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 necessaryily 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.