Talk:selector

selector
Rfd-redundant: "An administrator responsible for selecting which players will play for a side." It's really someone who selects. If you watch the England side play, they often talk about the side selection, but we don't have a cricket sense for selection, because it's the "Something selected." definition applied to cricket (NB yes the definition is lame). Mglovesfun (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, at least while there's no sense of "To choose players for a sports team" at select:. The first few random hits for 'selector + cricket' on Google Books (ignoring sport dictionaries) were:
 * Allan Border: ESPN Legend No 25; scored a Test record 11,174 runs in 156 Tests for Australia between 1978 and 1994; captained Australia in 93 Tests between 1984 and 1994; now a TV commentator and analyst, and an Australian selector; Legends of Cricket selector.
 * As other selectors have recognised over the years, it is very difficult to have more than eleven players in a cricket team.
 * In 1999 Mike Gatting was president of the Professional Cricketers' Association. Gatting and Gooch were England selectors in the late 1990s.
 * Obsessive focus on the captain, the coach, the chief executive or the chairman of selectors is a distraction.
 * The second one is arguably understandable by context, and the fourth one uses the word in a lot of other contexts where its meaning is clearer, but certainly for the first and third ones, I don't see why it should be obvious that what these people select are players. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we are missing the sense at select, though of course it does only refer to sportspersons, I can select a jumper from my drawer. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No wait it is there, "To choose one or more elements of a set, especially a set of options." The sportperson sense is just this sense, but applied to sportspersons. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My point was more that "selector" is used in sport without ever making explicit what is being selected. It's a bit like how we have separate senses under painter for "Person who makes pictures with paint" and "Person who paints surfaces". Strictly speaking, the first is just a subset of the second, but generally we say that someone is a "painter" without specifying what they paint. Keeping them separate means that should someone ever come across "Michaelangelo was one of the leading painters of the Renaissance", without it being specified that he painted pictures, they'll still hopefully be able to twig that he was an artist, not just a guy who whitewashed walls. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Mg and favour deletion, although Wikipedia has Selector (sport), suggesting it might be appropriate to broaden and keep a sporting sense. - -sche (discuss) 10:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think some people are missing the fact that cricket selectors have volition.  That is, their selections are fulfilling a management function.  A uniselector on the other hand is just a piece of technology that does as its told (assuming that obsolete junk equipment is even still working) Spinning Spark  17:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ooo - that shouldn't be a redlink! Spinning Spark  17:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Striking as no consensus to delete. Nomination has been here for nearly a year now. bd2412 T 17:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)