Talk:David Cook (game designer)

Notability tag

I removed the notability tag. The "refimprove" tag would have been the appropriate tag to use in this case anyway, but now the article has multiple references. Rray (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC regarding notability

Rray has removed the Notability template from this article (see above). Do the sources added meet the requirements of WP:BIO, and if not, should the notability template be restored? --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• I believe the article's references are sufficient to satisfy notability per WP:BIO's criteria for creative professionals. Cook has played a major role in creating or co-creating several significant and/or critically acclaimed works: 2E D&D, the Planescape campaign setting, and the City of Villains mmorpg. All of these works are part of the enduring historical records of their respective fields. --Muchness (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Muchness, the refs also seem to have plenty more to expand the content. Seems notable enough and article should be expanded. I've added an infobox and done a bit of clean-up. Benjiboi 17:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• I'd say the numbers of people playing the games ref'd to definitely clear any notability qualms. Minkythecat (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Gen Con?

I failed to see the direct relevance of the "See also" section that contained the link to Gen Con as there's no mention of Zeb Cook in the article on Gen Con. That's why I removed it. I'm curious as to why it's thought to be relevant, or "can be woven in to the article" at some point. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See also sections, IMHO, can best be seen as a waiting room for links yet to be introduced into the text, when they are in the regular article they can then be removed from the see also section. Benjiboi 22:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, again I ask, what's the particular relevance of Gen Con to Zeb Cook? And I think that a better place for such a "waiting room" is the talk page myself. As I said, I'm confused as to why the link was included on the article's page, and might suspect some other readers might be as well. If it's on the talk page, this confusion should be less likely to occur. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

David Cook is a game designer and Gen Con is one of the largest and most prominent gaming conventions which, I believe, sources will show he participated in. "See also" sections are a part of the article and are there to help the reader, as such placing items on the much less used talk page is generally unhelpful. (see WP:SEEALSO for more info on this.) Benjiboi 01:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that Gen Con is one of the biggest and most prominent gaming conventions, but I'm still waiting to see the relevance to David Cook, as I've mentioned above, for it to appear in the "See also" section. I have no problem with the other links you've put in that section, as they show modules and books that Cook has written. I just think it's not appropriate to put in Gen Con just because you believe its a show "he participated in", until there is some reference that shows that's the case (and, even better, that he was a guest of honor there some year, or at the very least was one of the advertised guests). I mean should we include the Origins Game Fair since he might have participated in that too? (I'm guessing he might have been there when he was inducted into the Hall of Fame, but I don't know this fact, I'm simply guessing.) Should I go down the list of Gaming conventions and include those that I believe Cook will have participated in, or should I wait until I locate sources that will verify this? In my mind including Gen Con at this moment seems rather arbitrary. --Craw-daddy | T | 08:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

These are related article on wikipedia to help the reader, we don't include a reference just to have a wikilink to a related article. This article is quite short, I have no problem imagining that just maybe once it's expanded a bit it will incorporate some if not all of those see also's, in the meantime other folks might find others that are related. This is one way in which we build articles. It's an organic process in which fully complete prose does not always pour out but sometimes is pieced together. I see no problem with having see also sections and no problem with having something listed in this one unless it were somehow violating policies on biographies of living people which this hardly seems to do. Benjiboi 15:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

But why was this particular link chosen, of all the gaming related links on wikipedia, to appear in this particular article? Sure you can defend the fact that there may be some sort of weak connection between the two articles, but what was the thought process behind adding it? The reason this question comes up, is because, contrary to most 'see also' links, this one seems very random, and visiting the article in question does not make the connection clear. A single sentence could clarify this. Was he an organizer of the event? Do people who know him associate his name with this event? Was he a guest of honor? Was there something interesting and noteworthy that happened to him while he was there? Is there anything at all that associates Cook with the Gen Con in a way that can't be claimed of everyone else who happened to show up? If so, would it kill you to add a sentence to that effect? Even unsourced? 72.10.110.107 (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not keen on adding unsourced content to this article actually. Is there some reason that inferring that this person had something to do with GenCon, I believe he and or his game(s) were featured in some way (not having the source in front of me), is controversial, in any way? The article should be developed and expanded and through that organic process I think that link will find a home just fine. Most artciles have loads of links and they, in part, encourage our readers to visit the other articles on related subjects. In fact I'm going to add his country wikilink to the lede per WP:MOS even though he contributions to the country as a whole are seen as marginal at best. Links don't define the subject, they aid our readers. Banjiboi 22:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible source with quotes

[http://www.champlain.edu/majors/egame/interview.php An Interview with David Cook Design Manager with Impression Games in Boston]. Banjiboi 22:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Credits

David "Zeb" Cook has been accidentally credited with the design and authorship of Unearthed Arcana, citing Dragon #80 as the source. That is is a mistake is evident from the fact that neither the book in question nor the magazine source indicate any such thing, rather the latter contains the sentence "He designed and wrote the AD&D® game Oriental Adventures book under Gary Gygax’s guidance and direction...", which is what this has obviously been conflated with in the form "Cook designed and wrote the original Unearthed Arcana book under the guidance and direction of Gary Gygax." The abbreviations of the two works are very close, "UA" and "OA", so it is an understandable error. I am deleting the sentence in question, rather than revising it, since Oriental Adventures is well known to be David Cook's work and is already mentioned in the text. M.J.Stanham (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)