Talk:Luc Calliauw

Comments on this article
Very shortly after this article was produced, three templates were added, with which I am afraid not to be in agreemant:
 * "this article is an orphan". Is that not so with many if not most new articles? Why should other articles already have referred to this new article? If there is reason for making the link, this will no doubt be the case eventually. Each article should be judged on its own merits, and not on the fact whether it is or is not linked to other articles. Each article can by all means be found through the categories in which it has been placed.
 * "inline citations". I am not in agreement with the habit, more and more imposed on the English Wikipedia of adding all sorts of citations or references in footnotes. For living persons it appears that these references are overwhelmingly data in newspapers. Mostly they are out of reach of the reader,or, after some time, they are no longer available. No encyclopedia on paper has ever been loaded with this sort of references, which are certainly useful in scientific articles, but not in an encyclopedia. In an encyclopedia it has always been accepted that a limited survey of 'literature' is given. A reader can find there proof for the exactitude of what is written in the article, or he can make a formal complaint when it would appear that the the information given is not correct.
 * "various little mistakes of language". This being stated, one would imagine that somebody would not just say this, but would indicate where the text is not correct or help to amend the text. Or is it only because the text "seems to be a translation" that automatically someone puts this remark on top of the article?

This sort of problems makes it not so agreeable any more of contributing to the English Wikipedia. These templates should be better argued or else removed. Andries Van den Abeele (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding the inline citations, Wikipedia is very careful about WP:Biographies of living persons. Most encyclopedias don't need that level of inline referencing, because they don't have anonymous editors, maintain editorial policy in other ways, and are more easily held accountable for inaccuracies or libel. But this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so any unsourced contentious material about a living person must be removed immediately. Wikishovel (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added two inline references, to get this started. Wikishovel (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Wikishovel, Thanks for your additions. I am of course not an anonymous editor, and work openly under my own name. Andries Van den Abeele (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Certainly, but Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment, and other editors of this page might well not edit under their real names (me, for example), or might assume a false name which we have no means of checking, or simply edit anonymously. Wikishovel (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Further comments
User Wikishovel was very active to make remarks about the article on Luc Calliauw. He was however only active on Wikipedia from 16/10/2016 until 14/01/2017. Since, he has no longer participated. I remain in profound disagreement with ideas that Wikipedia should have multiple footnotes "additional citations for verification"), just like an historical study, which it is not. This is a notice in an encyclopedia and one should take example on existing encyclopedias on paper e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica. The article on Luc Calliauw contains sufficient references under the paragraph 'literature' which permits critical users to go further in their research regarding what is told about him and to verify if the information is exact. Andries Van den Abeele (talk) 10:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)