Jump to content

Talk:Silicon Valley

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 213.127.210.95 (talk) at 12:54, 21 June 2018 (Attention drawn to superfluous word ("For for") in the article that doesn't appear on the "edit" page.~~~~). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MayowaObatuase (article contribs).

New format for Notable companies

Since the "list" is getting so long, how does everyone feel about changing the list to something like this:

Adaptec | Adobe Systems | Advanced Micro Devices | Agilent | Altera | Apple Computer | Applied Materials | Atmel | BEA Systems | Cadence Design Systems | Cisco Systems | Cypress Semiconductor | eBay | Electronic Arts | Google | Handspring | Hewlett-Packard | Intel | Intuit | Knight-Ridder | Juniper Networks | Maxtor | McAfee | National Semiconductor | Network Appliance | NVIDIA Corporation | Oracle Corporation | Palm, Inc. | PalmOne, Inc. | PayPal | Rambus | Silicon Graphics | Sun Microsystems | Symantec | Synopsys | Tivo | Verisign | Yahoo!

I've seen this done elsewhere in the 'pedia for lists that get... well... really long. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:19, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't object. Elf | Talk 23:14, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Done. :-) Actually, now I want to do the same thing to the list of cities, but I'll wait for any backlash regarding this change first. — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:49, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Actually the change got me thinking that one issue is the word "notable". So I looked up the Forbes 500 and broke the list into 2 pieces; now the first part isn't arguable. :-) I did NOT look thru the whole 500 list to try to figure out whether there are SV companies that aren't on our list. Someone could do that, but it might be challenging... Also I could argue that any company that has ever been on the Forbes 500 (or Fortune 500, I suppose) should be listed here... because otherwise it would have to be checked every year, and things like PayPal, which I think got bought by eBay, would disappear from the list whereas it's interesting to note that they were started in SV orginally. Elf | Talk 20:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First picture should be a map

The first picture is just San Jose suburban sprawl with no landmarks indicated. But a picture is worth a thousand words alongside the text explaining what cities it comprises. Something like Google Maps's picture, but showing all the mentioned cities, Highway 101, and San Francisco. Easier said than done, I know, I don't know how to edit the map at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/South_Bay_(SF),_California :-) -- Skierpage (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I agree. This has been suggested several times in the article's history but discussion keeps getting archived without the matter having been addressed, see e.g.
I know we have the standard coordinates link to external map sources, but it would useful to have a map in the article so that not only the location but the extent of Silicon Valley can be seen, perhaps with some of its major landmarks, or some indication of its historical development. I am sure there are plenty of Silicon Valley-based graphic designers who could put something together. Beorhtwulf (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that a map would be helpful here. —Stepheng3 (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after all this time, I don't think just saying "there should be a map" is working. The first problem is that someone has to come up with that map, with appropriate permissions. Second is agreeing about its validity (especially if someone dismisses it as "original research"). For both of these, this article might be relevant. Their map is approximately the convex hull of San Jose, San Mateo, and Fremont, a pretty decent definition, and generic enough not to have copyright problems if recreated from allowable sources. However, considering that Santa Clara Valley doesn't have a map, it's not surprising to see one lacking here. Santa Clara County, California has one, but the country includes a mountainous, rural eastern half, along with a non-tech-oriented southern portion. Calbaer (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic edits

I propose to eliminate the following cities:

  • Belmont
  • Burlingame
  • Emeryville
  • Millbrae
  • Oakland
  • San Carlos
  • San Ramon
  • Union City

Any objections? The last time I checked, being home to a world-class animation studio (Emeryville), a Big Oil company (San Ramon), or a substantial number of Silicon Valley commuters (Union City) does not qualify a city as part of Silicon Valley. Otherwise, there is no clear distinction between the core Silicon Valley cities (San Jose, Santa Clara, Mountain View, et al.) and other cities like Burbank, Houston, and Patterson. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolcaesar: Sorry, but I don't understand what you are proposing here? What is your criteria for what cities are eliminated here or not?Jooojay (talk) 05:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria is that Silicon Valley cities have economies that are dominated by the tech industry (Mountain View, Cupertino, and Menlo Park are the best example of this), as opposed to tangentially benefiting from the tech industry. Many Bay Area cities serve as bedroom communities for people who work in Silicon Valley, but themselves are not home to any major tech companies. Or they are only home to relatively minor satellite offices, as opposed to headquarters facilities which are home to the lion's share of key personnel. For example, San Ramon is home to a major AT&T office campus, but most of AT&T's people are concentrated in Dallas, Texas. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coolcaesar - Are you working off of some sort of document/citation? Or is this your own personal theory? Jooojay (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personal theory, based on having been raised in Silicon Valley and worked in multiple Silicon Valley cities.
I can pull sources but it will take months because I'm overloaded as is. I have to warn you that in that event I will constrain this article to the traditional view of Silicon Valley as including cities only in central Santa Clara County and southern San Mateo County, which is what's supported by most reliable and neutral sources anyway. Wikipedia is not a soapbox (per WP:NOT) for people who try to promote other cities as being part of Silicon Valley. I have no sympathy for those who haven't been able to actually live or work in the Valley of Heart's Delight. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your should do this to the Silicon Valley article, Coolcaesar because Wikipedia isn't the place for your personal ideas or theories, or original research. What might make sense is some sort of citations regarding the change in the definition and locations of Silicon Valley over time. But please don't go deleting chunks of an established WP article based on your perceived experience. Jooojay (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Coolcaesar please review Wikipedia's guidelines on civility at WP:CIVIL, name calling is not okay. - Jooojay (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if you disliked the tone of my edit summary, but I have no reservations about calling out vandalism when I see it. You are invoking WP:CIVIL in bad faith to shut down discussion of edits (particularly this one) with no basis in Wikipedia policy. That's like a graffiti artist accusing the police or landowners of infringing his right to free speech when he gets arrested for tagging.
Please review Wikipedia core policies, particularly WP:V and obtain a reliable, verifiable source for your edits. The long-established consensus has been that Gilroy and Morgan Hill are not part of Silicon Valley. The editor making the change to consensus text bears the burden of showing that the meaning of the term has changed. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Coolcaesar - all you needed to do was add in a citation to support your edit, also a basic rule of editing. We talked about this on this exact talk page about this (above). Instead you accuse me of vandalism. I don't see your link to any consensus here. I agree with you there should be a removal of Gilroy - but show me the citation first. Jooojay (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus text did not and has not included Gilroy. Let's see. Here's 26 July 2017. 23 August. 19 November. No mention of Gilroy in the lede paragraphs in any of them. Oh, and by the way, one of those is your edits, so you know full well what is the consensus text. So stop pretending it includes Gilroy.
The first mention of Gilroy was this edit on 23 November 2017 by User:MrBarkley, which is clearly unsourced vandalism.
I belatedly caught and reverted that vandalism on 29 January 2018. Then you reverted it back. Here's a tip from an editor with over a decade more experience: before you go around talking about what is the consensus text, make sure you know first what it is. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry Coolcaesar but are you implying that a past edit history on WP is the same as a consensus? I really am not following you on this one. The WP article currently says Gilroy too. I agreed with you - lets remove Gilroy, can you please find a citation? Why are you attacking me nevertheless? You realize we want the same thing here, right? Jooojay (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The past edit history was the consensus. For many years. You are mistaking vandalism on 23 November 2017 for consensus. Wikipedia policy does not require a source just to pull out obvious vandalism. That's insane. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coolcaesar, you seem to have a lot of experience here, so it is somewhat surprising that you misunderstand what is and is not vandalism. Please read WP:VANDALISM which says "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." Emphasis added. An edit adding unreferenced content saying that Gilroy is in Silicon Valley is in no way, shape or form "vandalism" since Gilroy is just a short drive south of the southern city limits of San Jose on 101, and Gilroy is in Santa Clara County which is the core of Silicon Valley. This is a good faith content dispute, and it is most certainly not vandalism. So, please stop all false accusations of vandalism, since continuing such accusations is a form of disruptive editing. You do not get to define the geographic limits of Silicon Valley based on your own personal definition that includes only certain parts of southern San Mateo County and your favorite cities in Santa Clara County. Instead, we need to consider what highly reliable sources like the San Jose Mercury News says, and the Silicon Valley Historical Association], which says "Because Silicon Valley is an economic region, it now includes territory down to Monterey, north to Santa Rosa and east as far as Sacramento." That is a pretty expansive definition but the solution is to work toward consensus instead of making improper accusations of vandalism. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I associate the term consensus with voting or through discussion, especially on WP and not edit warring. The body of this article reads Gilroy still and we've talked about this earlier on this same talk page. Not sure why this isn't clear or obvious to you still, WP is created by a community (so please be nice). I honestly don't have time or energy for this minor disagreement, best of luck to you. Jooojay (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

Do you find this page to be biased? Kylierogersk27 (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Kylie Rogers[reply]

Kylierogersk27 - bias to whom or what? More details are needed. Jooojay (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Silicon Valley. 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) 04:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map in sidebar

The map in the sidebar is inaccurate for two reasons. First the Bay Area is not synonymous with Silicon Valley. Second, what is shown is the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA Combined Statistical Area, not the bay area. Neither San Joaquin county nor San Benito county is considered part of the bay area.--2601:640:4080:5960:E51B:1F15:743B:B6A0 (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Silicon Valley. 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) 05:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Various errors and odd edits introduced by User:Cristiano Tomás on 3 April 2018

I'll concede up front that two-thirds of the edits were constructive (which means summarily reverting isn't justified in this case), but one-third were not. I don't have time to type out right now all the errors thus introduced. Here are a few of the most obvious ones:

  • Ampersands are generally avoided in formal English prose unless they're part of a proper name, like AT&T.
  • Wrong photo for eBay. That's actually the North San Jose site for PayPal which has since been spun off again as a separate company.
  • Bad photo for Cisco. It's in shadow.
  • Bad photo for Intel. That's the side of the building.
  • Bad photos for Facebook and Apple Inc. It's better to be consistent with all ground-level or all aerial photos, rather than an incoherent mishmash.
  • Switching to the San Jose skyline from an aerial photo was a poor choice. The skyline, standing alone, fails to convey two of the most important aspects of Silicon Valley, the heavy reliance on low-rise tilt-up concrete construction and the relatively low population density. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, thanks for your comments! A couple responses:
  • I changed the & to "and" in the lead sentence.
  • I also removed the ebay photo, as it is indeed the wrong photo.
  • In regards to Cisco, that is the best image of a Cisco Building and the only of the HQ Building 10, so I believe it is definitely the best image to represent Cisco.
  • In regards to Intel, this image offers a view of the building and its logo. The only other image is mainly parking lot and indiscernible as Intel.
  • In regards to FB & Apple and "mismash": The images there offer the some semblance of scale (or recognizability in Apple Park's case). No ground-level images exist on the commons showing Apple Park or FBHQ (in FB's case there are a couple images from across the street, largely covered by trees and with a barely visible sign). As we all know, Wikipedia is constantly getting improved on and added to. When suitable images of FB and Apple Park get uploaded to Commons, I will be the first to substitute the images out. In the meantime, there is nothing wrong with variation between ground level and aerial photos until "perfect" images (in regards to shadow, point of view, whether its the "side of a building" and so on...) can be uploaded.
  • In regards to the skyline image, I see your point! I've added a view of the SC Valley to the infobox.
Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"For for"

The introduction in italics includes the words "For for the geographical valley". But when I open the "edit" page to remove the superfluous "for", it isn't there! So all I can do it mention this here, in the hope someone with the right technical knowledge can make the change.213.127.210.95 (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Silicon_Valley&oldid=846880474"