Talk:Hengqin

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified

Macao

edit

Should this island really be in all those categories relating to Macao considering it does not (yet) belong to Macao? --Dpr 10:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Although Hengqin may never officially become part of Macao SAR, I would say it should be a Macao category since the Macao and Cotai developments are driving the plans to develop Hengqin into a resort and MICE destination. It also appears that the Chinese goverment is moving closer to loosening border security between Macao and Hengqin Island, which would make travel much easier and lead to the commercial integration of the two islands. Oldsnakeeyes 00:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would say that Zhuhai should be associated with Macao, because it's the reason why it developed quickly 70.55.203.112 (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

This article make it seem like that it has a lot to do with Macau

edit

Before all the developments Hengqin was just a deserted island--I've been there in 2009 and there was absolutely nothing. Indeed, there is only ~200 meters between it and Macau but trust me its historical cultural social legal whatever links to Macau is really minute. The Portuguese occupation was really brief and didn't left anything significant. However, this article makes it sounds like the Portuguese were of fundamental importance to Hengqin. Wishva de Silva (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hengqin. 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:

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) 17:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hengqin. 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:

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) 01:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply