Talk:San Francisco

Frisco?

I see on the sidebar it says the term "Frisco" is antiquated, yet the footnotes attached to it say nothing to that effect. The first is an article from 1918 documenting a local judge's anti-"Frisco" attitudes, and the third only says that it is a tourist term, and some locals prefer not to use it. The second article says something completely different: "Frisco, that once-verboten term for the city by the bay, is making a comeback among the young and hip." Meaning that currently San Francisco people are calling their city Frisco. It seems to me like the person who put the (antiquated) note was anti-"Frisco" and was hoping no one would check the sources.--Mikeazorin (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the parenthetical "antiquated" isn't necessary. I don't, however, feel that "Frisco" is making any more headway these days than it ever was. Pop culture reporter James Sullivan also said in his article that people were using "the Sco" to refer to San Francisco, but whoa! I've never heard that one. I'd take Sullivan with a grain of salt. At any rate, "Frisco" remains a nickname today, even if hated or not often used. The point is that if you say "Frisco" anywhere near San Francisco, everybody will know what you are talking about. Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Frisco is generally referred to as the "F" word, and will almost guarantee you bad tables and even worse treatment and service if overheard. If you really want to blend in, try using "The City." Also, just north of The City is referred to as "The Country." User:stryteler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.88.162 (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I figure it will be hard to find the reputable source to document whether Frisco is a favored term or not. Maybe someone can go get someone from the linguistics department at UC Berkeley to write an article about it. ;-) I wouldn't be surprised if some hipsters use the term "Frisco" just to be ironic--but I'd be pretty surprised if they were serious when they used it. Honestly, if you took a poll of Bay Area residents asking them what term they used to refer to San Francisco I'd bet "The City" "San Fran" "SF" and "SFO" would all come in ranked higher than "Frisco." Maybe someone should do that poll.

It's like nails on a chalkboard to most people in the Bay Area. The issue isn't that they won't understand you. The issue is that they'll think you're an oblivious idiot. The only people I've heard refer to San Francisco in a non-ironic way as "Frisco" are 1) Old people over the age of about 60, 2) Tourists or people who have lived here less than a year, 3) poor urban youth visiting San Francisco from Oakland.

Obviously, this isn't published anywhere and is regional knowledge, but I a resurgence of "Frisco" seems completely bogus to me. The word "Frisco" is actually a shibboleth in the Bay Area that tells the residents that you're either a tourist, a newbie or an idiot. Perhaps "San Fran" has also become a shibboleth. If they don't say the full name, most Bay Area residents I know say "The City" or "SF" when they talk about doing something in San Francisco. "SFO" personally drives me insane since to me "SFO" is the airport, not the city, but I hear people use it more than "Frisco."

70.231.254.248 (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's where No Original Research falls on its face. Any long-term Resident of the Bay Area will tell you that Frisco is not to be used. It is undignified. It has been so, in fact, at least since Emperor Norton declared "Whoever after due and proper warning shall be heard to utter the abominable word "Frisco", which has no linguistic or other warrant, shall be deemed guilty of a High Misdemeanor, and shall pay into the Imperial Treasury as penalty the sum of twenty-five dollars." He may have been a nut, but on this score everybody agrees with varying levels of seriousness depending upon how close you reside. The nicks locals use are, as above, "The City", "San Francisco", "SF", and "San Fran"(rare, used among "family"), SFO is the airport in San Bruno. "Frisco" should not be labeled antiquated, but rather, disfavored or stronger.24.6.207.95 (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Luckily for the wiki, personal observations and opinions are not what is used in the articles. We use reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sister Cities

Information on Sister Cities was removed to a daughter article (Sister cities of San Francisco, California) during the Featured Article process as essentially being trivial and tangetally related. During the Featured Article Review process, the "See Also" link pointing to the Sister Cities Article was moved to the bottom of the article accessed by Links to related Articles - > City and County of San Francisco - > Government - > Sister Cities.--Paul (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

San Francisco#Demographics

I moved the slightly misleading "reported": the article's numbers are derived from the stated source, not reported by it. Parenthesized the derived result. Rephrased the "ranks" sentence: no such thing as "FBI's 2009 City Crime Rate Rankings". In fact the FBI prominently Cautions Against Ranking. --Lexein (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Correction - the FBI meant ranking to compare law enforcement agencies, not city ranking. --Lexein (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference to "Largest Employers" is outdated, Can someone either update it delete it

Reference 141, Which reads, ^ "San Francisco Business Information: Largest Employers in San Francisco" (Microsoft Word). San Francisco Business Times Book of Lists, 2007. San Francisco Center for Economic Development. http://www.sfced.org/docs/Largest_Employers_in_SF_2007.doc. Retrieved June 9, 2008.

Is stale and points to a non-existent page. I have attempted to re-locate it on that web site with no success. Is there someone who can update this reference or delete it if it can't be found ?

Yeah, this is something like my 3rd interaction with the Wikipedia community, so please be nice here. Valleyboy17 (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No snark? Where's the fun in that? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Yeah, there's an app for that, heh. Good looking out for the dead link. Read all about dead links at WP:LINKROT. --Lexein (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Education

As a San Francisco resident that works in education, I am concerned about a statement in the section on Education, specifically in the "Primary and Secondary schools" section. The last line, "The largest private school in San Francisco, Cornerstone Academy, is a Christian school." First any claim that something is the "largest" must be substantiated with evidence, and there is no reference cited with this claim. Secondly, and this point admittedly has no substantiation, but the statement seems to be more of an attempt at advertisement, given that there's a link to its own Wikipedia page. And given San Francisco's reputation, the fact that it illuminates the religious affiliation of the school makes the entry all the more suspect.

There are many public schools in San Francisco, and none of them are called out like this school is. Because this is an overarching encyclopedic entry, it does not seem appropriate to mention it.

I would urge the editors to review this entry and remove this line.

71.202.127.219 (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Eric Godoy email redacted per policy--Lexein (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done - removed unsourced advertising WP:ADV claim about a single school of unestablished notability WP:NOTE. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list or a catalog WP:NOTCATALOG. Reliably sourced statistics about private schools would be welcomed. Discuss. This includes you, Eric. WP:Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. --Lexein (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Lexein - thank you for removing that reference. I have tried to find some reliable information regarding private school enrollment. What I've found is this: http://www.privateschoolreview.com/county_elementary_schools/stateid/CA/county/6075, which lists the elementary schools and their size, and http://www.privateschoolreview.com/county_high_schools/stateid/CA/county/6075 which has the high schools listed. I cannot speak for how reliable the information is, but as you can see there are many schools with high amounts of enrollment, and since this entry is for Primary and Secondary education, the question remains as to why there would be mention of one single school without any significant distinction (like Lowell High School, being the oldest high school west of the Mississippi). I hope that provides enough info.

71.202.127.219 (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Eric Godoy

Photo Montage

I believe the new montage photo does not work; The Bridge is cut in half, and the top of the skyline is cut off (not to mention the painted ladies are cut in half). The photo in question is on the left. The photo on the right is one that I came up with. I think it flows better than the current montage. Thoughts? - RK-SFO

I don't like either montage. Instead of the infobox presenting an iconic photo of the city, these montages trivialize the content of the articles they head by condensing photos already in the article into a "lookers digest". The montages are un-encyclopedic, looking like the front cover of a Fodors guidebook. We already have a wikitravel site, and I have no problem with these montages being used there, but I think they are an unfortunate fad/trend that should be resisted on Wikipeida. In removing the view of the city from the Marin Headlands and replacing it with a monatage, an iconic view of the entire city has been lost to be replaced by a cliche-ridden pastiche of tourist pictures that are already in the article. I'd prefer restoring the picture of San Francisco and the Golden Gate bridge from the Marin Headlands. --Paul (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd also be in favor of restoring the the original picture. But if we have to have a montage, I really don't want it to be the current one. - RK-SFO

That makes two of us in favor of reverting. Let's wait a few days and see if anyone else has an opinion.--Paul (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems the SF montage was inserted by a single-use account who is a "serial-montagist." Here is someone on the Paris page who doesn't like this fad either. (And the Paris montage was reverted). --Paul (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Put the first montage. Considering that montages are becoming almsot universal no city artciles now, if you disagree with this, please upload a new montage with different pictures reather than removing it outright.Dolphin Jedi (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why the SF article must have a montage. There are plenty of cities that still have single pictures; Paris, Buffalo, Colorado Springs, etc. Now, with no offense to the author, I think the current one doesn't look at all good. I will wait to see if anyone else has an opinion on this, if not, I will add my montage. If there's anyone who does not like my attempt, then create another one. - RK-SFO (talk) 18:00, October 3, 1010 (UTC)

Personally I don't see why a montage is needed at all. I reverted to the previous image until the editors of this page can decide 1) whether to have a montage and then 2)what the photo should be, in that order. --64.81.57.93 (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I know I've said it before but for the sake of this decision, I will put my vote for the single picture. - RK-SFO (talk) 16:15, October 4, 1010 (UTC)

Economy second photo

As there appears to be some disagreement about what image is best for the 2nd one in the economy section, it's best we start some sort of discussion here. I prefer FinancialNorth.jpg, since it shows a significant part of the financial district, while SanFranciscoEmbarcadero.jpg is farther back and doesn't show as clearly or with the same detail, and the infobox image File:SF From Marin Highlands3.jpg shows the comprehensive skyline without those issues. Montgomery street is a little too close, and only shows the Wells Fargo building and the Trans America building, and I'm not sure it shows the size of the financial district well. I'm open to something else either in Commons:Category:San Francisco, California or somewhere else, but right now I'd prefer to stick with FinancialNorth.jpg. -Optigan13 (talk) 10:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

#1 - FinancialNorth.jpg	#2 - SanFranciscoEmbarcadero.jpg	#3 - Montgomerystreetsf.jpg	#4 - Federal Reserve Bank (San Francisco).JPG
The San Francisco Financial District skyline framed by the Transamerica Pyramid and the Bank of America building.	The San Francisco skyline centered within the Financial District	Montgomery Street serves as the heart of San Francisco's Financial District.	The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has one of the largest collections of U.S. Currency

• I've added a 4th possibility which has an explicit financial theme, though it isn't actually in the Financial District. Of the three original choices, I also prefer FinancialNorth.jpg, as it specifically highlights the skyline of the financial district. SanFranciscoEmbarcadero.jpg is just another skyline picture, of which there are already enough in the article.--Paul (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• FinancialNorth is not and never was a good choice. For starters it does show the whole skyline (it actually shows Chinatown and Russian Hill more). I chose the second one because This picture shows the WHOLE Financial District, Embarcadero, the Bay and Pier 39. All three areas the most representative of the economy of SF and not just some picture that has a few buildings and placing the overemphasis on finance. The forth photo is actually inaccurate. The Federal Reserve is no longer located in that building and hasn't been for years. And, like the last one, it places too much emphasis on banking and finance which is no longer a major part of SF's economy and hasn't been for years. Eman007 10:22, 04 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think my issue is that so many of the pictures have already covered tourism (which I'm lumping the Embarcadero and Pier 39 into) as well as two wide skylines (the infobox and the panorama). FinancialNorth is limited in size, while the SFEmbarcadero image doesn't scale well, with the buildings limited to about a third of the image. I feel like we've already shown the Bay in several previous images already. I tried cropping SFEmbarcadero to something that would scale well, but even at 300px it is still a bit compressed. Right now with the image removed I'm thinking that might be best right now, since as we've noted numerous times the article tends to have a problem with people adding too many images, so the article might be better off without a second one in the economy section. If there was a source on what the current breakdown of industry in San Francisco we could also maybe come up with an infographic as a possibility. The current 2nd paragraph focuses on the rise of the financial industry, which is why a finance industry image would help. I'm not sure there is an image of some SoMa building that would show the San Jose connection or a Biotech connection. -Optigan13 (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Financial District photo in the Economy section is terrible ("San Francisco skyline from Potrero Hill.jpg"). It doesn't really show the FiDi very well and has a highway and some ugly warehouses or half-constructed condos in the foreground. I see this has been a serial problem with this article, considering the discussion further up on this talk page. Any of the photos in that section ("FinancialNorth.jpg"; "Montgomerystreetsf.jpg"; "Federal Reserve Band (San Francisco).jpg") except #2 (SanFranciscoEmbarcadero.jpg) would be fine as a replacement, and even the cropped version of #2 is better than the one currently there now. Thoughts?--64.81.57.93 (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I see somebody inserted the current FiDi photo without my noticing. I agree, it is quite unremarkable. I'm going to replace it with "FinancialNorth.jpg" and see what happens.--Paul (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I, too, prefer FinancialNorth.jpg to the other shots. Its composition is superior. Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I see you guys are making consensus without consensus. I changed that photo months ago, and no one said a word.

As seen previously, a consensus was never 100% reached as to what should be a proper photo there and it was decided that NO photo should be there until something. Paul, again due to his biases went ahead and put it back, even though as mentioned before, it does not show the ENTIRE Fi-Di and actually shows more Chinatown and Russian Hill, not to mention, no one really agreed to putting one back in the first place. I'm actually going to go out and take a much better version today, taking advantage of the clear weather we've been having. Eman007 (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that editors should accuse other editors of bad faith or imply unsocial motives to them, but I do think it is acceptable to defend oneself against such charges. As anyone can see from the comments in this Talk section there is no consensus for the "Financial District" image taken from Portreo Hill that editor Eman007 insists on inserting into the article despite his (or her) claims to the contrary in edit summaries. To the contrary, it is clear from the record that no one, save Eman007 thinks it is a proper image, and no one save Eman007 thinks there is anything wrong with "FinancialNorth." "FinancialNorth" is a superior image, because it does not have distracting foreground clutter, and because it is limited to a section of the skyline anchored by two iconic Financial District buildings, the Transamerica Pyramid, and the Bank of America tower. It is not perfect, but of the several choices being championed here, it is clearly the superior one. I would like to work with Eman007 to improve the San Francisco article, but find it hard to do so in a adversarial environment.--Paul (talk) 03:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well Paul, perhaps you should follow your own words if you claim to "like to work with Eman007 to improve the San Francisco article, but find it hard to do so in a adversarial environment." For starters, the record shows from the original discussion back from back in December 2009, there was no consensus reached and none for months. Its only when I added a photo a few months ago, when you, only recently as last acted arbitrarily on your own and changed the picture based on one approval from an unregistered user quoting your words "and see what happens." Did you reach a consensus? No. Did you bother contact me personally about my decision or restart the debate? No. Because you entitle yourself as custodian of this page, you feel the need to arbitrarily make decisions based on your opinions. And you call others "anti-social"?

The last time I checked, and especially according to the rules, a Wikipedia consensus has to have more than just two users, i.e: you and one other person. Just because you've spent the most time working on this article, doesn't make it your own and give you the ability to arbitrarily make decisions and changes to it as i've seen you do for countless other edits on this page. As I mentioned, i'm going to call in an admin to settle this fairly since it doesn't seem you want to do so on your end. This is Wikipedia, not your own personal page and/or blog. --Eman007 (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A small correction, there are three editors who prefer the "FinancialNorth" image, Binksternet, 64.81.57.93, and myself. Only Eman007 doesn't like it and is waging a war of one to remove it from the article, so no one is claiming a consensus of two. The same three editors think that "San Francisco skyline from Potrero Hill" is a poor quality image. More broadly, to your claim of "no consensus":

From Improper Consensus Building:

"One or more editors who oppose a viewpoint that many other editors support may engage in tendentious editing practices where they refuse to allow consensus they don't agree with and are willing to perpetuate arguments indefinitely, effectively "filibustering" the discussion."

From Consensus Is Not Unanimity

"Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. But after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best. Sometimes a rough consensus is enough to move forward."

"Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process. If someone knows that the group cannot move forward without their consent, they may harden their position in order to get their way. This is considered unacceptable on Wikipedia as a form of gaming the system."

Also, when you go to your Admin for help, be sure to mention that you broke the 3-Revert Rule during this petty fight, by reverting "FinancialNorth" four times in 24 hours.-Paul (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You are being a hypocrite yourself in the regard that you yourself violated Improper Consensus Building when you ignored the discussion dating back from December 2009. You are simply abusing user power then accusing me of doing so. You also ignored my requests to wait until an Admin settles this, and then lied saying that "I want to work together with you" when it appears you have no intention. The record is all there. Why you continue to lie in the face of the record being present is appalling. You yourself need to read this: How experienced editors avoid being dragged into edit wars. The Administrator will see in the record that you continue to ignore, that you made zero attempt to engage in discussion. You need to read this carefully yourself:

[is consensus?] How not to achieve consensus Don't edit war. Don't simply state your position over and over, without explaining your underlying concerns and interests. Don't canvass other editors who agree with you. Don't give up when people disagree on a specific proposal. Don't take a hard line position to extract concessions from other editors. This often backfires, and undermines the reasonableness of your viewpoint. Don't question the other party's motive. You also reverted Financial North too 4 times in 24 hours as well. I can and will also say you and Binksternet are ganging up on me which constitutes as abuse. I've filed a WQA against you and Binksternet. Eman007 (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Panorama Photo

A while back the panorama was replaced with a new one which was advertised as "higher resolution" and "better exposed." There's no doubt that the new one has more pixels, but I prefer the older one, as it has much more flattering lighting (taken at dusk) and the atmophere was more clear, paradoxically allowing better detail even though it is lower resolution. I'd like to revert to the earlier panorama. Both of them are presented below for comparison:

Current:

Central San Francisco from Twin Peaks

Earlier version:

Any comments or opinions?Paul (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the previous image. The shadows help show more detail, the new one shows as a wash of gray concrete through a haze. Nice try at updating the image as the dusk panorama though, as some of the newer high rises are missing(I forget what the new one is over by the bay bridge). -Optigan13 (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are a number of buildings missing from the earlier image, One Rincon Hill, Millennium Tower, and the Intercontinental Hotel. Some windy, clear day, I'll have to haul my camera up Mt. Davidson or Twin Peaks and work on getting an updated panorama. --Paul (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the golden hour sunset shot, no matter the missing buildings. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sunset photo is prettier but its not recent. As mentioned above, many new additions to the skyline are missing. It makes the article look bad if we're putting up old and outdated photos. This isn't Flickr, this is Wikipedia. We really shouldn't be sacrificing accuracy and being up to date over aesthetics. Go with the top one until someone takes a better shot. Eman007 (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think a poorly composed image "makes the article look bad", not an out-of-date photo. Anybody wishing to get that much out of a panorama is working too hard, anyhow. The recent buildings that are not represented as tiny towers in the panorama are certainly available, if notable, at their own articles. Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

People are supposed to be reading the article and getting information from it. Not looking at photos. If they want a gallery of photos, or artistic photos in a wikiformat, that's what wikimedia.org is for. Encyclopedia articles are the point of Wikipedia and photos just are visual aids to the articles if anything. Putting up an outdated photo by 8 to 10 years, but because "its pretty" doesn't do an article, especially on a city, justice. Its not the recent and up to date information a Wikipedia article is supposed to be. If you look at articles for all the other major cities, you'll see the same thing. Just aids in what city looks like and nothing else. Not a showcase for professional photographers to post.

Paul is right. Just go up to Twin Peaks and take a better photo. The time of year and weather right now is perfect for it.

Eman007 (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, we're debating the philosophy of images, now. As seen by the usual reader, the photo with more buildings does not actually give more information: none of the buildings are labeled. Most readers will simply skim over the image to get an impression, not scan it deeply for specific relationships, like how many blocks SF MOMA is from the doomed Bay Bridge Terminal building. The quick impression is the line I look to when deciding which of two images are the best. If one truly held more information (perhaps with pixel-level links to place names, etc.) available to the short-attention-span reader, I would select it. Binksternet (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet it seems that you completely missed my point. This isn't about "image philosophy" or details, or anything like that. You seem to be confused as well with the notion that articles are also supposed to serve as photo galleries, to which they are not. Its an encyclopedia article. Again, if they want to look at pretty pictures, there are plenty of other places online where they can view them. San Francisco's skyline has undergone many changes in the last 5 years and its dishonest, changes that have been mentioned in other wikipedia article, and not to show that to people looking up information on the city and show them a instead 8 year old photo just because it "looks prettier".

As i'm mentioning yet again, I don't see why we can just settle for now until someone goes and takes a different picture. If any of you lives in SF, or the Bay Area, can't you just take some time out to go up to Twin Peaks and take a photo if it is bothering you so much? The weather is perfect for it. Eman007 (talk) 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not confused. Images should look good and give information. A 'blah' picture of the skyscrapers of SF, all crowded together and almost indistinct from each other, is not preferable to a 'pretty' picture showing much the same content. I would like to see a reader who has never visited San Francisco choose which image to run here... the point being that the new reader does not care about a few new buildings missing. The general impression is kept. Me, I always vote for pretty pictures if that is an option. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It isn't only that it is a more attractive photo, it is also easier to use for looking at the details of the city. There's too much haze and the light is flat in the current photo, while the oblique light and shadows in the older photo provide more contrast and relief and you can see the details easier. -Paul (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Central Pacific Railroad paragraph in History section

A very knowledgeable and enthusiastic editor recently added a paragraph to the History section devoted to the Central Pacific Railroad. It is good information, but it duplicates information in the CPRR article, and is too detailed for an eleven-paragraph section covering the entire history of the city, giving undue weight to the CPRR in this article. I have made the changes below to cut it back to something more appropriate, adding a link to the CPRR article so readers can more readily access the details of the establishment of the railroad and its relationship to San Francisco:

OLD:

Entrepreneurs sought to capitalize on the wealth generated by the Gold Rush. Early winners were the banking industry, which saw the founding of Wells Fargo in 1852, and the Bank of California in 1864, while the development of the Port of San Francisco established the city as a center of trade.
San Francisco's business activity was further enhanced with the establishment in 1869 of a continuous overland railroad link connecting the Bay Area to the Eastern US trunk rail system via the Central Pacific Railroad. Built between 1863 and 1869 by a group of then Sacramento-based magnates led by former (1862-63) California Gov. Leland Stanford known as the the Big Four, the new line constituted the western portion the Pacific Railroad (aka the First Transcontinental Railroad) that was authorized by the U.S. Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864. Partially financed (albeit reluctantly) by a major San Francisco bond issue made in 1865, the CPRR moved its headquarters to the city from Sacramento in 1874. Its operations were later taken over by the Southern Pacific Railroad under a long term lease made in 1885.

CPRR logo

Catering to the needs and tastes of the growing population, Levi Strauss opened a dry goods business and Domingo Ghirardelli began manufacturing chocolate. Immigrant laborers made the city a polyglot culture, with Chinese railroad workers creating the city's Chinatown quarter. The first cable cars carried San Franciscans up Clay Street in 1873. The city's sea of Victorian houses began to take shape, and civic leaders campaigned for a spacious public park, resulting in plans for Golden Gate Park. San Franciscans built schools, churches, theaters, and all the hallmarks of civic life. The Presidio developed into the most important American military installation on the Pacific coast. By the turn of the century, San Francisco was a major city known for its flamboyant style, stately hotels, ostentatious mansions on Nob Hill, and a thriving arts scene.

NEW:

Entrepreneurs sought to capitalize on the wealth generated by the Gold Rush. Early winners were the banking industry, which saw the founding of Wells Fargo in 1852, and the Bank of California in 1864, while the development of the Port of San Francisco established the city as a center of trade. The the Big Four, headed by Leland Stanford launched the Central Pacific Railroad which in 1869 connected San Francisco to the eastern United States via a direct overland link. Catering to the needs and tastes of the growing population, Levi Strauss opened a dry goods business and Domingo Ghirardelli began manufacturing chocolate. Immigrant laborers made the city a polyglot culture, with Chinese railroad workers creating the city's Chinatown quarter. The first cable cars carried San Franciscans up Clay Street in 1873. The city's sea of Victorian houses began to take shape, and civic leaders campaigned for a spacious public park, resulting in plans for Golden Gate Park. San Franciscans built schools, churches, theaters, and all the hallmarks of civic life. The Presidio developed into the most important American military installation on the Pacific coast. By the turn of the century, San Francisco was a major city known for its flamboyant style, stately hotels, ostentatious mansions on Nob Hill, and a thriving arts scene.

I think the shorter version is sufficient.Paul (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)