User talk:Jason Rees

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 72, November–December 2025

• Renewed partnerships
• Spotlight: Strengthening Wikimedia Collaborations with and for Open Science

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:Jason Rees and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Is it okay if I transfer my user drafts into your user space? Given your knowledge of tropical cyclones in the Southern Hemisphere, I believe these drafts are more likely to be improved and submitted by you or someone else in your user space. FourNoddlers (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The first round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As some of you may have noticed, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. This point increase has been retroactively applied to all good article reviews for which competitors have claimed points in this round. Peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 1 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 300 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1,467 round points, largely gained from 1 featured article, 5 featured lists, 15 good articles, and 42 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Olliefant (submissions) with 1,246 round points, largely from 4 featured lists, 9 good articles, 2 featured topic articles, 4 did you know articles, and 75 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,095 round points, largely from 3 featured articles, 6 good articles, and 5 did you know articles;
• MCE89 (submissions) with 848 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 32 FAC and GAN reviews; and
• Rollinginhisgrave (submissions) with 838 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 14 FAC, GAN, and peer reviews.

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 7 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 168 good articles, 13 good-topic articles and more than 50 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 14 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 700 reviews. The tournament points table will be updated within the next few days.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. 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) 14:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 73, January–February 2026

• Four new partnerships
• User survey thanks

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:Jason Rees and is being posted here due to a redirect.)