Talk:History of Wells Fargo

Identifying a building

A 19th century Wells Fargo building, but which one?

The article says

Until 1876, both banking and express operations of Wells Fargo in San Francisco were carried on in the same building at the northeast corner of California and Montgomery Streets. In 1876 the locations were separated, with the banking department moving to a building at the northeast corner of California and Sansome Streets. The bank moved in 1891 to the corner of Sansome and Market Streets, where it remained until 1905.

Can anyone identify which of these buildings is shown on the stereo card at right? - Jmabel | Talk 16:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Coporate

This is so written by some working at wellsfargo that it isn't even funny. Or maybe it is funny, but just a little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.127.164 (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This page is pretty ridiculous. I like the part right at the beginning when the competing delivery buisinesses decide that their competition is wasteful and destructive. I'm sure there was nothing that would have violeted an anti-trust law there... after all none existed yet. 142.244.124.47 (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Wells Fargo. 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/20140406010401/https://www.wellsfargo.com/press/2009/20091223_tarp_repayment to https://www.wellsfargo.com/press/2009/20091223_tarp_repayment
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150213025053/http://www.csrmf.org/visitor-information/other-california-state-park-sattractions-in-old-sacramento/bf-hastings-building to http://www.csrmf.org/visitor-information/other-california-state-park-sattractions-in-old-sacramento/bf-hastings-building

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) 09:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Panic of 1855

Someone with a lot better knowledge of 19th Century financial history than I have, will need to differentiate between the Panic of 1857, added to the subsection 1.3 title Expansion into Overland Mail services and the Panic of 1857, in a major edit made by User 50.195.72.217 at 02:59, 15 April 2016, and the Panic of 1855 [1], [2], et al., for which Wikipedia does not presently have an article. The text itself discusses only the Panic of 1855, and does not mention the Panic of 1857.
In the meantime I have changed 1857 in the subsection title to 1855, redlinked. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Would it not make more sense to change the title to Wells Fargo, the history of the Stage Line

If people are looking for Wells Fargo surely they would go to the name first, rather than History? Would it not be cleared?William Macadam (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Page Merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Don’t merge. TheUSConservative (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

---

A new article, Wells Fargo (Old), seems to duplicate the scope of this article. I would suggest it is merged into this article. --John B123 (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Don't merge – I disagree, the new page is more concise, shows the history of the old company since the new company page incorrectly gave the Wells Fargo foundation even though the Wells Fargo company is no longer in existence and it actually is legally the old Norwest so the Norwest start date and founders should be on there and I updated it accordingly. The current article should be broken up into my article and the rest either moved into a Wells Fargo History from 1998-present or merge it into the current Wells Fargo Wikipedia page. TheUSConservative (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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.

Seeing no activity in almost two weeks I suggest this merger discussion be closed and the pages be left the way they are now. TheUSConservative (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@TheUSConservative: Please see WP:MERGECLOSE. --John B123 (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@John B123: The page clearly states that "Any user may close the discussion and move forward with the merger if enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed and there has been no discussion or if there is unanimous consent to merge. Admins are not needed." Direct quote. There was based on no activity for a week or more and it being almost two weeks that I was the only one to even formally vote on it so I closed the discussion. TheUSConservative (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

: @TheUSConservative: The quote says "....and there has been no discussion" not "since there has been any discussion". --John B123 (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@John B123: Exactly. There has been no discussion in over a week as required to close a merger proposal. It states both if a week or more passes and its inactive AND it didn't get any discussion, which it didn't you can close the request. TheUSConservative (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a week or more since the discussion started not a week or two since the last comment. In any case, the part you quoted is preceded by "During discussion, a rough consensus may emerge to proceed with the merger." so the rest of that paragraph is inapplicable. As there is no clear consensus either to merge or not, an uninvolved editor must close the discussion. --John B123 (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

UTC)

@John B123: I’m not against the idea, however it has almost been two weeks now and it doesn’t seem like anyone even noticed this or cared. In my opinion what I did makes logical sense and the split due to length alone, not to mention the confusion the way the page is set up, necessitates a separate page for the Old Wells Fargo since the current Wells Fargo isn’t the former one. The article seems obscure to say the least and it doesn’t appear anyone really edits it much. TheUSConservative (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

: @TheUSConservative: This all started because it seemed to me the article titles were confusing. "Old", as in Wells Fargo (Old), indicates an aspect of history so would seem to duplicate (in scope) History of Wells Fargo. Looking at the content, the former deals with the history 1852 - 1988 and the latter 1999 on. (Norwest Corporation's history prior to '98 is dealt with in the article of that name.) As you are opposed to the merger, and I can see some logic to that, then for consistency and to avoid confusion it might be better to rename Wells Fargo (Old) to Wells Fargo (1852-1988) or History of Wells Fargo (1852-1988). --John B123 (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@John B123: That's such a great idea. I will rename the page. 73.242.63.145 (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@TheUSConservative: Well done --John B123 (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)