 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Move discussion in progress
editThere is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Fengshan District which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018)
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Namaxia District. 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
{{dead link}}tag to http://tw.news.yahoo.com/article/url/d/a/080101/58/r1y3.html - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714112234/http://namasia-en.kcg.gov.tw/namasia-en/CP.aspx?s=2742&cp=1&n=12821 to http://namasia-en.kcg.gov.tw/namasia-en/CP.aspx?s=2742&cp=1&n=12821
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) 22:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Nangisalu
editi'm no expert, but isn't the "gi" missing from the chinese there? 66.30.47.138 (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- after a lot of googling, i see that BOTH VERSIONS are in use! what's the deal here? is one the older form, using some archaic pronunciation? or is there, indeed, a char for "gi" which should squeeze in there in such cases? 66.30.47.138 (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)