Talk:Bodie, California

Trivia

no it is no because why would we want to know what he didn't sing about we would want to know more about why they all fled bodie

Not a song? is that significant?

It's by Joyce Anderson, apparently. --Wetman 15:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In December 1986, Bodie was the setting of many of the photographs of taken by Anton Corbijn of the rock band U2 for The Joshua Tree album and its related singles, including the B-side of their 2017 version of their single, 'Red Hill Mining Town'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.72.49.255 (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Corrected images

As part of my general mission of correcting images of buildings on WP, I have swapped some of the images out for perspective corrected versions. I am not for one second knocking the artistic merits of the originals, indeed one is a Featured Picture, but this is an encyclopedia and the images should reflect closer what the eye sees. The corrected versions correct nothing but perspective distortion, as any architectural photographer would when photographing a building with the intention of accurately capturing the structure. Mfield (talk) 05:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• The BodieMask image: The mask is a stylized pigs face novelty item sold from 1950's to the early 1970's. They are usually glazed brown and have red ribbons attached to small holes on the side of the mask as a functional way to hang them on a wall. One of the holes for the ribbons is visible in the high res photo but someone has strung a rusty piece of bailing wire through the hole. The rusty bailing wire adds to the illusion that this piece of mass produced pottery is indeed an antique - a rare child's mask from the pioneer days! Heh, hardly. Dutyfree (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• These novelty masks were produced with no eye-holes and glazed with white and black for the eye itself OR with eye-holes for plastic eye inserts. I used to buy sealed boxed-lots of goods at auctions and these fugly curio masks were in every third box. The BodieMask photograph is well composed - some might claim it was included for the sake of its sheer artistic quality. Not a big deal nor worth raising a stink over (pig pun?) Dutyfree (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Value of gold and silver taken from Bodie's mines

"Bodie's mines produced gold valued at more than $34 million"

I found a source that says that the mines produces both gold and silver that valued $34 million (in 1880s dollars). I found this source through ProQuest, and it is a scanned version of an article that appeared in Sunset. Now, as to which Sunset periodical, I'm not sure. It could be Sunset (magazine) but ProQuest labels it as from a "Research Library". So I'm not positive. But in any case, could whoever added the reference on the page please double check to see what the reference that is cited actually says? I know this may seem miniscule, but I'd like this page to be as widely covered as possible (given that there's so many conflicted facts in publications about this topic). Killiondude (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Be very cautious about believing articles in magazines such as Sunset. These publications print light history, likely to be poorly researched with no way of knowing the author's sources. As we have seen above, there's lots of junk history about Bodie that gets cycled over and over. The same misinformation reappears as fact, even though it's been challenged and corrected. Occasionally somebody makes up something new. The statement that Bodie yielded "$34 million in 1880s dollars" makes no sense, because the mines produced until 1942, and nobody converted back to 1880 dollar values. The figure (actually $33,954,919.29) is from Table 6, page 32 of Geology and Ore Deposits of the Bodie Mining District, (California Division of Mines and Geology--Bulletin 206) by Chesterman, Chapman, and Gray, who tabulated yearly yields and said nothing about 1880s dollars. The mines reported production each year in dollar values for that year. It's no more complicated than that. MHP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.171.155 (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern. I haven't forgotten about the "junk history" facts that were discussed above. I think the fact that this article is in ProQuest gives it some credibility. I believe the statement "in 1880s dollars" was meant to convey that the sum was not adjusted to account for inflation (i.e. not adjusted to "today's dollars"). So the $33.95 million dollars that is listed in the source you cite above, that is the total value of stuff mined from the beginning of mining in Bodie until the 1940s? Killiondude (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Without reading this Talk page first (sorry!) I tripped into a rabbit hole to find the source for that $34 million figure given in citation 18 (Chesterman, Charles W.; Chapman, Roger H.; Gray, Clifton H., Jr. (1986). Geology and Ore Deposits of the Bodie Mining District, Mono County, California. Sacramento: California Department of Conservation/Division of Mines and Geology. p. 32. Bulletin 206). See here, page 32. I cannot determine how that value was calculated. Here is my current edit: "Over the years 1860-1941 Bodie's mines produced gold and silver valued at an estimated US$34 million[18] (in 1986 dollars, or $85 million in 2021)." This can't be right, though--it's too low!

I'm not at all confident in my edit, but I do feel that it is an improvement over what preceded it. The publication does not give the methodology for how the table's figures were generated. I don't find any rationale to believe with certainty that "The mines reported production each year in dollar values for that year". The "estimated US$34 million" possibilities include reported contemporary values each of the years in that range and the values adjusted for inflation (or not) in either 1941 or 1986.

$85 million in gold and silver (in today's money) seems to me to be a very low value for Bodie's output. I remember years ago former longtime Bodie SHP Chief Ranger Brad Sturdivant estimating three-quarters of a billion to 1 billion (then-current value), for example, and that range passes the smell test. All to say that the actual now-current value of the table's figures needs verification, I believe, by someone who knows what they're doing. (Apologies for breaking any protocols here, I don't edit much at all) --forestflyer (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

On another note, what do you guys think about taking the information in the last section ("Authentic ghost town") and putting it in the "History" section? It might be best to keep chronological history stuff all in the same place. I wanted to add a referenced fact that in the 1940s, a family that owned much of the land the town is on hired caretakers so that it wouldn't get vandalized or looted. I couldn't figure out which of those two sections it should go in, which led me to wonder if the "Authentic ghost town" one should just be merged into the other. Killiondude (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a big history section (including the "authentic ghost town" section), perhaps with subsections about the phases of history, or about topics. Michael's response about the ghost town, above, has a lot of potentially good stuff for the article. hike395 (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. I like what you've done to the page. Feel free to reword or relocate any info that I've added to it (not much, but still). Killiondude (talk) 08:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I found this: Oct. 1936 Roseclip Mine reopened; 1942 Roseclip Mine closed; town abandoned from this book. I haven't read anywhere else about "another" mine opening in Bodie... what do you think Michael? Killiondude (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement is accurate, sort of. You can learn more about Roseklip at Bodie in Billeb, page 205, photos pages 220-221; and Piatt, pages 262-264, photos pages 261, 262, 265. MHP

Split town & historic district?

At Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/NRHP_articles_needing_attention, there is a proposal to split this into two articles, Bodie, California and Bodie Historic District.

OPPOSE. Bodie is a ghost town. All the remaining historic buildings (sfaict) are included in the Historic District and the State Park. Splitting would result in two near-identical articles. Redirects (as now) are the appropriate solution. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for bringing that to attention here. I used to have WP:NRHP watchlisted, but it got annoying (too many changes, too fast!). This article should remain as titled, without splitting the town from the historical district. Killiondude (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per Tillman: there's no town separate from the historic district. —hike395 (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Population figures

Hello. I noticed a slow revert war occurring over the population figures. I personally favor the US Census figures over the picture from some textbook, and I personally looked through the scanned US Census pages to get those figures. Now, I know this isn't a town any longer, but according to WP:USCITY, the guidelines for US cities/towns, US Census figures are preferred over any other source. "The US Census should be the primary source of demographic data. If census estimates or other reliable sources of demographic data are included, the additional data should supplement -- not replace -- the most recent available data from the decennial census." I see that the new data supports the US Census figures for the years 1890, 1900, 1910, and 1920, but the figures are very different for 1880. Also, per WP:V, we need to know the actual book this new information is coming from so we can evaluate how reliable it is. Your cooperation is appreciated. Killiondude (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking up the guidelines, Killiondude. My main objection was, indeed, based on WP:V. Another question I have is: what is "Rate" in the population table? I don't understand that column at all. —hike395 (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey if the user who introduced the new material doesn't respond within the next day or so I'm going to revert to the former infobox. Killiondude (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The user has now identified that the scans are from brochures or some publication directly from the State Park people in Bodie. If memory serves correctly, they haven't always had the best (most reliable) information regarding this area's history. Perhaps we could just use the Census figures (that we know are correct, because of the scanned data from the US Census Bureau for those years) as the table data, and then perhaps use this other data in the actual article, but state that figures vary according to source (because they do)? Killiondude (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Without citations for each number, the chart posted under "Population" is unreliable and should be removed. There were no official counts for Bodie during 1860, 1876, 1877, 1878, 1879, 1881, 1882, 1887, 1888, 1921, 1926, and 1932. Most of these figures are estimates (demonstrated by flagrant rounding off) from varous publications. Others are obvious errors. We know there were more than two miners at Bodie in 1860, because its inhabitants organized a mining district. The 1880 population of 10,000 (sometimes more) is a tradition that has been repeated so many times it's often accepted as fact, yet the figure is not supported by eyewitness accounts nor by the U.S Census, whose enumerators counted only 5,416 people. MHP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.69.98 (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The same thing can be seen on the article Silver Reef, Utah, except there are a couple citations. I voted that that one be removed, too. So I think we should remove the population table. OldWestHistorian (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's follow the guidelines of WP:CITY and only retain the Census figures. —hike395 (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) According to Moffat's Population History of Western U.S. Cities and Towns, 1850-1990, which uses census figures and augments with other good sources where available, the figures for Bodie are to the right (all census figures, FYI).

Historical population

Census	Pop.	Note	%±
1880	2,712		—
1890	1,595		−41.2%
1900	965		−39.5%
1910	698		−27.7%
1920	110		−84.2%
1930	228		107.3%
1940	90		−60.5%
Source:

The citation is included in the table, in case someone wants to drop it into the article. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 01:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you think the same should be done in the article about Silver Reef? OldWestHistorian (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The only census data that source has for Silver Reef is 1880 (1046), 1890 (177), and 1990 (50). A local census was taken in 1884 (1500), and is included in the source, but that won't fit into the census template. I'll post the table on the talk page over there, and we can see what people think. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 22:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

References

1920 population figures

The body of the article says "By 1920, Bodie's population was recorded by the US Federal Census at a total of 120 people." but the population chart directly to the right of that paragraph gives an alternate figure. Does anyone know why there's a disparity? 76.14.177.248 (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

New/updated imagery

If no article custodians are apposed, I propose to make at least two changes to the imagery presented. 1) Change the gas station photo, as there is no longer a prop car located at the pumps. 2) Add at least one photo of the stamp mill which is the focal-point and reason why this town existed. I took the guided tour and have interior shots as well as external. I've been there recently, and have new updated photos of a majority of the town. I will check the article for any additional outdated information. --Mespinola (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Cemetery

It has been many decades since I visited, but I found some of the epitaphs remarkable, eg something like "died in childbirth, 12". (User:NanooGeek ) —Preceding undated comment added 22:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Photo gallery

Would anyone be opposed to having an image gallery in this article? Bodie has lots of diverse and interesting imagery - and even more in Commons, it would be nice to be able to see it in one place in the article. Please let me know your thoughts here. Jooojay (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

There's a relevant Wikipedia guideline about image galleries which states:

Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images.

I think that the images interspersed in the article already illustrate Bodie. What aspects do you think are not being described by the text or existing images in the article? —hike395 (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi! The images are broken up in the Bodie WP article with text on both sides, small sized, making it hard to see and read. When I think of Bodie State Historic Park, a large part of it is the imagery - there should show both old and new photographs of the place, a map of the town, pictures of what towns people looked like when Bodie was active and etc. I don't get that from this article. Jooojay (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The layout of the images in the article is following WP:MOSIMAGES --- that shouldn't be a reason to add a gallery, because (almost) all articles follow WP:MOSIMAGES. As far as I can see, there are no old photographs of Bodie available in Commons --- if someone had a picture of Bodie Day (when some people stage historical re-enactment), that might be useful to add. I don't have any pictures from the one time I was at Bodie Day. Maps are generally not useful at the resolution proscribed by WP:MOSIMAGES.

I don't think you've made a strong argument that we need a gallery of images (as opposed to adding or substituting an historical photo, if we can get one). —hike395 (talk) 05:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

As it is known as a historical place, a historical map, historical pictures makes sense. I am not really understanding your defense on this suggestion. As it stands this article could be much better. Jooojay (talk) 06:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is a summary of what I'm saying

1. There's one historical photo in the article, from 1890. I don't see any others on Commons. If you want to find more, that would be good.
2. I added an 1880-era map to the infobox. Generally, image maps don't work well in articles or galleries, because they are too low resolution (following the guideline for image sizes): you can't see any detail in the map image in the infobox
3. So far, there isn't a good reason to add a gallery to the article. An example of a good gallery (IMO) is at Marmot, where there is an image of each species of Marmot. That provides useful information to the article. We already have an illustrated list of buildings in Bodie as a separate article. That other list article is very long and I think it should not be merged into here.

—hike395 (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)