Wanganui or Whanganui? Or both? Or neither.

What will be the outcome of this pressing issue?

This is a hard issue to predict. But to me the main 2 options are Whanganui or Wanganui.
Not sure why the large differenct in price for these 2 options...

Is it just me or at 9c is the option for the no "h" option priced well?

With the new contracts for the official name of Wanganui there does not appear to be a contract for Wanganui and Whanganui both being official but not together. In other words that either may be used and be officially recognized.

As I feel this has a reasonable degree of possibility I believe such a contract should be available.

Wouldn't "both" cover whanganui and wanganui both being official names? Surely it was meant to!

I have to say, I am surprised that "both" is only at 7c. We have Mt Egmont/Taranaki and Aoraki/Mt Cook, after all.

The way I read the judging criteria of "both", it is for both names in a linked format (This contract will pay $1 for Wanganui-Whanganui, Whanganui/Wanganui. However, compound words (WhanganuiWanganui, for example) will not cause this contract to close at $1.). I don't think this will happen nor do I believe it would find public acceptance.

I still think we need a contract for both being officially recognized but used individually.

I'm not surprised at the price of the "both" contract, Nearly bought in until I re-read it.

Oracle, I've done a bit more thinking on your point.

My conclusion is that, if the Minister decides that both names will be officially recognised, this is almost always done through the inclusion of both names in a "linked format" in the official name (ie the name that is published in the Gazette). You can check this by downloading all 117 pages of NZ official place names in the "Gazetteer" at [www.linz.govt.nz]

There are numerous examples of English and Maori names both being incorporated into an official name via this method. The following are a few of the hundreds of examples:

Alpine Lake/Ata Puai
Aoraki/Mount Cook (both the mountain and the town)
Colac Bay/Ōraka (both the town and the bay)
Dart River/Te Awa Whakatipu
Doubtful Sound/Patea
Fox Glacier/Te Moeka o Tuawe
Hauturu/Little Barrier Island
Matiu/Somes Island
Riverton/Aparima (a town)
Southern Alps/Kā Tiritiri o te Moana
Stewart Island/Rakiura
Titi/Muttonbird Islands
Waerenga/Mission Bay

Perhaps the recent rise in the value of "Both" indicates people are cottoning on to this point.

Yes, but Whanganui/Wanganui wouldn't be a joint Maori/English name, it would be a joint Correct Spelling/"Typo" name.

Are there any instances of two variations of a Maori name in the official name? Or not even variations, are there any instances of two different Maori names in an official name?

the_master Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, but Whanganui/Wanganui wouldn't be a joint
> Maori/English name, it would be a joint Correct
> Spelling/"Typo" name.
>
> Are there any instances of two variations of a
> Maori name in the official name? Or not even
> variations, are there any instances of two
> different Maori names in an official name?

Logical point, but I get the feeling this is as much political question as an academic one. The current political rhetoric is very enamoured with the avoidance of political correctness and pandering to minority groups. With the vocal majority opposition (of the public) I wonder whether they will try and appease both crowds by using the slash, or by ignoring the suggestion altogether.

Without trawling through the 117 pages again, I see that Cape Karikari is also known as Cape Whakapouaka. There are other examples, too. But I take your point.

I think the explanation is that: (1) the Geographic board is clearly interested in the "correct" spelling and it, rather than politicians, chooses the spelling of 99.99% of place names; (2) there has never been, to my knowledge, such a public dispute over the spelling of a name, so politicians haven't become involved; (3) ordinarily concessions are made by recognising both the English and Maori names.

However, this is a special case. Although the dispute is superficially about the "correct" spelling, it is really about which language the name should be spelt in or, if you prefer, which group of people should choose the spelling of the name. From memory, the argument in favour of the "no h" camp, is that Wanganui is just as much an English word as it is a Maori one. The name/spelling was decided by early pakeha settlors, and that's the way it should remain. On this level, it is essentially the same as, eg, the Aoraki v Mount Cook argument.

In the end, a political solution to the dispute will be found. And, if it is to recognise both names (presumably because both hold meaning for different groups of people), my point is that the Wanganui/Whanganui format seems the most likely to be adopted.

Taurusport, while you make a very good point, and while I think that you are obviously right about the decision being a political one, I disagree about what the most likely political decision will be.

If the minister chooses a “both” option he will likely be perceived as indecisive by both sides. Maori would probably perceive that government is dictating the use of their language in the face of a report from a government department that the use is improper, merely to make political gains from vocal residents and others (whom many Maori probably suspect of having ultimately racist motivations in any case). Anti-“h” residents would probably believe that this was, in effect, a change to include the “h” by stealth, and “yet another unjustified concession to Maori”.

However, if he were to insert the “h” after a lengthy transitional period (and I’m talking years), he would remove the sting of what is possibly the strongest argument of the anti-“h” side from National’s perspective (i.e. compliance costs), and would also give plenty of time for residents to get used to the idea. Politically, National would probably make a slight net gain over the alternatives, as most Maori would perceive the decision as the proper one (and perhaps a brave one by National in the face of vocal local opposition), while most on the anti-“h” side outside of the city would probably forget about the whole thing quickly, and those inside the city would be softened somewhat by the transition period. In the context of the ongoing National/Maori Party relationship, it’s relatively cheap points for National.

The minister will also be focussed by the threat of a judicial review of his decision – and there is an attraction in choosing the option that will appear rational if subject to judicial scrutiny (although I acknowledge that the substance of his decision is not reviewable, as such). Following the report, but taking steps to ameliorate the negative effects, would be easy to justify in this context.

Putting the “h” back could be spun as decisive, inexpensive and justifiable.

The word going round is that Maurice Williamson is making jokes about how he has to find an "h" to put in Wanganui. Apparently his favourite is "Thames have offered me theirs, because it's silent, but someone offered me Ashburton's..."

I'm long changing to Whanganui.

Does someone know something about the "both" option?

It's a worry because I shorted at 12c a few months back. It's been up to 30c, and then stabalised at 15c for about a month or so. For me the key factor is that if it's decided that either name can be used the contract won't close at $1. Maybe somebody hasn't read or understood the long description?

Thanks hidn, I agree!

"...If the Government announces that either name may be used, and leaves the official name unspecified, that will not cause this contract to close at $1..."

I hadn't picked up that in the long description for the both option before. That is certainly a definite option and that seems to not be covered in any of the bundle options which seems to make them all over priced.

Disclosure - I have no position in these stocks whatsoever.

corbusian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks hidn, I agree!
>
> "...If the Government announces that either name
> may be used, and leaves the official name
> unspecified, that will not cause this contract to
> close at $1..."
>
> I hadn't picked up that in the long description
> for the both option before. That is certainly a
> definite option and that seems to not be covered
> in any of the bundle options which seems to make
> them all over priced.
>
> Disclosure - I have no position in these stocks
> whatsoever.


On October 2, I referred to this very situation in this forum. I said then that I felt a contract should exist to cover this possibility. There appeared to be no support, so I dropped the matter and have not bought in on these stocks.

that seems to not be covered in any of the bundle options which seems to make them all over priced

Surely this outcome (that the official name is left unspecified) is covered by CITY.OTHER - that's what it is for. From the OTHER long description:

This contract pays $1 less the closing price for contracts CITY.WANGANUI, CITY.WHANGANUI and CITY.BOTH.

Thus, OTHER closes at $1 if the other stocks close at $0. QED.

Quote
pipe42
This contract pays $1 less the closing price for contracts CITY.WANGANUI, CITY.WHANGANUI and CITY.BOTH.

Thus, OTHER closes at $1 if the other stocks close at $0. QED.

That was my impression. I think there are five different ways the decision could go and still see both names in official or unofficial use:

1) Official name stays as Wanganui, but unofficial name "Whanganui" may be used instead : WANGANUI closes at $1
2) Official name changes to Whanganui, but old unofficial name "Wanganui" may be used instead : WHANGANUI closes at $1
3) Official names changes to Wanganui/Whanganui (or similar), but either "Wanganui" or "Whanganui" may be used individually as necessary : BOTH closes at $1
4) Government pulls stumps, undeclares Wanganui as official name, doesn't declare any replacement official name, says do whatever you like : OTHER closes at $1
5) Government leaves Wanganui as official name, adds "Whanganui" as alternate official name, states that either may be used as preferred, but does not make "Wanganui/Whanganui" an official name in it's joint form : OTHER closes at $1

Maybe I'm just being naive, but I honestly can't see any obvious problems with any of the stock definitions.

It appears that possibly Wanganui - Whanganui or however you wish to call does not, in fact, have an official place name.

Inquiries proceeding.

Confirmed. Wanganui does not have an official name. An extract from here is below.

---

Is Wanganui an official name?
No. The name of Wanganui city is not an official name at the moment. One of the matters considered by the Board at the last meeting was whether to make the current spelling official. After careful consideration, the Board decided that at this stage it would not make the incorrect spelling official. Therefore Wanganui remains as a ‘recorded’ name for the moment – not an official name. The status ‘recorded name’ means that it has been shown that way on authoritative maps.

Damn, somebody just shorted BOTH down from 29c to 20c about quarter of an hour ago. What is that, about 200 units? Gut feeling says none of the movement over the last 4 days or so is insider trading.

If the Minister announces that Wanganui and Whanganui are to be both official and used individually, which contract closes at $1?

Quote
ORACLE
If the Minister announces that Wanganui and Whanganui are to be both official and used individually, which contract closes at $1?

That's scenario #5 above, OTHER would close at $1. The OTHER description doesn't mention this option, but it must close at $1 because none of the other 3 stocks could. The BOTH description specifically says

Quote

If the Government announces that either name may be used, and leaves the official name unspecified, that will not cause this contract to close at $1.

CITY:OTHER


Long Description

This contract pays $1 if the Government announces a new name for Wanganui other than Whanganui or Wanganui/Whanganui (or equivalent) after one or more transition periods of any length, or makes no decision before 1 January 2011. Otherwise this contract pays $0.

---

If Wanganui or Whanganui remain in the name in any form it would appear, from the description that this must close at $0. As I read it, OTHER only closes at $1if, Wanganui and Whanganui in any form, are not in the new name, or if no decision is made before 1 January 2011.

Oracle (3:44PM), you're right, it looks iffy at first sight, but I think the problem here is with the interpretation of "new name". If it changes from 'Wanganui' to 'Either "Wanganui" or "Whanganui"', then 'Either "Wanganui" or "Whanganui"' would be the new name wouldn't it?

In other words, if either is acceptable then Wanganui would have a new name that isn't "Wanganui" or "Wanganui/Whanganui", hence OTHER closes at $1.

hidn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oracle (3:44PM), you're right, it looks iffy at
> first sight, but I think the problem here is with
> the interpretation of "new name". If it changes
> from 'Wanganui' to 'Either "Wanganui" or
> "Whanganui"', then 'Either "Wanganui" or
> "Whanganui"' would be the new name wouldn't it?
>
> In other words, if either is acceptable then
> Wanganui would have a new name that isn't
> "Wanganui" or "Wanganui/Whanganui", hence OTHER
> closes at $1.


Hi hidn, it's at this we go different ways as my belief is that "new name" means something other than Wanganui or Whanganui in any form what-so-ever.

Perhaps, there is a need for an "official" clarification from admin or some other suitably qualified person.

Clearly there is room for various interpretations and clearly it needs sorting.

Have to agree with Oracle here, the clear assumption in the OTHER stock is that Wanganui is the current name and Whanganui is the proposed

"Long Description
This contract pays $1 if the Government announces a new name for Wanganui other than Whanganui ..."

It cannot therefore close at $1 if either or both of those spellings are acceptable.

I'm going to short this unless admin changes the rules!

As I still see it, all options are not covered in this bundle

As I still see it, all options are not covered in this bundle

Er, the whole point of bundles is to cover all the options. Even if Wanganui was wiped out by a random nuclear strike (knock on wood), one of the stocks should pay out. That's what OTHER is for.

This contract pays $1 less the closing price for contracts CITY.WANGANUI, CITY.WHANGANUI and CITY.BOTH.

OTHER closes at $1 if the other stocks close at $0.

I must admit, I'm not quite clear what the fuss is all about here.

Well, I guess that depends whether you prioritise the long description or the judging criteria for determining the OTHER stock, that seems to be the problem doesn't it. I can understand that they may seem a bit contradictory.

As for the judging criteria, if taken literally I don't see any problems.

As for the long descriptions, I'm leaning towards no problems, but I can see how you guys (Oracle, corbusian) may disagree because of the wording.

I think the point is that the OTHER option is self contradictory in that it could still theoretically pay out $1 despite an outcome that includes Wanganui or Whanganui which is clearly excluded in the long description. ...

Right, so what's the precedent in iPredict when the "Long Description" contradicts the Judging Criteria? Which takes priority?