Talk:Bureau of Meteorology

Australia Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Bureau of Meteorology is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Weather: Tropical / General High‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the General meteorology task force (assessed as High-importance).

Why[edit]

is this article titled "Bureau of Meteorology (Australia"? As far as I can see it is the only one. I mean we don't call "Federal Bureau of Investigation" "Federal Bureau of Investigation (United States)" or "Met Office" "Met Office (United Kingdom) do we? Silent Billy (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is named that way because of the guidelines in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Guidelines for government departments, agencies, and officials. However, here is the guideline as it was at the time of the page move in 2006, and Neutrality has recently rewritten it and added a clause saying that there's no need to add the country name in the title if the organisation's name is unique or a primary topic. I happen to agree with this assessment, and it's the way things are in practice on Wikipedia. Therefore, I will move the page back to the title "Bureau of Meteorology" in three days if there are no objections on this talk page. Graham87 01:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Graham87 14:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the title requires a further change to ensure that it is visible to the greatest audience in particular the Australian public. Whilst the title is correct the majority of Australian's refer to the Bureau of Meteorology as BOM. Search results in Google Insights clearly indicates this. I would like to recommend that the title be changed to "Bureau of Meteorology (BOM)" to ensure the greatest level of visibility of the page. Zeroanarchy (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, but that is completely non-standard in Wikipedia – compare the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which is almost always known as CSIRO. Graham87 10:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BOM or BoM[edit]

Getting a few Wikipedians who say it is BoM. Right now the article reads BOM. So which is right? Also I would like to know how 'BOM' came onto this page in the first place.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See my response at the place where you had this discussion per your contribs, Talk:2020–21 Australian region cyclone season#BoM or BOM. Graham87 06:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No idea which is right? I'm adding a discussion here to attract more discussion if more people are only watching this page...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BOM Influenced by O&G[edit]

@Graham87 Per WP:MOSLEAD: "The lead should ... summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." This is quite a significant controversy, so it should be included in the lead. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DiamondIIIXX: A far more widely cited part of the lead section guideline is "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." ... "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The importance of a part of the article is not determined by your personal opinion, but how it is covered in reliable sources; apart from the Michael West reference, I can't find any evidence of coverage of this controversy anywhere that could vaguely be considered reliable by Wikipedia ... not even the ABC. Graham87 02:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the lack of coverage, Michael West Media is still respected as a collection of independent journalists. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... Which is why I moved the text without getting rid of it outright. Graham87 09:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Number of weather stations[edit]

Hello everyone! It would be great that we get the number of weather stations that manages the Bureau of Meteorology, to add to this article. Regards. 186.132.232.94 (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would require constant updating and be much more trouble than it's worth, in my opinion. The Bureau of Meteorology already provides dynamically updated lists like this. Graham87 03:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A similar question was posted at Talk:Météo-France. Graham87 03:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]