Content deleted Content added
Paul Vaurie (talk | contribs) |
Paul Vaurie (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 145:
::::: Again, I personally favor '''centre''', and as a compromise, '''centre to centre-right''', but absolutely *not* centre-right alone.<br>It literally makes no sense to support centre or centre-right but not what's in between. [[User:Paul Vaurie|Paul Vaurie]] ([[User talk:Paul Vaurie|talk]]) 20:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Then again, there are centre-left elements, while the party has moved considerably to the right since its founding. So what exactly speaks against centre-left to right-wing? If it is really important to mention all positions used in sources, then centre-left to right-wing seems like the correct option, more than centre to centre-right. And the "__to__" format seems very clear, it contains centre-left to right-wing elements. It is not "centre-left and right-wing", it's centre-left to right-wing. If it isn't that important, then centre-right seems accurate by now as the general positioning, but again, "centre-left to right-wing" would mention every courant. [[Special:Contributions/80.187.102.51|80.187.102.51]] ([[User talk:80.187.102.51|talk]]) 10:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::: Sorry, but this is not how it is done on the English Wikipedia. In a case where a party is truly so across the board, it would typically be described as "big tent" by sources. We never do "centre-left to right-wing". Nevermind that Renaissance isn't even "right-wing", even if occasionally described as ''droite'' (meaning political right) in some opinion pieces. [[User:Paul Vaurie|Paul Vaurie]] ([[User talk:Paul Vaurie|talk]]) 19:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
| |||