if you did show me numerous counterexamples, the gist of what I said was that the general sports playoff article utilizes chronological order, which provides ease of search for the general reader in most contexts and follows guidelines of adhering to the styles of similarly written articles. Unlike other sports, chess is very much a "bookkeeping" sport, so it isn't surprising to me that most chess articles tabulate every player and result. As for your concern about removing the lower seeded players, it isn't uncommon for readers to look up the results of lower seeds including the prodigy Erdogmus, or the elite legend Ivanchuk. That's what the lookup is for in seed templates. Bircheq (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah you didn't, but I did as the format of the Chess World Cup is a 206 player and 8 round single-elimination tournament. And the examples given are single-elimination tournaments hence why I used them (did I mention that I did my research as well?), so your point of general sports playoffs isn't exactly relevant to the fact that most sole single-elimination formatted tournaments have the latter end of rounds above the preliminary rounds. There is no group stage in the Chess World Cup nor in my examples, there is a large single elimination bracket.

To cater to general readers and for easier readability in relation to the outcome (e.g. Candidates qualification), the bracket that contains the latter rounds is put at the top, as it becomes important to follow at the latter end of the tournament (rather than having to go through the 16 sections of brackets to find this information). I stress once again, the rounds 1-4 bracket is important, but not as important as the rounds 5-8 bracket as that linked to the lede flows better than seperating it and to a general reader, they would look for the bracket that shows the results.

On the topic of seeds, I am willing to make a concession on this point, as your point about tracking other players out of the top 50 is fair enough. The only thing I was concerned about was the presentation of the article, hence it would be best to have the list of seeds in a collapsible table so it isn't an constant eye-sore for readers of this article (due to the number of entries).

But as evident on the formatting universally used for single-elimination tournaments on Wikipedia for different sports, the latter rounds should be above the preliminary rounds. Also, I will add that on the snooker point, whilst the qualifying and main draw of the championship are two different tournaments (both single-elimination), the main draw bracket (round 1 to the final) is above the qualifying bracket as for the general reader, they would be looking at the bracket that succinctly shows the results of the tournament. SpyroeBM (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Evidently the Chess World Cup hasn't been written like that. On the topic of single elimination, the Super Bowl isn't listed above the wild card section, the World Series isn't written before the wild card series, and the FIFA World Cup final isn't above the round of 16 knockouts. So no, your claim isn't true.

The Candidates is a separate tournament. In an article that details the Chess World Cup, it follows that the text should function as a standalone and adhere to general article guidelines (which are taken from similarly written articles), and hence is written round by round (chronologically), not primarily in reference to another tournament altogether. Bircheq (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Please get these points through your head, 1. The bracket itself for the Super Bowl is above the other parts of the article, as it would get buried underneath the explanations of the game (hence why it's above, for a general reader to understand without having to go through said wall of text). 2. As I explained, the football World Cup has two chronological stages, a group stage and a knockout stage. This is different to the Chess World Cup, as the group stage is needed to determine the knockout stage whilst the CWC is a single large elimination tournament. The Chess World Cup is solely a single-elimination tournament. 3. All three of your examples have one thing in common, the single-elimination bracket is above the wall of text. Your examples are not relatable in the slightless and it makes me question why you're so confident on using this when the tournament is completely different. As I mentioned before, it is not a coincidence that tournaments that are solely single-elimination mostly use the formatting where the latter rounds are above the preliminary rounds (e.g. notably individual events in tennis, squash, badminton, snooker, darts). You talk about article guidelines, yet I've told you that specifically the technique section of the summary page highlights that "Sections that are less important for understanding the topic will tend to be lower in the article, while more important sections will tend to be higher, except for articles on history or that are otherwise chronologically based, unless there is some type of analysis section. Ordering sections in this way is important because many readers will not finish reading the article." So I ask you, what guidelines do you refer to? SpyroeBM (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

2024 European Championship (darts). PSA Masters 2011. 2018-2020 World Boxing Super Series cruiserweight division. No wall of text. You can't claim that sole single elim tournaments mostly have finals written above preliminary rounds when prominent tournament articles still adhere to the traditional format. You are actually the one strawmanning chess when in fact knockout chess tournaments like the World Cup, FIDE knockouts, and Speed Chess Championship have always been written in one bracket, and in order to boot. The wiki manual of style for layout specifies that "the usual practice is to order body sections based on the precedent of similar articles". You can't make claims by comparing badminton and squash when the multitude of other chess articles follow the same layout. Bircheq (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

You said it yourself; sections only tend to be shifted except when it is otherwise chronologically based. Bircheq (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Those examples are not the same as the Chess World Cup (CWC), the 2024 European Championship and PSA Masters 2011 does not have as many rounds as the CWC (hence why the CWC split into different brackets). If you're telling me a bracket that has 32 participants and 5 total rounds (including the finals) is the same as a 206 participant bracket and 8 total rounds, then with all due respect you're just completely wrong. Also notice how the PSA Masters 2011 only has 8 seeds shown rather than assigning every single person a seed. If my math is right, 206 is bigger than 32 and if you're telling me putting in 206 entries for seeds in one section is efficient and good for presentation then once again, you're just plain wrong.

Maybe instead of throwing a bunch of pasta at the wall and hoping something will stick, you actually give me proper examples of this being done. At least with the examples I provide (i.e. 2025 PDC World Darts Championship and all of the tennis grand slam pages and badminton tournament pages), it takes into account that a high number of participants would need to have the latter rounds bracket over the preliminary rounds as it is more important to a general reader rather than burying it down at the bottom of the page. But sure, tell me I'm cherrypicking when it took me a whopping 30 seconds to find out that your examples are not even close in comparison to the size of the Chess World Cup. Try again. SpyroeBM (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Also on the note of your chess examples, the whole point of this discussion is to reform the chess knockout pages for a general reader. The Speed Chess Championship once again does not have as many participants as the Chess World Cup so that is not relevant to this discussion (206 is bigger than 32)., also the World Rapid and Blitz has two stages, a swiss and a knockout stage. The CWC only has one big single elimination bracket. Going onto the FIDE World Championship pages with a knockout bracket, that also falls in line with the problems exhibited in the CWC pages, hence why it's important to improve it. SpyroeBM (talk) 08:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

2021 US Open Pool Championship. It is curious how convenient readers can navigate to the Round 5-8 section to peruse the later rounds, isn't it? Curious how no other individual has brought up any complaints regarding article length or organization. Please explain to me how it is so difficult for you to find the results of the final 16. Your current argument has vastly derailed from your initial complaint in light of your own words and the endless counterexamples. It is amusing how you try to justify not using chronological order when the guidelines clearly specify as such, and there exist articles with even more participants that still follow the basic logic of organization. By all means, continue to devise a new excuse to support a pointless argument if it means you find some kind of solace against the rudimentary. Bircheq (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Once again for your sake can you find some examples with some sort of history on Wikipedia please. I was curious, so I checked out the other pages for the U.S. Open Pool Championship and turns out ever since 1976-2025 there's only 5 pages made. Not only that, most of them don't even have a bracket in them and one of them (2010) doesn't even have any sources so it does not meet Wikipedia guidelines to be on Wikipedia itself (hence why no other pages have been made beyond 2021).

To answer your questions, 1. It's not hard to find the round of 16 but structurally and for presentation purposes it does not make any sense to put a whole lump sum of brackets (in your example a 128 player double elimination tournaments that has a whopping total of 11 brackets with 5 rounds each) above the bracket that actually relates closer to outcome (which is the finals bracket). 2. I've mantained this argument throughout this whole discussion (hence why I made the edit in the first place), and judging by the fact that it is commonly used in other Wikipedia spaces for single-elimination tournaments (refer to my examples), there is a reason it has become the standard. 3. Chess, like many other sports on Wikipedia, should be catered towards a general reader. You see it in news reports that they are not going to mention every single seed (in regards to CWC 2025 here are the sources:) that highlights the top 50 seeds of the event (no the number is not arbitrary), and that, alongside the fact that many other single-elimination articles (including some you included used as examples) cut the seeds to a select amount for readability sake.

On the basis you've offered no attempt of proper discussion with a lack of examples and have even gone to the case of suggesting I edit other articles (which is borderline gatekeeping), I'm inclined to believe you are reverting my edits just to be disruptive. Hence, I will seek other avenues to find a solution to this matter. SpyroeBM (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

You can continue to move the goalposts all you like, but the normative practice is to display the rounds in chronological order. Your disruptive actions are quite telling when all your mass edits get reverted. Please look at any chess bracket article like the ones I mentioned before accusing me of not yielding relevant examples. Bircheq (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I personally find it greatly convenient that all 206 seeds are included, in a tournament that has been as full of upsets as this one.

And since I reverted the change from qualifying information to round of knockout too, after seeing that it had been done for the pre-2025 World Cups: I also think it is better to keep the information about how the players got qualified. When the players got eliminated is redundant (you can see it by clicking down to their seed bracket, at least unless they survive to the top 16), and removing this information makes the qualifier explanation section rather out of place. Double sharp (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Double sharp Whilst I agree on upsets being an important factor, the only thing that stands out is that by putting all 206 seeds, it makes the section look oversaturated and clunky with information. As done in other single-elimination tournaments (notably the tennis grand slams and darts world championship), the seeds have been cut to a smaller number to show the top players (and subsequently the rounds they're eliminated) which helps a reader to understand the upsets that happen in the tournament whilst keeping the section relatively light with information (e.g. Gukesh eliminated in third round, reader can select the seed to find out who eliminated him).

On the point about qualification methods, it seems too intricate in detail for a general reader to fully comprehend nor care about (in my opinion). Specifically, parts about the zonals and etc seem a bit too specific and with the fact that it's abbreviated doesn't particularly stand out as something important compared to a brief part about the round that they've been eliminated in.

Futhermore, having the finals bracket above helps provide a quick and easy way of navigating to the results that are more important to the end result (those who have qualified to the Candidates). If I could get your opinion on that, it'll be greatly appreciated. SpyroeBM (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

The order of round-by-round is fine as it is. It's easier to read that way. There isn't anything inherently special or different about the final rounds with regards to the FIDE World Cup. It is already stated in the format section about the details involving the Candidates qualification spots. ~2025-33651-44 (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree. To me it defies logic that the last four rounds should be placed before the first four. One reads from left to right and top to bottom; if round 1 comes before round 2, then it should also come before round 5. Double sharp (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Fine, but it seems redundant to put all 206 seeds into "participants" section. A seed is given to everyone, and you see other pages put a cutoff in the seeds to show the top players of the event whilst providing a general reader an idea of the upsets that take place. I'd also argue that news reports about the event () would only mention the top 20 or 50 players in the tournaments to engage with readers. Why should Wikipedia be different? The seeds 51-206 are still in the bracket, but having to list every single seed alongside their abbreviation of how they qualified is too intricate in detail to care about and takes up more space in an article that is long in length already. Single-elimination knockout chess tournaments on Wikipedia are the only pages to do this sort of thing, and it would be beneficial in my opinion to follow the standard implemented in other single-elimination tournaments. Genuinely curious, and if the consensus goes against this point, then I have no qualms. SpyroeBM (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

A3881, Adpete, Bruce leverett, Dev Darshan T. K., MaxBrowne, Quale, Abhishek.5678, Nojus R, Dr. Thogan Strange, US Referee, Caruri, Thunderclaw 17, Hillyrrr, Mocmuk, ErisGHW, Grubendol, C.Fred et al., your opinion on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, SpyroeBM (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

The World Cup has a lot of players so the full list of players is long and I understand the opinion that it should be cut off to be more manageable. Also it's worthwhile to consider the practice of the tennis project and it is informative, but it isn't determinative to what chess tournament pages must do. I don't follow tennis but my impression is that upsets are far more common in chess events of this kind than they are in tennis. We already have the sitting world champion and #1 seed beaten by #64, #4 lost to #61, and #5 lost to #133. I didn't realize that the seed numbers in the players list were linked to the brackets--that's very cool. As noted by another editor this cam make it much easier to find a specific player in the tournament brackets. I think the article should have the full list of players. Quale (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

SpyroeBM I recommend you to implement that style on pages of other sports where it could work out but not here as I feel there is no necessity for that. For many years the pages of Chess World Cups have followed a single type of style and changing it would cause frustration among readers rather than aiding them and I can remind to you that you are getting such type of responses here too. Just keep things simple as they are, readers can easily adapt to this style as they even know what kind of page they are reading. And you must also look at pages of other sports with knockout format, mostly from Olympics or their World championships and you will find this similar style used, so no need of converting that and its awesome too. Also the entire participants list is mainly there for helping readers to locate sections of any particular player which I think people must be more aware about it now because previously the "seeds explanation" tag used to be below the participants list which made it seem like it didn't exist but for this year I myself shifted it upwards and now it defines the purpose of keeping the entire participants lists. And the pathways mentioned within that is also part of the tournament which you are replacing. Dude people aren't too dumb to figure out about final result of a player from the players list. Abhishek.5678 (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

206 players is not the same as at the rapid and blitz World Championships or the European Championships, where there are more than 350. With a knock-out system, all 206 players are important because they participate in the tournament. Lodici lost to Sevyan in the 1/16 finals, while in the second half of the table his starting place was 119 out of 206. Grebnev is in 86th place and has already reached 1/8. Thus, there are no clear criteria by which we will reduce the initial list of participants. Mocmuk (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Mocmuk on this, all 206 players are of equal importance, and there is no clear criteria by which the list of participants would be reduced. Thunderclaw 17 (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I am OK with the present format. But the explanations of the abbreviations must come before the abbreviations are used, not after. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Here is another suggestion. Perhaps the list of participants could be a table, with columns for name, nationality, title, rating, and path to qualification. It would then be easier to read, and easier to find things in. There could be an additional column for which round the player was eliminated in. Each column could be sortable, so one might find all US players, or all players eliminated after 2 rounds. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, exactly this. I was also thinking that the list would be better as a sortable table. I would add two to four columns including the round the player was eliminated in as you suggest and also the player they lost to (possibly with match score). (Sorting by the player lost to would put all of the player's won matches together.) Other possible column additions would be FIDE ID with a link to the player card on ratings.fide.com (as done in our GMs list article) and maybe year of birth. (FIDE lists birth year on their page https://worldcup2025.fide.com/participants/ which shows that this is information they think will be of interest, so not simply an unusual Wikipedia fixation.) To be useful the name column would have to sort on last name which can be done in several ways. Quale (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I am having trouble with this. The seeds template is not compatible with the wikitable class. An invocation of that template in the first column of the table causes the data for the remaining columns to be jammed into the first column, along with all the separating pairs of vertical bars. I will complain about this some place, unless someone reading this knows what my problem is and/or how to fix it. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

You can ask about {{seeds}} but my thought is to dispense with the template and simply write the piped link by hand. {{seed|2|3}} is just a templated way to write [[#Section 3|2.]] which doesn't seem too hard. Plus seeds includes that period/full stop after the seed number which we don't want in a table. Possibly split the section to a separate column and link from there since the magic link from seed # to section is slightly surprising to me because the link doesn't actually take you directly to the player bracket, you have to find it within the section. A link on section # wouldn't give unmet expectations. Quale (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I think every participant deserves to appear on the page. Perhaps it would be useful to put seeds 51–206 into a separate collapsible section if there are concerns about page clutter. US Referee (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it is good to have all 206 players listed and I don't see the point of culling cited material. I agree with Bruce Leverett that the abbreviations should be before. In fact the whole subsection "qualifier explanation" should be before; because logically the method of qualification belongs before the list of qualifiers. I'd also like to see some prose text; in particular why many top players didn't play. Adpete (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

References