Talk:New Zealand Geographic Board

Untitled

So... The first time I read about the NZGB, it was in this article: http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/628690-new-zealand-forgets-to-name-islands-for-200-years in which Director Grant acknowledges that the Boaqrd neglected to give official names to the two main islands of NZ! Mang (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

http://blog.teara.govt.nz/2009/04/23/north-island-and-south-island/ and http://www.linz.govt.nz/placenames/about-geographic-board/nzgb-news-notices/2009/0421-alternative-maori-names/index.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Namangwari (talk • contribs) 00:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge, part 2

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tawhai Hill was (unfortunately, IMO) closed as "no consensus". However, it did not foreclose the possibility of a merge, either to here or to Canterbury, New Zealand. Per WP:GEOLAND:

Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river.

The ENTIRE content of Tawhai Hill and Kānuka Hills is about the name. There is not "enough verifiable content for an encyclopedia article." Those should absolutely be merged, IMO.

Pūkio Stream is more borderline. Someone found a tiny bit of content about the stream itself in a 1962 book from Google Books ("New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics"). While I would be happy with a merge of it as well, I would consider that a lower priority.

As a point of comparison, see Chinaman's Hat / Mokolii for an example of a landmark known for having an unusual name - but one where there's actual content about the geographical formation itself, more than just a single book, too.

Any thoughts? I think we can include some kind of "Notable decisions" section, which will only have one entry at the moment: the naming dispute. The majority of the content from the current two articles would be kept, if that's a concern, removing only needless duplication. SnowFire (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts are as per my AfD contribution. Schwede66 05:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Seeing no response, and two positive responses (one over at the old merge discussion), going to do this later today. SnowFire (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@SnowFire: apologies for not commenting sooner; I intended to but forgot. I support this and any other merge you think appropriate for these articles. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I also neglected to comment but I'll say I oppose the merge of all. Since the merge has happened, I consider the matter finished. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• For whatever it's worth, if you can ever dig up more information on the hills unrelated to the name, I personally would have no objection to unmerging and recreating the articles. SnowFire (talk) 09:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Don't merge - Pūkio Stream - There is easily enough there for a standalone article. Surprised to see this being actioned already considering the short amount of time since starting the discussion, the Pūkio Stream article was only tagged yesterday!...Jokulhlaup (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't merge Pūkio Stream (well, I did for about 2 minutes, but that was an accident which I quickly undid). SnowFire (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes but it was included in your proposal and you did action the others, without even closing the merger discussion...Jokulhlaup (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Requirement to use official names

Section header could be improved; any suggestions? BilledMammal (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

This seems like an odd section to have in this article, and especially such a disproportionately large section. Powers a government agency have, especially ones that are so minor when compared to more substantial roles the agency has which are not mentioned at all, very rarely merit more than a passing mention. Turnagra (talk) 09:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the best way to address that would be to expand the rest of the article, add in what is missing; I will do so when I get the chance. In the meantime, any thoughts on the section header? BilledMammal (talk) 09:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

A general "Functions" or "Powers" heading would make the most sense. Turnagra (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. Going to start drafting an expansion now as well; the pre-2008 board needs far more detail in particular. BilledMammal (talk) 09:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I have had a look - the article says: Under Section 32 of the 2008 Act, official place names must be used in all official documents, a term which includes both documents produced by government entities and some documents produced by non-government entities, such as scientific publications and information for tourists. Section 33 of the Act grants the New Zealand Geographic Board powers to compel entities to use the official name by granting them the right to obtain an injunction from the court, but as of 2018 this power has not been used, with the Board instead preferring to liaise directly with offenders to correct non-compliance.[16]. The source used, a UN information bulletin that reads as though written by a NZ govt employee, is of low quality and is a low quality secondary source. That bulletin tells us what the 2008 act means. It says: The requirement to use official place names in all official documents including on road signs, official maps and charts, and in scientific publications and information for touristsis captured in section 32 of the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Act 2008 (NZGB Act 2008). There is a proviso allowing for non-official place names to be used provided it is stated that it is not the official name. Section 33 of the NZGB Act 2008 sets a heavy penalty for noncompliance and provides for the NZGB to apply to the High Court for an injunction to prevent non-official place names being used in official documents. Section 32 says:

Official geographic names must be used

(1) If there is an official geographic name for a geographic feature or Crown protected area, that name must be used in all official documents.

(1A) If 2 or more alternative official geographic names exist for the same geographic feature or Crown protected area, the use of any 1 of those names, or all of those names, is sufficient to comply with subsection (1).

(2) However, subsection (1) does not apply if an official document containing a name other than an official geographic name states that the particular name is not the official geographic name of the geographic feature or Crown protected area to which it applies.

We have a trail running from a section of statute law, through a low grade source that says what that statute law means, and then through a Wikipedia editor who says what that low grade source means, and we end up with something that, to me at least, isn't exactly what section 32 says. And that misunderstanding is leading us down what might be completely the wrong path. For example, I was under the impression from comments made at various times in these discussions that the law of having to use dual names applied to private businesses too, not just to 'official govt bodies. Where does the act, or the low grade source, state that? It does not, which makes sense seeing as we do not live in a Stalinist state. Similarly, this idea that all official documents MUST use dual names is not exactly correct. Part (2), the 'get-out of a pickle' bit is conveniently overlooked in discussions here. Subsection (2) makes a lot of commonsense, it allows for the avoidance of many of the problems we are facing in our discussions here, even though Wikipedia is not an official document. My understanding of ss 2 is, for example, that a three page official document about Stewart Island only has to mention somewhere in passing that the official name is actually Stewart Island / Rakiura and then can carry on using just Stewart Island, and there is no breach of the law. Comparing that to wikipedia, all we have to do is mention somewhere in the article about Stewart Island that the official name is Stewart Island / Rakiura but that is all: for the rest of the article we simple use the common name which is Stewart Island. That is what is done in countless other articles where, in the first sentence, we get phrases like "The United Kingdom, officially the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is a....". In conclusion, are we creating a problem that does not actually exist? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

And incidently, the act, s33, does not grant the NZGB powers to do anything, and certainly not to compel anyone to use the official dual name - all such powers lie with the High Court. This is yet another example of why school kids, and everyone else come to that, are told never to use wikipedia as a source. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Check Section 4 of the Act; it defines what an "official document" is, and it matches what this secondary source tells us. As for Subsection (2), it is unclear how it is applied. I haven't found any sources discussing it, nor any sources where this exception is used. If you can find some, I would be very appreciative.

The bit regarding the powers to compel could have been worded better, but it does include the fragment "by granting them the right to obtain an injunction from the court". I'm cleaning that line up now. BilledMammal (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks BilledMammal, I had committed what to me is the cardinal error of not checking the interpretations section, and thought for a moment I was going to have to swallow my pride and retreat into a corner ignominiously with egg on my face.. However, this is what the definition is:

official document—

(a) means a published document created by a public office or by a local authority in the course of business; and

(b) includes, in relation to documents published in New Zealand or prepared in New Zealand for publication outside New Zealand: (whether or not created by a public office or by a local authority in the course of business),—

(i) geographic and scientific publications and manuscripts; and

(ii) publications intended for travellers or tourists

I do not see anything here that says this requirement applies to private businesses or persons. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

To first address the initial discussion, I've looked further into subsection (2) and it appears to be applied in cases where data is being updated rather than created. See this information request (which incidentally includes the intent of the act, which is to "to encourage the use of official place names"), as well as the secondary source which briefly discusses such updates.

To return to the current topic, I see subsection (b) as doing that, as it provides no relevant limitations on scope - and explicitly states that it is not limited to documents published or prepared by "a public office" or by "a local authority in the course of business". I believe the secondary source, with its comments on Google Maps, can also provide a little bit of insight into this. BilledMammal (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

My reading of this is that what the requirent relates to is stated in (a). This is clarified in (b) which says that (a) includes (i) and (ii), namely those published things that many people would not usually regard as official documents, such as local govt info sheets about local attractions you can pick up at an information centre, or even road signs on public roads. The limitation on scope is in (a). I think you are confusing what (b) is saying. It means IMO that the rule that applies to (a) ie govt bodies or LG, applies if the publication is used in or out of NZ (applies for example to documents prepared in NZ for use in overseas embassies). This part (whether or not created by a public office or by a local authority in the course of business) means for the outside NZ bit it does not matter if the official document was prepared by a public office or by a local authority. It does not mean whether or not the document was prepared by either of those two things (which is (a), or by something else, such as a private business. Those two things named in (a), which is the limit of this law, can very easily publish scientific and geographical works, so the law is saying to those public offices and local govts, 'there is no way you can get out of the requirements of this legislation, it applies to everything you do." But, private businesses and individuals? No, there is nothing here that obliges them to do anything. If there were it would IMO be entirely uninforceable.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I've found a source that should clear this up; a LINZ press release that states "However, for private businesses and organisations, it would only apply to publications they produce that are intended for travellers or tourists, and for geographic and scientific publications." BilledMammal (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have much time at the moment to reply fully. The LINZ sentence is about the Wanganui/Whanganui debate and fits into this slightly larger comment:

“If the Minister confirms Whanganui as official, government departments and local authorities that publish new documents (such as maps, but also including web pages) will be expected to use the official name. However, for private businesses and organisations, it would only apply to publications they produce that are intended for travellers or tourists, and for geographic and scientific publications.

“Businesses could choose whether to adopt the official name in their business name and their publications, or whether to retain the current spelling Wanganui. Even within the tourist industry, there would be no requirement to change the names of any business or company – such as motels and guest houses.

Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

What is unambiguaously clear to me is that these requirements relate only to official documents. I am no expert on this but my hunch is that reference to scientific works and geographical works and tourist guides is there because these works and documents will be subject to Crown copyright, meaning the Crown has control over how they are published, even if someone other than government does the actual publishing. But, as said, that is my hunch and I cannot explain it any better. But, the fact that the 2008 act relates only to official documents is clear. Please look at the purpose of NZGD (3f): enable certain administrative needs of government (including local government) to be met; The closest the role of the NZGB gets to I can see to imposing on private businesses that I can see is s3(f): provide the means for appropriate recognition to be accorded to cultural and heritage values associated with geographic features; (Possibly a more infringement into private businesses might be telling those publishing Crown copywright information that they must use the dual names) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, but I'm not certain what you are saying. Are you saying that the specified types of publications from private businesses and organisations are or are not "official documents" and thus subject to the requirement to use the official name*?

*or one of the official names, in cases like Wanganui/Whanganui - I need to update the supplement to mention the possibility, so thank you for helping me identify that BilledMammal (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry my previous post was not clear and a bit muddled. I am saying it is clear to me the act applies only to official documents, official documents as defined in s3. I am suggesting that the reference to scientic and geographical works is there because several private companies can publish those works but the material used is information subject to crown copyright. That makes those works published by a private company subject to the act because some of the detail published is official/subject to crown copyright. But, this last part is speculation by me: as said before, I am no expert on this. An example might be a scientific work about Lyttelton Harbour which includes depth measurements obtained by a crown entity, subject to crown copyright. I might be wrong on specifics but whatever it is I think there is a simple reason for the reference to scientific and tourist publications that is not immediately obvious to average people. Another approach is to accept that we only use RSSs. LINZ, and NZGB, is not a secondary source, even though we often use it as one. An act of parliament is also not secondary, making any reference to it our own opinion of what it means. We therefore need to find a RSS. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I have left this discussion for a day because for me it was getting a little confusing. Returning to it now, BilledMammal I think it is pretty clear that the act about having to use official names (usually dual) only applies to official documents used by public bodies and local authorities. Section 32, which is the place to look, is unambiguous on this. IMO the confusion has arisen because of the definition of what an "official document" is, the terms (i) geographic and scientific publications and manuscripts; and :(ii) publications intended for travellers or tourists have been used. This does not say or mean that anything other than publications by public bodies or local authorities is also covered by the act. The term 'document' is not usually used to describe a scientific paper, depth charts or tourist guides, which is probably why those terms have been inseted into the definition of an 'official document'. The LINZ source you said clears this up is interesting. Personally, I think we should not give it much weight: it is a ten year old primary source about W/hanganui. Reading it again, what it says does not specifically say the act applies to private businesses: it is written in an almost chatty way where misunderstanding and misinterpretations can easily be made. In any case, what the act says is much more important. I am not quite sure what your current view on this is: does the act cover official and private usage, or just official? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Same. I don't agree with your conclusion, however. As I see it, "official document" is defined by two separate propositions, with the notion that these are separate, rather than (b) clarifying (a) shown by the structure of the definition, and reinforced by the fact that (b) explicitly states that the scope restrictions applied to (a) do not apply to (b). I also think it is a mistake to dismiss LINZ's interpretation of the Act in preference for our own, as interpreting the act ourselves is OR, and even a non-independent secondary source (for the Whanganui dispute that source is primary, for interpreting the act it is secondary) is preferable to that. I feel that However, for private businesses and organisations, it would only apply to publications they produce that are intended for travellers or tourists, and for geographic and scientific publications. is very clear in applying the act to private businesses, an application that is reinforced by Even within the tourist industry, there would be no requirement to change the names of any business or company – such as motels and guest houses. as the exception that proves the rule.

I also feel this is further reinforced by the UN source, but I will leave that source out in order to try and keep this clear and succinct. BilledMammal (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC0

Thanks for the reply which is clear and succinct. Yes, we are indulging in OR by deciding what the legislation means, I am aware of that. The reason I have pushed my point about s32 is that the meaning of the whole of s32 is patently obvious (don't prove the sky is blue). The disagreement between us, I think, boils down to our interpretations of other parts of the act, and how that affects s32. Now, I disagree aboutthe LINZ press release source: it is primary because it is self published by LINZ, and because it is simply a copy of what one person says, (most of it is in quotation marks).

Board chairperson Dr Don Grant said the Board is referring the final determination to the Minister because objections were received on the proposal, and these objections were not upheld.

“If the Minister confirms Whanganui as official, government departments and local authorities that publish new documents (such as maps, but also including web pages) will be expected to use the official name. However, for private businesses and organisations, it would only apply to publications they produce that are intended for travellers or tourists, and for geographic and scientific publications.

Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I have looked again at the other reference you mention, ref 16 on the article page, from UNIGEGN. That is a collection of contributions from 'experts' from around the world, put together and editted by UNIGEGN. If that is a secondary source it will not be a very good one. What seems to have happened is that someone in NZ has sent in a description of the NZGB act (someone connected with NZGB I would think) and that has been simply added to the many other contributions from around the world and an information bulletin is created. See pp 2 and 8 of that UNIGEGN bulletin. Now, the NZ part that our article uses as a reference says that s33 of the act sets 'heavy penalties' for non-compliance. Well, all I can see is that the courts have the power to impose an injunction on the offender with no further mention of any damages that might or might not be awarded: is that a heavy penalty? The rest of the NZ section in the bulletin seems to do no more than repeat what ss32 and 33 say.

My suggestion for the article page is that under the subsection 'Powers" we re-write it again and simply quote s32 and s33 of the act without comment from us. The UNIGEGN source can possibly still be used because most of it does say what the act says. We should leave out the term 'heavy penalty' because that is subjective. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

You're right; it's better described as "the boards" interpretation, or "the chairman's" interpretation. However, that doesn't change that they could be reasonably considered an expert on the act, and who they are allowed to require to use the official name, and as such I continue to believe that we are better relying on their interpretation than we are on our own.

As for the primary vs secondary discussion, I don't think it is overly relevant, but this Secondary source#Law may be helpful.

Finally, I have no objection to removing "heavy penalty", as I suspect most readers will consider this obvious; if the high court issues an injunction that you then don't comply with, you will obviously face heavy penalty, whether it is using "Cape Kidnappers" instead of "Cape Kidnappers / Te Kauwae-a-Māui" or if it is selling a building whose sale was blocked under an injunction. However, I would object to replacing the interpretation of secondary sources with a direct quote from primary sources; we have already seen how confusing the primary source is (I also originally believed it only applied to government documents, before I read section 4 and various other sources), and as such it is not useful for our reader. BilledMammal (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

BilledMammal, I have come across links that explain what the act means by tourist maps and scientific publications. To re-cap, it appears on face value the act demands that all official documents use dual names, and that all non-official documents about tourist maps and scientific publications also must use dual place names. This is an incorrect interpretation of the act. It actually means that all usage of maps and data under the control or authority of the Surveyor-General (an official position), which I believe covers nearly all maps and the type of details used in scientific publications. The two links provided both explain this. Those links are interesting, too, in putting in to wider perspective the recent use of Maori words within society. [1] (wayback machine) and [2] Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, could you clarify what you are trying to say, as I am a little unclear? I will note that the first link appears to be referring to the Ngäi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 and the New Zealand Geographic Board Act 1946, not the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Act 2008. BilledMammal (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the first link from 2002 does refer to those earlier acts, but the relevant part is a general comment about maps and scientific detail that is under the control of the surveyor-general that would apply to other acts. However, because it was written in 2002 I found another link from 2017 that would certainly apply to the more recent legislation. To quote: "Approving, altering and assigning undersea feature names as official ensures those names are used in official documents, such as scientific publications and bathymetric maps. This means that maps, charts, databases and other official documents cannot depict just any undersea feature name – they must use the official name" Underlining is mine. This confirms scientific publications and maps are official documents (not seperate documents to official documents, as our article assumes). They are official because they use detail contolled by the surveyor-general. Any maps or scientific publications not using data contolled by the surveyor-general (very few) would not be classed as official and can use whatever name they want. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)