Talk:Réunion

Template:Vital article

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.historyofnations.net/africa/reunion.html

  Triggered by \bhistoryofnations\.net\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 15:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The rationale for blacklisting seems to be applicable to the link in question, so ... I took it out Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge From Religion in Réunion

As per WP:ATD-M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha3031 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you can just proceed with the merging. dennis97519 (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The merge gets my vote: there's just not enough material for a separte article, nor an apparent specific reason to keep it Fastifex (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation in English

Why doesn't this article have the English pronunciation? Is it /rɪ̈ˈjuːnjən/ (like the word reunion)? --81.147.66.100 (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep, pronounced identically to the English word "reunion". IgnorantArmies (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

I think that the recovery of items from that flight should be at least a by line on this page. Since the island is so small, this matter has in fact become part of its history. Any thoughts? --27.131.166.130 (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not a relevant part of Réunion's history. All the information belongs in the article MH 370. --bender235 (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it fails the ten year test, (WP:10YT). Ten years from the now the plane will have been found or the search will have been called off, but either way that some wreckage from a plane crash once washed up on an island will be of no consequence for an article about that island. Geogene (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it belongs in the article. Not a great deal, but perhaps one sentence or so. The missing plane is a huge international event that has lingered for over a year (and continues to linger). The finding of this debris is the first piece to solving (or helping to solve) one of the greatest international aviation mysteries of all time. So, yes, I think it's relevant and belongs in the article, at least a brief mention or so. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The thing about great mysteries is that they're less interesting once they're solved. But, okay, I can agree with a sentence mentioning it. For a while, it will continue to re-appear anyway. Geogene (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Réunion or Reunion in English?

This Wikipedia article uses a shortened form Réunion of the French La Réunion. Is there any reliable/verifiable source for this form in English? The English version of the "official website of France" (a website of the Government of France) uses Reunion. Should this Wikipedia article use Reunion instead of Réunion, to match the French Government's preferred English name for its island? I suggest that this Wikipedia article should be changed to match what the French prefer to call the island in English (Reunion). Tidyupper (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should interpret the French government website's preferred spelling as indicative of their preference for how it should be spelled in English. Here's a guideline on how Wikipedia articles get geographic place names: [1], saying we usually use the most common English form, personally I'd oppose any page move proposal unless it's shown that this is actually harming the encyclopedia by making it difficult for people to find the article. Geogene (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a tossup in the English-language press: NY Times without accent, NY Times with accent, The Guardian with, The Telegraph without... I personally prefer to leave it as Réunion because Reunion just looks overly translated. I doubt the French government really prefers it without accent, they probably just hired an overzealous translator. Vrac (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

BBC=Reunion. CNN=Reunion. FCO=Réunion. As you say a toss-up but, for what it's worth, I'd guess its commonname is Reunion. Interestingly, there's another local official website that calls it Reunion - Université de la Réunion. Bromley86 (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

When in doubt, lets use other countries in a similar situation as a benchmark. Côte d'Ivoire, which is translated to Ivory Coast goes directly against the desire of the country to go by its official French-administered name. Haïti is also another example, however they do not attempt to enforce their spelling on the international community. Savvyjack23 (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Sky News spell it without the accent as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.249.197.255 (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I am a native of Reunion Island and the way I feel about it, for what it's worth, is that we should say the whole phrase "Reunion Island" and never "Reunion" by itself. When I introduce myself I never say "I come from Reunion", it just doesn't sound right. I believe the full-length name in french is "Ile de la Réunion" and we very-often shorten it to "La Réunion" but we never say, for instance, "Il vient de Réunion", which is a common mistake made by mainlanders, we rather say "Il vient de la Réunion". Another mistake made by mainlanders, and which follows directly from the one just presented is "Il fait chaud en Réunion", as you would say "Il fait chaud en Guadeloupe", but given that the name of the island isn't "Réunion" but "La Réunion" this is false: the correct way to say it is "Il fait chaud à la Réunion". In the end, you never find "Réunion" by itself in french and I find it quite unnatural to find it by itself in english, for what it's worth. Edit: the official website of Reunion Island's tourism agency uses "Reunion Island": http://en.reunion.fr/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.163.198.121 (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

That's the way things work in French. In English it works differently: native English speakers don't even consider the possibility of two words; they either pronounce Réunion like the English word 'reunion' or (attempt to) use a French pronunciation. At least I finally understood the thinking behind the usage of Réunion island. In French and Creole the word '(z')île' is rarely used in conjuction with 'La Réunion' though. Munci (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Population of Indian origin

In Population the article says this: People of Indian origin make up the majority of the Réunionnais of Indian origin. This statement is true of course, but not useful. What is the intended meaning? Molinari (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that someone, or maybe multiple people, were trying to say related things and the sentence got messed up. I fixed it. Largoplazo (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Réunion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130519092213/http://pedagogie2.ac-reunion.fr/cotamarp/calliopee/general/pluie.html to http://pedagogie2.ac-reunion.fr/cotamarp/calliopee/general/pluie.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/country/?CountryID=151

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Réunion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6GnQWhklA?url=http://advan.physiology.org/content/30/4/248.full to http://advan.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/30/4/248

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)