Category talk:Broadcast news analysts
Analysts are different from anchors. Analysts are more interpretive; anchors are at least supposed to be more objective and neutral. Maurreen 06:25, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"Broadcast news analysts"? That's worse than "analogue disc record"! Bonalaw 09:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
CFD Discussion
[edit]- This category was listed for renaming on CFD on February 2, 2005. There was no clear consensus to rename and/or agreement could not be reached on the new name. Thus the category name has been kept as is.
Should be Category:News anchors. "Broadcast news analysts" is a very infrequently used term that doesn't accurately describe the people in the category. - SimonP 19:38, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Don't the Brits call these news presenters? If so, perhaps, Category:Broadcast news personalities is a better choice 132.205.45.148 20:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Our article on these people is at "news anchor," so purely for the sake of consistency it would be a good category title. Google also shows "news anchor" to the most popular:
- "News anchor" 513,000 hits
- "Newscaster" 195,000 hits
- "News presenter" 21,900 hits
- "Broadcast news analyst" 218 hits
- Another title used in the UK is newsreader, unfortunately getting good Google results is impossible as searches for this term are overwhelmed by the software.- SimonP 18:26, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Our article on these people is at "news anchor," so purely for the sake of consistency it would be a good category title. Google also shows "news anchor" to the most popular:
- See also Category:Television people which includes quite a tree of categories which this overlaps with.-gadfium 23:39, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- "News analysts" sounds like we're talking about news media critics rather than the people who actually present the news on TV. "News personalities," however, is far too vague, and includes everyone from desk anchors to on-the-spot reporters to weathermen (and while we're at it, we should get rid of Category:Television personalities). Would "news anchor" actually be confusing to the British, or is it merely something they don't tend to use? Postdlf 01:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- 'Analyst' and 'critic' are not the same thing. An analyst is one who analyzes. A critic is one who forms judgements on the merits or value. Pure analysis doesn't make value judgements. —Mike 02:24, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that distinction always holds, but either way, the gist of what I meant was "analyst" sounds like someone who comments about broadcast news itself, rather than someone who is on a news broadcast. Postdlf 02:43, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- 'Analyst' and 'critic' are not the same thing. An analyst is one who analyzes. A critic is one who forms judgements on the merits or value. Pure analysis doesn't make value judgements. —Mike 02:24, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Is everyone in this category a "new anchor" or are some non-anchors but still prominent news people? There isn't anything wrong with this category as it is, though I understand there is always a drive within Wikipedia to use more colloquial terms. —Mike 02:24, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Analysts and anchors should not be in the same category, unless it is Category:Television journalists. Maurreen 07:40, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- How about Category: Commentators and analysts appearing in television news broadcasts? This avoids the confusion that Postdlf has pointed out. It's long, though. --JuntungWu 12:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Or we could just leave it as it is because the description within the category succinctly defines what it is. Also, Maurreen is incorrect because there can be cross-over between news anchors and news analysts. Besides, this category is an occupational category which doesn't have to be highly specific. If you do feel compelled to separate news analysts and anchors, make those categories subcategories of this one. —Mike 17:54, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)