The Travellers' pub is the place to ask questions when you're confused, lost, afraid, tired, annoyed, thoughtful, or helpful. Please check the FAQ and Help page before asking a question, though, since that may save your time and others'.
Please add new questions at the bottom of the page and sign your post by appending four tildes (~~~~) to it, but otherwise plunge forward!
If you have a question or suggestion about a particular article, try using talk pages to keep the discussion specific to that article.
Keeping the Pub clean is a group effort. If we have too many conversations on this page, it will get too noisy and hard to read. If you see an old conversation (i.e. dormant for a month or more) that could or should be moved to another page, please do so, and note there that it has been swept in from the pub.
A question regarding a destination article should be swept to the article discussion page
A discussion regarding a policy or the subject of an expedition can be swept to the policy or expedition discussion page
A simple question asked by a user can be swept to that user's talk page, but consider if the documentation needs a quick update to make it clearer for the next user with the same question.
A pointer to a discussion going on elsewhere, such as a notice of a star nomination or or a request to comment on another talk page, can be removed when it is two months old. Any discussion that occurred in the pub can be swept to where the main discussion took place.
Any discussions that do not fall into any of these categories, and are not of any special importance for posterity, should be archived to Wikitravel:Travellers' pub/Archives and removed from here. If you are not sure where to put a discussion, leave it alone—it's better to spend your efforts on those that you do know where to place.
Did it change recently? I was editing Vilnius listings and changed "old format" (with footnotes) to the "new" blue/bold format in accordance with this instruction, but yesterday (19 Nov) most of them were reverted to the footnote style again. Could someone shed a light on this, which style is now correct and which one is not? --Local (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2013 (EST)
Clarify I'm not sure that I understand what the dispute is... Can you provide a diff to show me the competing styles? Koavf (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2013 (EST)
Herefor example. I assume AntonBryl is a reliable user, and yesterday he changed most of the listings with blue clickable external links to footnote style links - actually all his edits here are only creating the footnotes, you can check any of them. So i'm asking whether they became "good style" again? --Local (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2013 (EST)
FootnotesAfter I responded here and before I read your response immediately above this, I edited the article myself. The problem is that some entries had more than one link (e.g. the first word linked to the government's site and this was followed by a tourism site. I removed the former and just kept the latter as that is probably what a traveler would want.) So when you have text like "such and such is a good place to visit " you can easily change it to "[such and such] is a good place to visit" and incorporate the link into the text. That way, when it's printed, you won't see these garish numbers floating there adding no value. Unfortunately, when you have text like "You can find some schedules for regional buses [here]." or "For more information on renting a car, visit  or ." (which are actual excerpts from the present revision of the page), then the printable version is going to include useless or confusing copy. So the wording needs to be amended so that it doesn't explicitly say things like "here's a link to a resource" and instead says things about those resources and includes external links in the text itself. In short, you are correct that the footnote style external links are generally to be avoided (I can't think of any exceptions to this rule) and text should be amended so that it doesn't just refer to WT as an online travel guide but a multi-media one as well. Koavf (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2013 (EST)
You are right, of course, i'm aware about that all, just those particular places you have edited need to be more modified, e.g. regarding that "double" external link - they both are ok (and meet these requirements), simply the text should be expanded a little by adding some extra details to content, then adding that second link to the corresponding text. Same about those other links: there is a bit of a mess in that section in general, so the entire text should be revised and modified accordingly. So in short, your edits are OK but they are still incomplete. Just in case you decide to continue.--Local (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2013 (EST)
Hi, sorry for that, I guess I was unaware of the new style. I still find it strange (would not it be more logical to change the behaviour of see/eat/etc tags to deal with names and urls differently throughout the site?..) but if that's what's expected now, feel free to just revert my changes. AntonBryl. 22.214.171.124 16:13, 20 November 2013 (EST)
To be clear, the concern is that there is a tag system with designated 'name' and 'url' fields, and the new formatting is taking the values away from the fields (leaving them empty), thus basically making the markup semantically inconsistent. 126.96.36.199 16:20, 20 November 2013 (EST)
OK, Anton, could you do "undo", or should i do that again? :D
If you was confused why some of the listings are formatted in "new" style and others on the same section were left with footnotes - i was changing them, but didn't change everything so far, so there is some sort of a mix. And blue style is "good", footnote style is "bad". I was told so. And i accept that. Blue clickable style is much more practical. --Local (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2013 (EST)
Done (just in case, I guess you know that each change is actually undoable in a click? :) There are links for that on history page).
New style is nicer visually indeed, but I do not understand why it's done on page-by-page basis and not by changing the tag behavior (to produce exactly the same visual appearance with blue links, but without leaving tag field empty). The result as it is now ruins the tag semantics so much that tags hardly make any sense after that (and I guess they were introduced for a reason). 188.8.131.52 16:49, 20 November 2013 (EST)
Why it's done on "page-by-page basis" and not by "changing the tag behavior" i don't know exactly but it was explained here, so to me it was sufficient. I'm aware about the "undo" links on history page, but i tried to use it once and it didn't work to me, so my "awareness" is rather useless :). Thanks for reverting. Issue is solved. --Local (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2013 (EST)