User talk:Jason Rees

Jason Rees's Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

• Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
• Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
• Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.

Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2026 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here, and a bot will set up your submissions page within one day, ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.

For the 2026 WikiCup, the highest-ranking contestants will receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. This is the same scoring system that we had last year. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants are no longer eliminated at the end of each round.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the MFR's data update on Grant, and their data states that Grant actually dissipated on January 7, but the last warning they gave Grant was on January 5. So which is the correct date of Grant's demise? I hope you can clarify this. Can you check it ? http://www.meteo.fr/temps/domtom/La_Reunion/webcmrs9.0/anglais/activiteope/data/20252026/2025RE05.html Vệ Thần ^{- Talk} 02:44, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder: have you overlooked the Camille review that is awaiting feedback? There is a bit of a natural-sciences GA backlog and every article helps. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CapeVerdeWave: I haven't overlooked it - just been super busy in real life thanks to working in retail. If you wish to take it over your more than welcome to.Jason Rees (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Hurricanes in Guanajuato indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly is NEUMANN data not able to be used? It is 1-min and officially on IBTRACS. I’ve been using it because it was already used to update many old SHEM cyclone tracks prior to when I started working to update the tracks (ie Uma 1987, and basically every storm from 1985 AUS), so I assumed it was what I was supposed to do. A lot of the tracks I’ve uploaded have used NEUMANN data so it will take a while but I can go back and correct these if needed, especially now that Sanoxel made a script to read the data and convert to ATCF2 files. Sria-72 (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sria-72: NEUMANN Data is fine to be used for creating track maps (RSMC/TCWC should be used primarily, ideally though), but should not be used to superseed NHC/JTWC's 1-minute winds recorded in the various infoboxes which is what you were trying to do.Jason Rees (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does this also appply to pre-1990 storms? A lot of old storms especially in the AUS were completely different using NEUMANN and JTWC data, and had already been updated to use neumann data by other users. Sria-72 (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Between 1980 & 1990 the answer is Yes, as the JTWC/NPMOC issued warnings on systems at the time. Pre 1980, I would query why we need to present a 1-minute wind estimate, when the JTWC/NPMOC did not warn on systems.Jason Rees (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]