Talk:Mount Waterman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks like the purchase was already made pending forestry service license renewal. you can see the complete article dated March 30th at www.pe.com.

{Newcombe assembled a group that appears ready to oblige. "They're just a bunch of long-time Waterman skiers with money" is how he characterizes the saviors. Newcombe expects he and his group will be in control of the property after June 1. He also expects them to win permission from the Forest Service to operate it unmolested for two decades.

"As long as we get the thing running properly, we should get a 20-year permit," he said.}

Great job on this page by the way...this is a bit of ski history that needs to be preserved.

--12.9.33.203 14:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Who is John Burr and how is he going about starting this foundation. I would like to see it happen.

Tom Moriarty TomMoriarty@HomeSmart-Inland.com 951-445-3625

[edit] Permit

No, I talked to the cartakers who live on the hill(June 4), they say that it has not been sold yet and talks havent really started. I got so much information from them, people should go up and talk to them for I cant remember everything they said

[edit] Article title: "Mt." vs "Mount"

Why was the article moved to "Mt. Waterman"? The standard naming convention is to spell out abbreviations. No other mountains are named "Mt.". See [[1]]. -Will Beback · † · 23:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This article, as written, should probably be at "Mt. Waterman Ski Resort", or whatever the name of the operation is going to be. "Mount Waterman" should probably be used for the mountain itself. -Will Beback · † · 08:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct name for the mountain is Waterman Mountain. There is another page for that name

Aha, so there is, Waterman Mountain. I've re-written the intro to clarify that. That still leaves us with the question of what to name this article. -Will Beback · † · 05:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that we've settled that, I'm inclined to move this article back to "Mount Waterman". Wikipedia avoids abbreviations, even in article titles. Any objections? -Will Beback · † · 11:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

OBJECTION!, the name is, always was, and hopefully always will be Mt. Waterman, NOT Mount, Mt. Waterman Mountain is the name of mountain the resort is situated on. If you guys think its "Mount" than how do you explain http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1325348310038509881LRFYuh|this picture]? AND Waterman's OFFICIAL ski patrol website?

NewcombHwy2 · 5:51 PST, 8 January 2007, Location - Los Angeles County

I can't see the picture (the webpage has exceeded its quota), but I presume it's a sign that is spelled "Mt. Waterman". Wikipedia avoids using abbreviations whenever possible. When spoken, the name of the place is always "mount waterman", not "m t waterman." This is equivalent to "Main St." - the name of the thoroughfare is really "Main Street", no matter how often it is abbreviated "Main St." Do we have any solid source for what the new owners are calling the ski area and/or the new corporation. Please stop moving the article until this is settled. Page moves of the type your doing are potentially harmful to the system. -Will Beback · † · 02:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)