Jump to content

Talk:National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

problem with dates..

[edit]

the article says the NOAA was started in the 1970's by richard nixon, but a picture right next to it shows meteorologists working for the NOAA in the "early 20th century". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.100.143 (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon restructured a whole bunch of departments and merged heaps into the NOAA. That picture is of the National Weather Service, probably back before the NWS took over the Department of Agriculture's Weather Bureau. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IT SAYS THEY WERE WORKING FOR THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE, FOUNDED IN 1870, NOT THE NOAA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.172.43 (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at NOOAs home page they say 1807. I heard Thomas Jefferson started it but haven't found the source yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.81.46 (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
found it
"NOAA, an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department, is celebrating 200 years of science and service to the nation. From the establishment of the Survey of the Coast in 1807 by Thomas Jefferson to the formation of the Weather Bureau and the Commission of Fish and Fisheries in the 1870s, much of America's scientific heritage is rooted in NOAA. NOAA is dedicated to enhancing economic security and national safety through the prediction and research of weather and climate-related events and information service delivery for transportation, and by providing environmental stewardship of the nation's coastal and marine resources. Through the emerging Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), NOAA is working with its federal partners, more than 60 countries and the European Commission to develop a global monitoring network that is as integrated as the planet it observes, predicts and protects."
from their magazine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.81.46 (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separate NOAA divisions from main NOAA page

[edit]

Is there any objection to separating the NOAA divisions (for example: NWS and NESDIS) into their own Wikipedia entries and linking to them from the NOAA entry? If we add all of NOAA's divisions onto this one page, it is going to get really crowded. It also appears that NWS and NESDIS have enough info to be the start of a credible entry on their own. NMFS, OAR and NURP need a little more work to be more than stubs but they should warrant their own pages soon enough. Epolk 15:38, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to that - it makes sense to me. ottergoose 18:55, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Budget(s)?

[edit]

Some mention of the annual budget figures related to NOAA would be useful. Allenc28 — Preceding undated comment added 06:56, 23 October 2005

I read on think progress that they were spending $4Mil on their PR campaign but they just cut 700K from hurricane research--68.199.89.41 02:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

miami wikiproject

[edit]

For some reason this article was labeled as part of Miami wikiproject. While NOAA is important to us here in South Florida, so is the Post Office, the IRS, and the Air Force. None of them should be a part of Miami wikiproject. GroveGuy (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how about adding some critique section?

[edit]

[1] 178.148.10.191 (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 October 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There appears to be agreement that the acronym is used more often than the full name, but there is no consensus on the important question of whether the applicable policies support moving the page or not. (non-admin closure) IffyChat -- 13:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]



National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNOAA – It is a more common name per Google Ngram. Also, NOAA is widely used in media, and it appears more than the full name in online search. NOAA is a commonly recognised abbreviation that is unlikely to have confusion. Given that NASA is an example, I am here to suggest this rename. B dash (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 23:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per NASA example. CookieMonster755 21:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The nominator is correct. This agency is commonly referred to as NOOA in academic circles (see for example here). Den... (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. As an encyclopedia, we should use an organization's common name, not its abbreviation, as a title, unless the full name is rarely used, which is not the case here. Station1 (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:NCA states "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject" and "In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title". Both of these criteria appear to be met with this agency. AusLondonder (talk) 06:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Similar to other organizations commonly known primarily by their initials such as NASA, NATO, UNESCO, etc. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - these are always judgement calls, but the OPs ngram result is just too close to justify use of the acronym. The NASA ngram for comparison shows a much greater degree of usage disparity, and the NOAA case just isn't even close to that level. -- Netoholic @ 16:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Netoholic. I think that formulation of the requirement in WP:NCA that the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation presents a higher bar than being just more common in sources (well, most abbreviations will be more common than full titles). I don't think NOAA is there, and it's surely [edit: NOT] so world-renown as the counterexamples given. No such user (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. With very few exceptions, we prefer full names over acronyms or abbreviations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2 July 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move. (non-admin closure)YoungForever(talk) 16:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]



National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNOAAWP:COMMONNAME. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 16:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy oppose per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. Wtf no, the common name of this is the full name, NASA is not an appropriate comparison. Reywas92Talk 08:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Headquarters location

[edit]

Currently, the headquarters are listed in Silver Spring, Maryland with a note of a needed citation. So I looked it up on the NOAA website and on the contact page (https://www.noaa.gov/contact-us), it has an address in Washington D.C. Is it located in D.C. or is that just a mailing address? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshmallo3535 (talkcontribs) 00:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The mailing address is located at the Dept. of Commerce in Washington, DC (along with a few small offices). However, the primary operational/administrative headquarters has been located in Silver Spring for the last 30 years. Similarly, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a mailing address at the Dept. of Energy in DC, but maintains its actual headquarters in North Bethesda, MD. Somerset7 (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Project 2025 and the future of NOAA

[edit]

From page 664 of the Project 2025 manifesto:

"The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should be dismantled and many of its functions eliminated, privatized, or placed under the control of states and territories.".   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOAA is not the "National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration". Literally not even the agency name. Yes, Project 2025 does say that exact phrase. However, if you had bothered to actually read into it, as explained in the edit summary I reverted you in, along with The Guardian, it means to get rid of the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, which is a branch of NOAA, and by definition, would "dismantle it". If you are going to actually write it on Wikipedia, you need to word and actually explain it properly and not WP:CHERRYPICK a single sentence and call it good. I am going to re-revert. You are free to add the information back so long as it is worded and explained properly. Saying "Project 2025 has proposed abolishing NOAA", while true, is cherrypicked and missing context, which is even cited by those same sources. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To help you out, I went ahead and re-added the content with the correct context and wording. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]