Talk:Élisabeth of France

message: I'm reverting, for now, the edits by 194.165.179.94 that removed good info such as birth/death dates and categories, and messed with the article's formatting. Moreover, his/her version is a transcription of EB1911, and should be marked as such. Both versions are outdated, of course - will try later to merge good aspects of each. RodC 23:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Merged versions. Still old-fashioned - please improve. RodC 16:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Moving article to Élisabeth de France as *de France* is her surname & not to be translated.  Reason given in move:  *** *de France* being the surname of those members of the French royal family who are direct descendants of the king, Élisabeth, a Princess of France, bears the surname *de France*, which is not to be translated.***  The surname *de France* is more exactly given to the children of the king and to the children of his eldest son, the Dauphin.  Frania W. (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: I am reverting the change made by Kansas Bear. The reference quoted only shows that she was referred in French, in a secondary source, as "Elisabeth de France", something which is not in doubt. It does not demonstrate that she was officialy referred to as "Elisabeth de France, fille de France" and that "de France" is a surname and not a shorhand for "fille de France" (which it is).
Montjoy Pursuivant (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Daughter of France, not de France

message: I have a couple of concerns with including the saints infobox (which is why I've been reverting the MIG socks):
# Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints/Style Guidelines, the article should really only have a single infobox. Since Elisabeth is more well known as a royal, I think the existing Royalty infobox is more appropriate. 
# There are already a huge number of images. Even if we do include a saints infobox in the relevant subsection, I don't think we need an additional image in that infobox.
# Given that she has only been designated a Servant of God, does she really have a feast day and verifiable attributes? I've got a question regarding this in general posted to a couple of wikiprojects. I'm hoping someone can clear this up.
# The IP editors adding the saints infobox this month are IP socks of User:Mark Imanuel Granados, an indefinitely blocked user and prolific sockpuppeteer. I don't necessarily believe in blanket reverting block-evading socks, but in this case, given the above concerns, imo reverting falls under WP:NOT3RR exemption #3. 
Thoughts? --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Élisabeth of France has not been canonized, as far as I am aware? Therefore, we should not be using a saints infobox, correct? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

text: I have asked for page protection for this article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. Based on its use across WP, the saints infobox is being used for any individual who is somewhere along the beatification/canonization process, which includes Servants of God, Venerables, and Blesseds. Is that correct? IDK. If this is correct and acceptable, some of the documentation for the template and the MOS should be updated. If it isn't, that's a lot of pages that need to be fixed. There should probably be some discussion on the relevant wikiprojects because I can see a lot of pushback if one editor tries to fix it. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saints infobox and MIG socks