Talk:Free University of Brussels (1834–1969)

Belgium Low‑importance

	Belgium portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

Confusing

So, if I see a reference to someone who attended the "Free University of Brussels" in 1950, which article should I read? This page doesn't help at all! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point - I've made it an article, like that of Catholic University of Leuven. St Anselm (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name

While the university might have been named Université libre de Bruxelles, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) the English translation is Free University of Brussels, which is what should be used. You'll notice that there's similarly a page on Shanghai University, not on 上海大学, which is the local non-English name. The only reason the English name isn't used for the modern institutions is because there are two of them and it's ambiguous. Oreo Priest ^talk 14:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Université libre de Bruxelles

I am suggesting that this article be merged to Université libre de Bruxelles. While they may have been split for a reasonable purpose, the other article purports to cover the entire history of the university, not post the split of the parent to its two parts. If the other article is truly covering from the 1834 origin, then this article belongs as a sub-part, not standalone. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There is no particular reason why ULB or VUB should be considered the direct successor to the pre-1969 university. Merging the articles, as you imply, would involve making this judgment. Do feel free, however, to reframe the scope of the articles more clearly! —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was clearly no consensus to merge, so I have removed the template. --RFBailey (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]