Talk:M-22 (Michigan highway)/Archive 1

Archive 1

For GA

Imzadi, the RD for the article needs to be much much longer. Right now as it stands this article would be at C-class but since you GANed it I won't demote it. Try expanding the lead as well - CL — 03:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean like I just did? Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly that Good luck - CL — 04:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

M-22 trademarks

Most of these recent additions has very little to do with the highway. This series of edits added a bunch of puffery that's not supported by the citations in the article, and without additional references, it can't remain.

1. The trademark page at m22online.com can't support the claim that the company "has turned the simple shield in to a globally recognized brand". Being "globally recognized" is an exception claim, and under WP:SPS, the section of the Verification policy on self-published sources, "exceptional claim[s] would require exceptional sources".
2. "The marker may be used by the public to indicate geographical reference and anything not covered in the goods and services claimed by the federally registered trademarks owned by Broneah Kiteboarding." is not supported by the Detroit Free Press article.
3. "Such opinions in Michigan are signifcant but federal trademark law preempts state law where there is a conflict." is sourced to another Wikipedia article, which is against policy. See WP:CIRCULAR which specifies "Do not use articles from Wikipedia or from websites that mirror its content as sources, because this would amount to self-reference."

This is a Good Article on a highway in Michigan. Good Articles have to meet a set of criteria to become and remain listed. Criterion 3b states "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)", and criterion 5 states "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." I've worked too hard on Michigan's highway articles to see people add information that un-focuses and de-stabilizes this article. Before anyone adds anything else, please discuss your additions here first, thank you. Imzadi 1979 → 00:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I am new to wiki (obviously) as well as html but thought I had it figured out enough to contribute.

My intent was not to use unecessary detail for an ongoing edit war or content dispute. I only would like to make clear a related fact that the attorney general's opinion is not a ruling. I think that as you have written the last section, using "however" in your sentence, it is misleading and sounds as if the M-22 trademark you mention prior to "however" is invalid based on a state opinion.

I also think that the last part: "in Michigan such opinions have 'the force of [state] law unless challenged and overturned in a court'" is an irrelevant detail and if used in the article should also point out federal preexemption. If you disagree, then I think you should remove the quote entirely otherwise I would say your choice of information shows a bias and is irrelevant.

I understand that you want to keep the wiki articles you have written on highways great and you seem dedicated to working on them so hopefully you will take my feedback into consideration and edit the page to make the trademark information less misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McFarlenUSA (talk • contribs) 02:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this the same person Enrico1999 (talk · contribs) or 174.124.197.176 (talk · contribs) who has edit the article and my talk page before? If you're Enrico1999, are you the Enrico Schaefer who is the lawyer for Broneah Kiteboarding and/or M22, LLC? If so, please disclose your conflict of interest and stop editing the article directly. Imzadi 1979 → 02:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

And since this isn't relevant to the highway, I've reverted the article back to the state before Enrico1999 (talk · contribs) added the first tidbit about the trademark, which doesn't matter to the coverage of the highway. Imzadi 1979 → 02:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the trademark info. I agree, it's all irrelevant to your page. I'm not a lawyer or anyone, I've never posted on here before. With all the buzz about M-22 in the press, I googled something like M-22 and Tradmark to see what the most recent google listings were and was disappointed when I saw the addition to the wiki article. I live in Michigan and love M-22. I've been reading all the recent press and feel it's been pretty one-sided. I felt the need to say something but I guess don't really know how to edit wiki the pages so I'm glad I could reach you this way! — Preceding unsigned comment added by McFarlenUSA (talk • contribs) 02:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is that I have to follow what the sources say, and based on them, what was there was correct. (We operate on "verifiability, not truth" based on our policies. Something might be true or untrue, but if we can't verify it, we can't add it to the article. If in the process of verification, an otherwise reliable source gets a detail or two wrong, we have to find another reliable source to refute it. Imzadi 1979 → 03:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Cultural references

I believe the section "Cultural references" should be removed. This is promotion for a business and does not belong here. Mich.linux.guy (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not promoting the business. The version you edited it to was a single sentence without a citation. We have to place the usage into context. There's a single company that sells this merchandise, and they sell a wide array of items using the marker as a logo. The article presents that fact neutrally. Imzadi 1979 → 18:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The AG for the State of Michigan has issued the opinion that no company can use Michigan road signs as a trademark since they are in the public domain. The addition does promote the company. Mich.linux.guy (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

See the thread above. Also, your sentence leaves out that the highway marker is floating around on lots of car bumpers and shirts out there. Imzadi 1979 → 18:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed the section because it was a business promotion cited by the business itself. If you have an impartial source, add that as a reference. Mich.linux.guy (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The reference is fine. See WP:SPS. We can use a business' website to cite details about itself. Please revert yourself until the discussion has ended as your insistence on removing content with consensus jeopardizes the Good Article status of this article. Imzadi 1979 → 19:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this section, to be honest. --Rschen7754 19:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPS is under the heading of "Sources that are usually not reliable" Mich.linux.guy (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Keyword being "usually". In this case, it is reliable as a business is describing itself. Stuff like this has passed FAC with no issues. --Rschen7754 19:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree if this was a page about that business. Mich.linux.guy (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you cite any part of WP:SPS that supports your assertion? --Rschen7754 19:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

See the next section, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field... " [emphasis mine]. The passage is about a business activity of M22, LLC aka Broneah Kiteboarding. Imzadi 1979 → 19:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Then it should be in an article about Broneah Kiteboarding. Mich.linux.guy (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, where is that remarkable assertion backed up in the guideline? --Rschen7754 19:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"... usually in articles about themselves or their activities ..." Mich.linux.guy (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Selling t-shirts and other merchandise with the M-22 highway marker on it is one of their activities. QED. Imzadi 1979 → 20:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Feel free to start a dedicated article about the company. Given the press they've received over the trademark of the highway marker that's in the public domain, they'll pass WP:GNG. However, omitting the usage of the highway marker in commercial enterprises from this article would be like omitting "Route 66" or Route 66 from U.S. Route 66, and omitting the name of the company that has popularized the design would be like leaving out Bobby Troup's name when you mention the song. Imzadi 1979 → 20:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You have a good solution - start a dedicated article about the company. Mich.linux.guy (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

And in any case: Either source backs the content, which is appropriate (see my previous reply above) because one of their business activities is directly related to this article. Starting another article does not negate the connection to this subject matter: the company is using the marker ("shield", whatever) assigned to this roadway, placing it into popular usage in another context, just as Bobby Troop did when he wrote "Route 66", or when the Route 66 TV show was made. It's no further different than Eminem naming his movie after 8 Mile Road. Imzadi 1979 → 20:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional information can be added over the legal issue of usurping a public domain symbol as a trademark. Or would that be too balanced? Mich.linux.guy (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

See the section above this one. That was already rejected. We had the company's lawyer editing the article, inserting his own commentary that wasn't supported by the sources used. The legal issue of the marker isn't exactly germane to the highway's cultural impact. If anything, since the M-119 marker is also affected by the legal issues, that would be appropriate to a potential inclusion in Michigan State Trunkline Highway System. Imzadi 1979 → 21:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

So you insist on including information on this company, but only information that is positive. This by definition is "promotion". Mich.linux.guy (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not. The trademark issue doesn't affect the highway. The t-shirts and merchandise, even if sold by a for-profit company, "promotes" this road. It's no more promoting that company than it is to mention who performs a song named after a road. The trademark issue doesn't harm the road. If the trademark is upheld, only one company sells t-shirts and bumper stickers. If the trademark is invalidated, other companies could sell similar merchandise. In neither case is the road not promoted any more or any less. Imzadi 1979 → 21:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The trademark issue is relevant to M-22. Including information on Broneah Kiteboarding, but not the M-22 symbol issue that is specifically mentioned in Schuette's opinion is extremely biased. Mich.linux.guy (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you not read the #M-22 trademarks discussion above? Imzadi 1979 → 01:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's how I see it. The article said Broneah sells merchandise with the highway's route marker on it. The inline citation allows you to see that, yes indeed, they do sell stuff with M-22 on it. That's about as neutrally as we can write it. If we were actually promoting the site, the section would be a whole lot longer. Now, I think we could trim out the part where it says what kind of merchandise is sold, as simply saying "merchandise" is sufficient. –Fredddie™ 11:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with this Cultural references section. I do not think mentioning this information is critical to the article, but it is useful information that should probably be kept. There is nothing wrong with mentioning Company A sells Product B, although I like Fredddie's solution to change the specific items to just "merchandise" to make it a little less promotional. I think creating an article about the company is overkill just for this purpose. The M-22 merchandise may be the only thing notable about the company for people outside of Michigan. I also think it is inappropriate to put the burden of creating that article on Imzadi1979. That being said, I do have a problem with the second sentence of the section (as seen in the second to last version): As such, the logo has become a popular symbol for the company as well as a cultural symbol for the western Grand Traverse Bay area. The M-22 merchandise list used as the reference is not sufficient to support this assertion. Fortunately, a reference to the court case decision or newspaper article is all that is needed to support the assertion.  VC  14:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the section to the article with the additional citation as a discussion point. Based on the above comments, we're a point to discussion revisions, not removal, The bumper stickers are the most visible item. A walk down Front Street or a stroll through the mall parking lots in town will show them on at least a quarter of the vehicles, if not half of them, on any given day. That's my personal anecdote as a former resident, but born out by the comments on the Record-Eagle and worth mentioning. We can leave out all of the other merchandise and gloss it to just clothing and the stickers instead of the former extensive list someone added). Imzadi 1979 → 02:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have asked at WP:RPP that the article be protected until the discussion is over. –Fredddie™ 11:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Declined There are only two users in this dispute (Imzadi1979 and Mich.linux.guy). Rather than protect the page, I am asking both users to stop edit warring, to avoid being blocked. I see there is already discussion going on - lets keep that up and not continue to edit war. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• It appears above the mich linux guy concedes that the current info is valid. His last point indicates that he feels there is undue weight or bias because the company is mentioned but without the trademark dispute. I think he's right in saying that this should be mentioned, briefly albeit. Even a simple "These actions resulted in a trademark dispute in which the Michigan AG declared the trademark invalid." would paint a bigger picture. It's not relevant to the roadway, but it is relevant to the M-22 moniker. That said, with or without this addition, the current info is not promotional, just factual. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Continued

For ref.: "Keegan Myers said the success of the company and simplicity of the concept has made them easy targets for copycats. 'In business you can’t move forward if you can’t protect what you’ve created,' says Keegan. 'Nike does it.' / His older brother Matt was more direct ..."; Marketplace, today, raw material I brought with me. You all can fight over whether to continue to banish the subject from the article. You've done good work here but I disagree with the "stability" argument; too high a cost. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

And what does this have to do with the road? Start an article on the company and their trademark dispute if you like. Imzadi 1979 → 23:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Controversy, trademark and popular culture

Despite the claim of User:Imzadi1979, I do not agree that there was a prior "consensus" to not include this material. Past consensus? This antedates the NPR piece. Looks like it was 2-2 back then, and now times and sources have changed.
In light of all four of the sources, rather than edit war, I am bringing it to the talk page and think we should include the following:
A private corporation has attempted to trademark the "Michigan M-22" Road sign, which attempt has been legally opposed by the Michigan Attorney General. He filed documents designating the sign as "public domain. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Nothing has really changed though. The AG had been opposing the trademark for the last four years, so it's not exactly a new development, nor is it really all that germane to the highway itself, which is the subject of the article. It would be germane to an article on the corporation, which is where that belongs. Imzadi 1979 → 10:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Obviously, it is about the highway's sign. Relevancy to this article is clear.

Your argument about it being a "new development" is itself irrelevant. WP:Recentism. We will have to agree to disagree. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that it be put in as a sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the "Cultural references" section. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

In light of a lack of response in the last week, I am going to add it as proposed per WP:BRD. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)