Talk:Mountain View, California

Naming

The difference in importance between this and the other Mountain View is so vast that I'm inclined to just put this one at Mountain View, California and disambig at the top - the other one is a bedroom community of Martinez not even marked on most maps. Stan 17:03, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Works for me. -mhr 17:51, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, after 457 days with no argument, I moved them. :-) Nohat 05:25, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hee hee, how time flies! Stan 13:08, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Peninsula

Can you please change the location to include Mountain View as is a city at the southern end of the San Francisco Peninsula. Interesting that Los Altos is posted that way with no water really engulfing it at all, which would preclude it from being on the S End of the Peninsula. The definition of a peninsula is the following :A piece of land that projects into a body of water and is connected with the mainland by an isthmus. You want to give an exact and correct presentation and representation of where Mountain View is.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/peninsula#ixzz19xJLMYAP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.235.131 (talk) 07:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The source doesn't prove Mountain View is part of the peninsula. It really isn't. It's due south of the southern edge of the bay. Is there any official source that establishes that Mountain View is geographically considered part of the San Francisco Peninsula? I would suggest removing that reference until a source is provided. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 23:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Done.—Stepheng3 (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Etymology

What's the history of the name Mountain View? Why is the town called that way? Does it refer to any mountain(s)?

yes, the Santa Cruz Mountains. Nohat 00:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Given that the place takes its name from the view of the mountains, could someone please put a picture on this page that shows that view. It seems important because, as the article says, that's how the place gets its name. ProductBox (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to get a photo this weekend, if I can. -- Alvincura (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Huff House

Never heard of it myself. With the "its for sale" sign on the linked page I'm wondering. . . John (Jwy)

Schools

Unless this section gets beefed up, I think what is there should be removed. Its more a current events thing than an encyclopedia item, don't you think? John (Jwy) 18:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to beef it up. What do you think it needs? Links to Voice articles? No problem; anyone can get those. Scans of MVWSD handouts showing the chart of enrollment in total, and broken down by lunch assistance category? I hve some from last month; will do. --James S. 04:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand me. I'm not looking for more current events. My problem with the section is that it is currently about a single school shutting down. If we have a school section, I would expect it to describe the schools system - for example, some metrics of how good it is (% going on to college, that kind of thing), some history of the system, etc. That's what an encyclopedia should have. As it stands, it appears to be a protest of the school closing. John (Jwy) 06:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The best predictor of how good schools are is the student-teacher ratio, which I have added. This predicts public school student performance in college better than absolute and relative teacher salaries, student economic background, or any combination thereof. Today's current event is tomorrow's history. --James S. 19:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Assuming it costs $100,000 to hire a teacher and staff a classroom, the $690,000 which Google is paying for Slater will only go about a fifth of the way towards being able to reduce class sizes to Palo Alto Unified levels. 63.164.145.198 04:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, by leasing Slater, there aren't enough extra classrooms to significantly reduce class size anymore. All of the wealthy families who were going to Slater are probably going to want to flee to private schools, too. --James S. 18:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It would take about $15 million per year to get the student/teacher ratio down to the 14.4 of nearby Juana Briones Elementary, the best in Palo Alto. One would think, since the implementation of the Joint Powers Agreement between the City, school districts, and the Shoreline Regional Authority (or whatever the business park property tax-levying organization is called these days) that it would be easy, and you would think that the voters of Mountain View would want property values commensurate with such a low ratio, but not a peep. Here is the rest of Santa Clara and San Mateo counties' districts for comparison:

District name	FTE student/teacher ratio
WOODSIDE ELEMENTARY	12.3
PORTOLA VALLEY ELEMENTARY	14.1
LA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIFIED	14.6
HILLSBOROUGH CITY ELEMENTARY	15.6
LAS LOMITAS ELEMENTARY	16.0
MENLO PARK CITY ELEMENTARY	16.6
REDWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY	17.5
PALO ALTO UNIFIED	17.6
LOMA PRIETA JOINT UNION ELEMENTARY	19.3
BRISBANE ELEMENTARY	19.4
LUTHER BURBANK ELEMENTARY	19.6
BELMONT-REDWOOD SHORES ELEMENTARY	19.7
BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY	19.9
RAVENSWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY	20.0
FRANKLIN-MCKINLEY ELEMENTARY	20.0
SUNNYVALE ELEMENTARY	20.0
LOS GATOS UNION ELEMENTARY	20.1
SAN JOSE UNIFIED	20.1
MILLBRAE ELEMENTARY	20.5
LOS ALTOS ELEMENTARY	20.5
MOUNTAIN VIEW-LOS ALTOS UNION HIGH	20.5
SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY ELEMENTARY	20.6
MT. PLEASANT ELEMENTARY	20.6
CAMBRIAN ELEMENTARY	20.7
MOUNTAIN VIEW-WHISMAN ELEMENTARY	20.7
OAK GROVE ELEMENTARY	20.8
CAMPBELL UNION ELEMENTARY	20.9
GILROY UNIFIED	20.9
ORCHARD ELEMENTARY	20.9
UNION ELEMENTARY	21.1
SAN MATEO UNION HIGH	21.3
SEQUOIA UNION HIGH	21.3
MORELAND ELEMENTARY	21.3
BAYSHORE ELEMENTARY	21.4
ALUM ROCK UNION ELEMENTARY	21.4
SARATOGA UNION ELEMENTARY	21.4
SANTA CLARA UNIFIED	21.5
SAN CARLOS ELEMENTARY	21.6
BERRYESSA UNION ELEMENTARY	21.7
CABRILLO UNIFIED	21.8
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED	21.8
SAN BRUNO PARK ELEMENTARY	21.9
JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY	22.0
MORGAN HILL UNIFIED	22.0
EAST SIDE UNION HIGH	22.1
CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL	22.3
MILPITAS UNIFIED	22.3
PACIFICA SCHOOL DISTRICT	22.4
EVERGREEN ELEMENTARY	22.5
JEFFERSON UNION HIGH	23.0
LOS GATOS-SARATOGA JOINT UNION HIGH	23.1
FREMONT UNION HIGH	23.7
CAMPBELL UNION HIGH	25.3

(Source: NCES, 2003-4) --James S. 22:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC) December 10 2007 I have several problems with the schools section of this article. While the information is strictly, factually correct, it is taken out of context and not well-supported. An example is the author's declaration that "white flight" is the sole cause of the district's declining enrollment. I would like to see a citation showing this unequivocally, with something besides statistics showing the demographic makeup of the school district over time. This change could be due to higher birth rates among one population with declining birthrates in another; it could be due to the fact that during the "boom" years rental housing was too expensive for low-income families to afford, and that after the "bust" more low-income families moved in. There's nothing to support that statement. Another issue is the link showing school API scores. It is from 1999. Not very relevant in 2007. Another example is the comparison of class sizes between PAUSD and MVWSD. This reduces a very complex problem (California Education Funding) to an overly-simplistic statement. To sum up, the information is incomplete and somewhat cherry-picked to show one point of view.

Regarding the Shoreline money--the Shoreline District was set up by the California Legislature at the time the city began developing the park to ensure continued funding for maintenance of Shoreline Lake and park, a regional recreational facility and wildlife preserve. It took many years for an agreement to be worked out between the schools and the city to share some of that revenue. Use of the JPA (Joint Powers Authority) funds are restricted by the city to be used for technology. (Like much public education funding, it came with strings attached.) Mountain View-Los Altos High School district is using this money as seed money for their new multi-media Freestyle High; Mountain View Whisman is using the funds to improve the technology infrastructure, purchase up-to-date computers and software for teachers and students, and train teachers on how to implement technology into the classroom curriculum. The money cannot be used for class-size reduction or any other purpose. There are more problems with this article, but basically I feel this article is very misleading and presents facts taken out of context.Negirl (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Citywide wireless Ethernet

What kind of card do you need for the new system? 802.11_?—Preceding unsigned comment added by David Jordan (talk • contribs)

Answered on user's talk page. (John User:Jwy talk) 21:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll update the article with this information a bit later. . . (John User:Jwy talk) 22:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Telephony history?

I thought we already have articles on area codes which are quite decent. Do we really need sections on telephone system history in the city pages? What a mess that would make. What do we do next, history of the city's sewer and power systems? This is ridiculous! If we need to mention the history of the telephone system in the mid-Peninsula region, we can always do a "See also" link at the end to 650 area code. --Coolcaesar 05:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and removed this portion:

During the 1960s, Mountain View telephone calls were switched by a large Pacific Telephone operated Western Electric Number 5 Crossbar system. This is an electromechanical switch. Two-party service was common in residential areas. Telephone numbers in the 1960s all started with YOrkshire and had five additional digits. These eventually evolved to 96x-xxxx numbers in the mid 1960s. With the roll-out of area codes, Mountain View was in (415). There was permissive dialing to (408). This meant you did not have to dial (408) to call into that area code. In those days, the number plan was constructed so that no office codes or prefixes were duplicated across area codes (408) and (415).

I did leave in a sentence about the area code switch in 1997. --James S. 21:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Does anybody know what the origin of the "YOrkshire" prefix? I would be interested. The Palo Alto wiki has a little discussion about the origin of their DAvenport prefix. I used to play Little League baseball in the 1960s and there was a team sponsored by Yorkshire Cleaners. My team was a Japanese store called Castro City Market, now occupied by Mi Puebla Market, on the corner of Rengstorff and Crisanto. Bobkaku (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Revenue limit vs. basic aid school district funding

I deleted the mention of revenue limit district and basic aid funding after the comparison to Palo Alto's class size ratio, because these things change from year to year -- Mountain View might not remain a revenue limit district if property values go up, and Palo Alto might not remain a basic aid district if they go down. Plus, those terms were undefined and unlinked, so I think they were more confusing than helpful. 1of3 17:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That is inappropriate. The difference in class size might also disappear with time and you do not seem to be letting up on that because you seem to be latching onto some unfavorable comparision to make at Mountain View's expense. Did you bother to mention the differences in property valuations? No. Did you do any other analysis with the less weathy neighbors such as Sunnyvale or Santa Clara. No. The current class sizes and the current tax structures both apply. Otherwise we just cut the whole section. -- PinkCake 03:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate? It is the truth. And, contrary to your insertions, Basic Aid districts aren't so rare in Silicon Valley; in fact the MVLA High School district is one. I've included additional explanatory material about the Shoreline Regional Park Community District, which is the real reason for MVWSD's low budget relative to Palo Alto and Los Altos. 1of3 03:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, there is a fairly new web site that might help us to see what is happening on the ground here. http://www.zillow.com// . Uh, type in downtown zip code, or just http://www.zillow.com/search/Search.htm?citystatezip=94041&mode=browse

Mountain View
94040 $951K South
94041 $922K Downtown
94043 $680K North of commuter rail line

94304 $937K (stanford, so does not really count)
94305 $937K - downtown
94306 $1.1M - south (more single-family houses)

So, the problem is that Mountain View has to carry 94043, which has a lot more townhouses and such. Also, Palo Alto has East Palo Alto cordoned off both by a near fortress-like barriers of Hwy 101 AND they also got the county line to follow 101 at that point, long ago.

I still say that it is not fair to compare class sizes between MV and PA, but I am only looking for fairness and I can wait. The text can stand as it is for now, I am just trying to help us see clearly what is happening on the ground there and I know that, with time, we will both come closer to a deeper mutual agreement on how the text should read. -- PinkCake 17:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

See, Palo Alto does not have its equivalent of 94043 because of two things: Hwy 101 and East Palo Alto. East Palo Alto is a hell-hole of poverty and violence but it is never, ever included in the statistics or the city life of Palo Alto itself, except for the few beggers who dare to venture into the neighborhood. And, since money and space are the driving forces, the black people of East Palo Alto are slowly being driven out of the area by the forces of gentrification anyway, so EPA's days as a hell-hole are numbered. That section called "Whiskey Gulch" is now all business office high-rises full of lawyers and other professionals. The Home Depot at 101 and Willow has launched a full-scale invasion of money into that sector of EPA. While comparing this 101 "sound barrier" to the wall that Isreal is contructing between it and Palestine is not fair, it is instructive to do so because it provides insight into what is happening on the ground there. As long as you do not get offended, I could compare the yuppies who are brave enough to live on the fringes of EPA with Isreali settlers. Remember: I am not talking about absolutes, I am talking about trends here. Space is the limited resource: you cannot make more of it unless you do something crazy like landfill into the bay, only to watch it liquify in an earthquake like it did up in San Francisco in the Loma Prieta EQ. I do not want to hear any backtalk about this comparison: it is flawed, but it is useful if you want further insight into what is really happening on the ground there.

I want to point out one other thing: there was a nice poster you could buy around 1990 of the enter bay of a composite satellite photo of the entire bay area. The thing that struck me about it was how green (i.e. old neighborhoods) that PA had and the sharp boundary of 101 and the lack of green in EPA, but also the greyness of MV and on down south. That contrast is less apparent 15 years on this modern images. My point is: the PA neighborhoods were well-planned and they are older. They are wealthier and have had time to build nice schools. Another little vignette: MV grade schools are completely gutted about every 20 years (each taking their turn) because they are very modular in their design. Me? I grew up back in New York in a place where the schools are made of red bricks and motar and they are designed to last for about a century. Also, I went through stricly the private Roman Cathoilc school system (but the construction of the public schools was similar) It is a different mind-set out here. It seems like the schools out here were all designed by the same architects in a growth spurt of about 20 years as planners "suddenly" realized that the schools had to be built in crash program before available empty spaces were broken up by patchword development. The children go there and I know that they are happy, but I am the son and brother of an architect and, to me, the designs are very monotonous. On the other hand, the local Roman Catholic grade school is very boring in its design (well, the building is still brick, which is nice, but it still has a very back-East institutional feel to it) but at least, in theory, people are unified by that religion thing. Still, I acknowlege that the schools in Palo Alto are superior in almost every way. But when you ask "Why?", you cannot just blame the gov't or something so simple as that.

Whew! That was a long two paragraphs. Anway: you get the idea: PA is more wealthy than MV, it has Stanford professors and whatnot, and so I would expect it would have a better style of living and quality of life, including smaller class size. I would expect this to still be true 50 years from now. THAT is what is Important. -- PinkCake 17:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the table above, Redwood City does slightly better than Palo Alto, and La Honda-Pescadero does a LOT better. I would have thought, on aggregate, that those places would have property values below Mountain View's, although out in La Honda I really have no idea. Indeed, Zillow says Redwood City's median is $889,045 (compared to Mountain View's $808,757 -- zoom out one click to get the whole cities instead of the zip codes) and La Honda's is $764,093 -- so how come they have so much smaller class sizes than Palo Alto and we do? Skadoo23 22:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I assert a hypothesis that it is the elevating effect of Stanford faculty on the surrounding community. I also assert that companies like HP (well, less so since Carly Fiorina's tenure) and other startups that are staffed or managed by many Stanford grads have an effect as well. Google is in MV, but I expect that it takes decades for the deep effect to take root. I do not know how to prove it, but just use your common sense and I think you will see that there is SOMETHING to my assertion. -- PinkCake 01:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Martello

The cited articles make it clear that Martello and the council never reached an agreement about the date of his disclosure of the affair. I don't agree with the abridgment of the scandal which obscures that fact and deletes the summary of the Metro's investigation of the surrounding facts. 1of3 04:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer that we restrict ourselves to strictly legal outcomes, which tend to retain their Importance over longer periods of Time. If Mike got his penis all erect and into Pamela, who was, hopefully, all nice and wet, and they enjoyed it, well... so did a bunch of other people in that area around that time, some of those adulterous as well (with or without the other spouse's permission and blah blah blah. Gosh, this is such a soap opera!). I do not see how this is so Important that it deserves the space it is getting, but I am letting it go.... for now. See what I mean? "Encyclopedic" is supposed to mean that it might still be important ten years from now. And why are you going on about the $740K? It may sound like a lot of money to some readers, but it is less than the price of one single-family home in the downtown area. You should focus on percentages because inflation and whatnot tends to degrade the immediate usefulness of this information over time. If we are going to keep this info around for 100 years, it should be in a format where the future-reader can easily appreciate whether it was a big or a small increase. -- PinkCake 16:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Peoples private lives are just that and should remain so. Adultery, on the other hand, is the breaking of a publicly declare, socially sanctioned and legally recognized bond. It is, in fact, the most egregious bond that can be broken. This is a much worse stain on one's character than breaking other types of legal contracts. If you don't want your relationships to subject to public scrutiny, you should buy a public license ("to give official or legal power to") and a public promise. This should be common sense. I'm a civil libertarian, and no one going to force people to wear a scarlet letter (literally), but by what rights should people enjoy immunity from public scorn? One man's news is another man's gossip, but if the facts are wrong, they have recourse to the courts. If they are a public figure, their character is of paramount importance and anything that blights it should be public knowledge (including adultery).

Don't like it? 1) Don't get married 2) Don't commit adultery 3) Don't get caught!

You are exactly right about the money being dated in the future; Percentages will fail for the same reason (base value will fluctuate); May I suggest using something along the lines of ...$740,000USD[2006] or 740,000[2006,US$]...?

~KC

Oh yeah, what I came here for... Why is there such a crappy map? Can't someone just link to the google.map for this city, or something similar. I'm sure google shouldn't be to eager to "cry foul" -oops, colloquial- over "deep linking".

~KC, 2006(US$$$$baby!)

So, uh, can we come to an agreement that 2-3 months from now, maybe we can knock it down by a few sentences? That is about all I am willing to wait. This is ridiculous. -- PinkCake 04:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The info in this Scandals section is three-years old now. At the time, it was an interesting current event, but it seems odd to have such a detailed "Scandals" section here when so many other facets of Mountain View have yet to be included. Can we at least cut the length? Urbanic05 08:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The Mario Ambra misconduct was a much bigger deal and it only gets one brief mention. Martello doesn't need more than that. And the header itself needs to be changed to something less POV. CovenantD 09:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So can we come to some agreement about changing this section? I'm new to wikipedia and don't want to make a premature edit. 75.20.203.64 01:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the "Scandals" section. The information was a current event at the time but, I think, not very notable or encylopedia-worthy. Other cities with much larger political scandals in recent memory (San Jose, for example) do not have a similar section on their main page. If someone feels the information on Mario Ambra or Michael Martello is especially notable, then perhaps a seperate page for these individuals should be created. (Urbanic05 (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

Well they would be notable for WP:ONEEVENT and thus not qualified for their own article. Whereas San Jose's scandals are included in its former mayor's Ron Gonzales#Criticism and controversy because Gonzales is notable for more than just one event. Since it appears to be sourced to reliable news stories, I think this should stay. MB83 (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough regarding the seperate page. At the very least, I still think that we should agree to cut this section down if we're not going to get rid of it. The discussion here leans toward doing that. Especially re: Michael Martello. Why do we have an entire paragraph devoted to the City Attorney's affair? (Urbanic05 (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC))

Cut it down from a paragraph? Ron Gonzales gets five paragraphs, and he wasn't even convicted of anything. MB83 (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

On Ron Gonzales's page, four of those five paragraphs on his "scandals" deal with various political charges against him. Even if he wasn't convicted, he was censured by his council and resigned from multiple committees. It was a big deal for the Mayor of the 10th largest city in the country. Yet, only one sentence deals with his affair.

Here in Mountain View, all charges against Martello misusing City funds were cleared. So in essence, we have a long paragaph on Mountain View's page about the City Attorney's marital affair. This strikes me as odd. If we were to really describe Mountain View's "scandals" in a balanced way, the amount of text devoted to ex-Mayor Ambra versus Martello would be reversed given there importance to the community's recent political history. But rather than embellish Ambra's story, I'd lean in favor of cutting down Martello's. Anyway, I was just trying to move this along after reading the way the three years of discussion on this secion was leaning. (Urbanic05 (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC))

Library circulation

1.4 million items per year works out to more than 11 items per minute, solid, during business hours. Even when they are really busy, they aren't nearly that busy, and most of the time they aren't really busy. However the number apparently checks out with city publications. Can it be right? 75.37.23.162 03:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The library is open 64 hours per week (not counting holidays) according to the hours on the page you linked to. (1436978item/yr)/(60min/hr*64hr/wk*52wk/yr)=7.2items/minute. That's less than 11, but still pretty high. Maybe the bookmobile helps boost those numbers and maybe renewals count as a second borrowing event. The site says there are 850559 visitors per year. It is probably not hard to sustain an average of 1.7 items/visitor. 208.66.102.2 00:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Message at the Top of the Page

At the top of the page, there is a message that reads For other places called "Mountain View", see Mountain View. I motion to delete this because Mountain View does not redirect to this page, but rather to a Mountain View disambiguation article. The only way someone would get to this article internally would be to type in Mountain View, California on the address bar, and then they wouldn't be looking for any other Mountain View. I motion to delete, but as always, comments appreciated. BlackBear 19:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, one of those "Other places called 'Mountain View'" is in California. (It's even in the same metropolitan area; see Mountain View, Contra Costa County, California.) It's comparatively insignificant (which is why this one gets the "Mountain View, California" title) but it's possible someone might come looking for it. This way they can find it. So I think we should keep the link. -- Why Not A Duck 02:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

ő

Corporate residents

What's this Jajah company added a few days ago? Are we supposed to list every single company in Mountain View like Mountain View Lock and Key or Clarke's? The Jajah article is written like an advertisement. My vote is that they're not any more significant than dozens of other high tech or low tech companies and they're just trying to spam. 75.62.7.111 05:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the section should be retitled "Notable Corporate Residence" with guidelines of having had a significant impact on the city - either by city development or by size of workforce. I'll throw out a strawman on size of workforce at 500 employees on-site in Mountain View. (yes, I agree the Jajah seems like an advert and I support its removal)Toddstreat1 20:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is in response to a recent wholesale removal of many companies based in Mountain View. Perhaps the editor was not familiar with them personally but that does not seem to be a valid criteria. I don't have an issue trimming the list but if a company is truly not notable perhaps having their page removed would be more constructive if it is not truly deserved. Why Friendfeed included but not Eye-Fi? They're neighbors, roughly about the same size and more or less equally notable depending on how that is measured. Just an example, I don't work at either but familiar with both. If I were a visitor to the Mountain View page, more than likely I would be relocating to the area, visiting, or looking for employers in the city. Striking these companies from the list seems counter intuitive and more harmful than good from a user perspective. Jack's daddy (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous user has gone and cleaned out many of the corporate residents again. I started this discussion so it could be addressed in advance rather than be arbitrary. Personally I could care less if one or several of the companies on the list are not worthy to be mentioned for one reason or another. I would however like to have a dialog as to the purpose and behind the edit. As I stated above, I feel that an inclusive list is more useful to the Wikipedia user who is likely trying to find out more about the city. Local editors can't know for sure what information a reader from out of town may be seeking. I'm stating, until someone engages me in dialog my intention to reverse the edit. Jack's daddy (talk) 04:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to add that the changes I was reversing were from July 17 and I was not intentionally trying to overwrite any subsequent edits. Since it was the second time this individual has made such wholesale changes arbitrarily, I wanted to return things to normalcy as much as possible. Happy to address on a case by case basis but feel the editor has ulterior motive and multiple changes disguises intent. Jack's daddy (talk) 05:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again, arbitrary changes to the corporate residents section without prior discussion. I'm pretty new and just getting the hang of this but struggling with the basis for notability. The editor removed a business with 200 employees because it did not have a dedicated page while leaving others with less than 50 simply because the page created wasn't hotly contested. Argument is to to create a page to avoid red link, there has to be a better way. I would the company page and have thought about doing so but we all know that a newbie creating a company page has virtually zero chance of making it stick. So to that end, the editor has just created incentive for a business to create their own page. I actually returned to this page as a valued resource for finding major employers in Mountain View and now see that value diminished. Pondering next move. Jack's daddy (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

To keep with the guidelines, I am thinking of "verifiability, not truth". In that case, if we can cross-reference the corporate resident with either the Chamber of Commerce or City Hall, then maybe that can be our criteria for notability in the article. What do you think? - Alvincura (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:OLD MV2.JPG

Image:OLD MV2.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Adobe

As far as I know, Adobe's headquarters situated in San Jose... Stansult (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Government - Mayor Vandalism

As of 2-27-09 at 12:00 AM PST, the mayor is listed as:

Government

- Mayor 	Alan Tuan

I believe that this part has been vandalized because I personally know Alan Tuan, and Alan Tuan is a high school student! Sorry, I do not remember the current Mayor of Mountain View.

Jimtran93 (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

fixed. http://www.mountainview.gov/city_council/council_roster/mayor_abe_koga.asp (John User:Jwy talk) 15:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

different Numbers here and on the official Website about Demography

I found different Numbers her and on http://www.ci.mtnview.ca.us/services/learn_about_our_city/demographics.asp . Are the numbers here old? witch are right?

--Torwart (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Shoreline Regional Park Community

Can we have more background on the Shoreline Regional Park Community? I've seen newspaper stories that say that it was created under state law but is not a revitalization district. However, can anyone cite which state law created this district? 63.147.59.2 (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Redevelopment?

There's no material on the revitalization of the city's Castro Street downtown. Does anyone have some good sources to start with? Kortoso (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

State senator needs updating

Under "State and federal legislators" Jerry Hill is now representing the 13th Senate District not Elaine Alquist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.151.75 (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Mountain View, California

Cyberbot II has detected links on Mountain View, California which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.shorelinewest.shutterfly.com/

  Triggered by \bshutterfly\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Mountain View, California

Cyberbot II has detected links on Mountain View, California which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.shorelinewest.shutterfly.com/

  Triggered by \bshutterfly\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Geography

For some reason, there are lists of "what borders Mountain View" in two places in this article - in the opening paragraph and under Geography. This should be cleaned up. JGriffithSV (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mountain View, California. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150318170707/http://www.newslikethis.com/company-headquarters-google-inc-googleplex-california-receive-asla-national-honor-award-2001 to http://www.newslikethis.com/company-headquarters-google-inc-googleplex-california-receive-asla-national-honor-award-2001

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

sunshine hours

are missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.2.203 (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mountain View, City Hall.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Latest Geography Edits

Someone just updated this to claim that Mountain View is bordered by East Palo Alto to the northeast. That appears to be incorrect to me - East Palo Alto is strictly to the west. Can we just revert this whole sequence of edits? It seems like every year or so, someone wants to come along and make changes to the geography, even though the previous description was correct and geography doesn't change. JGriffithSV (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

There were edits by an IP as well. I looked at a map, and agree the original version seemed correct. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)