Misplaced Pages

Talk:Sweet Baby Inc.: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:00, 11 March 2024 view sourceMoon darker (talk | contribs)141 edits →NPOV is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:32, 26 October 2024 view source Tom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,879,760 editsm -{{BLP}}; +blp=yes (request); cleanupTag: AWB 
(750 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-protected|small=yes}}
{{talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|protection=ecp|gg}}
{{WikiProject Video games |importance=Low}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{Calm}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{Canvass warning|short=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Video games |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Companies |importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Companies |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Internet culture |importance=Mid}}
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|gg}}
| algo = old(7d)
{{Calm talk}}
| archive = Talk:Sweet Baby Inc./Archive %(counter)d

| counter = 4
== NPOV is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages ==
| maxarchivesize = 125K

| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
Everyone editing this article back and forth should please have a refresher on Neutral Point of View.
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
Pay particular attention to the following:
| minthreadsleft = 5

}}
* '''Avoid stating ]s as ]s.''' Usually, articles will contain information about the significant ] that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Rather, they should be ], or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that {{!xt|] is an evil action}} but may state that {{xt|genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil}}.
<!-- Template:Setup auto archiving -->


== Targeted the creator in RS available ==
I'll thank you for stopping inserting "falsely" and "correctly" in places where they do not belong. ] (]) 12:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
"The curator group, known as "Sweet Baby Inc detected", received increased attention in February when a Sweet Baby employee asked others to report it for violating Steam's code of conduct."
:That the theory is false is a fact, and is sourced as such (though I've removed it from the lead anyway). The word "correctly" is not used in this article. <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 12:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
::No. The fact is that Kotaku writer Alyssa Mercante characterized it as false. Alyssa Mercante is not, however, the ultimate decider of truth, and as such you can't claim everything she says is a fact. ] (]) 13:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
:::It has nothing to do with Mercante's opinion or characterisation; it is objectively how the company operates. <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 13:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
::::According to whom? Whoever the source is, just write that "So-and-so has stated this is not how the company operates."
::::This is precisely the same as in the example provided in the NPOV article:
::::For example, an article should not state that {{!xt|] is an evil action}} but may state that {{xt|genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil}}. ] (]) 13:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::According to anyone familiar with how consulting firms actually operate. In-text attribution ]. Regardless, I don't see this as an issue in the article's current state. <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 13:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::"Consulting firms exist" is a simple fact. What consulting firms would and wouldn't do really isn't.
::::::In any case, I do agree that the article is looking pretty good right now in regards to neutrality. Thank you for talking this through civilly and amicably. ] (]) 14:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
::If you want to stay neutral here, it might be beneficial to mention tweets of SBI employees regarding non-existence of white racism and other racist statements too, just as a fact - people working in posted commenting on this topic. Covering SBI co-founders methods of forcing companies to work with SBI might also provide a good perspective on situation. In general, the article still feels pretty one-sided. ] (]) 01:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:::If reliable sources discuss it in relation to the company and its work, then it might be suitable to add. Tweets from employees are generally not notable on their own. <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 02:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:::fully agree, this article is way too bias for WIKI ] (]) 15:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::] would be good reading for you. Misplaced Pages deliberately matches the 'bias' of the mainstream reliable sources. ] (]) 15:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::i mean they are not neutrally reporting the sources, the gaming journos writing articles have no sources, WE hold the sources and they are being completely ignored. ] (]) 15:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::With all due respect, neither you nor I are ]. Misplaced Pages's entire ethos is organized representing what is found in reliable sources. I would respectfully suggest that you would be better off trying to get your point of view reflected in such sources rather than pushing against one of Misplaced Pages's foundational principles. Happy Monday, everyone! ] (]) 16:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::i'm not saying I am a reliable source, what I'm saying is that the actual reliable sources, like Chris Kindreds documented post calling for harassment against kabrutus, or @legobutts of Sweet Baby INC making racist post against whites and jews. How about we talk about how one of the sources "Alyssa the writer from Kotaku" stated on their X page when criticized for not covering the racist remarks by Sweet Baby INC now famously stated "You can't be racist to white people" this is her image on her page now. ] (]) 16:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::i forgot to finish that thought. we are ignoring these sources? really? ] (]) 16:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::To finish that thought, there is NO reliable sources that sweet baby inc was harassed, and if they are i can't access them because they are locked and that lacks integrity. ] (]) 16:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Misplaced Pages's standards for sourcing can be found at ]. We use secondary sources from commerical publishers, mostly. We cannot and will not use blogs, social media, or other self published materials in a situation like this one. Misplaced Pages absolutely will 'ignore' posts like that - except to the extent that secondary reliable sources comment on them. ] (]) 16:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::When quality of ] content is questionable, which can be determined on a case-by-case basis, Misplaced Pages prefers NOT to include information from low quality sources. ] (]) 16:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::An accurate statement, but one that does not apply here. Low quality sources are things like the ], not sources that editors happen to disagree with. ] (]) 16:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Kotaku is a generally unreliable source to begin with. You can't argue the lacking reliability in this particular case, judging by claims made by authors of the article, quoted multiple times on this talk page. There are questions regarding multiple other sources too. ] (]) 16:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::That you declare Kotaku 'generally unreliable' does not make it so. ] (]) 16:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::well non of the articles are reliable, they are all puff pieces, and if your sources lack integrity, anyone echoing said sources also lack integrity, i'm talking sources of what people actually did, you can't get a more reliable source than that, and if you can ignore peoples real life actions and hold up these people that are socially engineering racism and hate, than apparently Wiki is part of the problem. You can't be a group that claims DEI when you are filled with sexist and racist. ] (]) 16:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Ok, then Misplaced Pages lacks integrity. "Echoing said sources" is what Misplaced Pages's policies require us to do, and we're not going to simply set those policies aside for this one article. ] (]) 16:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::. Also, ] ] (]) 16:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::No one here has listened to Larry Sanger for many years. He's taken up supporting nonsense like QAnon and antivax. ] (]) 16:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::I'm all against antivax, but it doesn't matter here, because a person can have opinions on different things and one "wrong" opinion doesn't take away the credibility of other ones. ] (]) 16:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::I think it matters when his problem is that Misplaced Pages won't let him add antivax views in the name of 'neutrality'. ] (]) 16:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::i'm not anti-vax, what are you even going on about. your trying to demonize me and you know nothing about me. I am just trying to make sure things are covered truthfully. i don't even know who larry sanger is. ] (]) 16:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::Unless you're Larry Sanger, nobody is talking about you. ] (]) 16:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Consider reading lists of ]es before making claims like this. ] ] (]) 16:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Yes, most of us are familiar with our source lists. Kotaku's reliability is situational, which means its to be evaluated by editors before its use. I'm perfectly happy with the reliability of the we use in our article. It's written by one of their senior editors, and the quality of it is actually pretty high. If all of their articles were as good as this one, we'd likely rate it higher on the reliability scale, alas they do put out some truly awful stuff as well. ] (]) 16:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Yes Moon darker, I have always considered Kotaku basically reliable for video game news (though there are certainly cautions, as Sideswipe9th mentions above). That said, it is entirely possible I missed something relevant. I have seen you say some version of this before; is there a specific page or reference to Kotaku that you're referencing? ] (]) 16:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::This is a huge red flag about your affiliation, I suggest you to disengage immediately. You're openly supporting a person who and THEN . ] (]) 17:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:Should there be "quotes" around the word "woke"? Putting quotes around a word like that can give a dismissive connotation, which is not neutral. But on the other hand, this woke is the word that is being used by critics, so it kind of is a quote. Does the Manual of Style have guild lines for something like this? ] (]) 14:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
::The intention was to present it as a quote but I understand the concern; this is discussed at ] too. I've expanded the quote to encompass "]" instead—this term is even less common so I think using quotation marks is valid. What are your thoughts? <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 14:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
:*The sources use comparable quotes, as far as I can see; we have to reflect them in that case. --] (]) 22:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
:*:https://thatparkplace.com/sweet-baby-inc-employee-who-tried-to-cancel-gamer-over-boycott-list-gets-x-account-limited/ what about this article though. or this one. https://www.theshortcut.com/p/sweet-baby-inc-detected-what-actually-happened these are articles with more credible sources than the WIKI is using. ] (]) 16:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:*::the other sources have NO recipes. ] (]) 16:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:*:::https://nichegamer.com/sweet-baby-employees-incite-harassment-campaign-against-steam-curator/ another one, tell me more about how your not ignoring the sources. ] (]) 16:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:*::::https://game8.co/articles/latest/sweet-baby-inc-employees-fail-spectacularly-at-trying-to-get-steam-curator-banned another one, tell me more about how your not ignoring the sources ] (]) 16:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:*:::::https://fandompulse.com/2024/03/05/sweet-baby-inc-ceo-kim-belair-speech-urged-employees-to-terrify-video-game-companies-if-they-dont-give-you-what-they-want/ or this one that covers how kim belair told everyone to use scare tactics against the developers marketing team. ] (]) 16:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:*::::::I don't want to get in the way of your roll, here, but Misplaced Pages does have minimum sourcing standards (linked several times throughout this discussion) that your links do not meet. ] (]) 16:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:*:::::::Kotaku doesn't meet it either, and conveniently you didn't answer ].
:*:::::::Multiple sources shared by {{U|Edits for Integrity}} are ''not'' considered unreliable ] (]) 16:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:*::::::::I tend to find that repeating previous responses is a waste of space, and I will typically not respond in such cases. You're welcome to read over the previous discussion again if you still don't understand Misplaced Pages's position on use of Kotaku. ] (]) 16:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:*:::::::how do you know, they have only been up a couple minutes. I have doubts you even looked into them. it says at the top to avoid stating opinions as facts, but all i see here are opinions. the articles you use as sources are of opinion only, they have opinions from individuals with no factual sources. the articles i link have factual sources and they are being ignored. by your own words you are owning yourself. not to mention when i click "view source" it is locked, so i have no way to see what source is being used. this place is a joke i swear. ] (]) 16:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:*::::::https://www.geeksandgamers.com/sweet-baby-inc-does-exactly-what-gamers-think-they-do/ this one covers a lot, it also gets into Alyssas remark against her criticism, she WAS the original writer that all the puff pieces that have been echoed on all the unreliable articles. ] (]) 16:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


Source of this is
=== Speaking of NPOV... ===
I put the NPOV tag on the page because I don't think that calling {{tq|employees fac harassment and doxing attempts}} mere "online backlash" is neutral. It's a harrassment campaign. ''''']''''' <sup>(] / ])</sup> 04:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


"They asked their followers to report it '''<u>and its creator</u>''' due to it failing Steam’s code of conduct, which states shared spaces on the platform must be respectful."
:I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment, but we'd need sources to back up a section title like that. I also think that sources for that will ''eventually'' appear, as they did for ], especially once we get more in-depth academic coverage digging into its roots and the like... but it may take some time. Do you have any good sources for how to characterize it yet? --] (]) 04:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
::The best I can come up with, in terms of summarizing the information concisely and without glossing over any details, is "(Online) Backlash and harassment". I don't see why putting such a weighted tag over just a section title is justifiable, but regardless if that's your only concern then I'll remove the tag if consensus on the title is decided. ] (]) 04:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:::I'll remove the tag myself. I'd be fine with "Online backlash and harrassment" for now. ''''']''''' <sup>(] / ])</sup> 04:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Alright, thanks for helping.
::::As for Aquillion, there's mentions of conspiracy theories and a "firestorm" along with the Steam and Discord groups, all stemming from significantly far-right-wing platforms that discuss video games. If that's not enough backing for the phrase "online backlash" I don't know what is. And doxing and comparisons to Gamergate is definitely justifiable to add the "harassment" part. If more reliable sources somehow come up for use, who knows if the new info would lead to another change, but in describing a series of events that have been going for several months I think it's unlikely another retitle would be needed further down the road. And the current batch of sources is good enough too. Personally I...hesitate to see what right-wing media could bring to the table. It wouldn't be as clean for neutrality, so to speak. ] (]) 05:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::An absolute majority of people have nothing to do with "far-right-wing platforms" (most people found this out through ] like - and all statements from these videos can be easily verified by anyone through web archives).
:::::Please explain which "conspiracy theories" are you referring to, and with high likelyhood all the "theories" can be confirmed by archived statements from employees of this company. ] (]) 06:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::With all due respect, 'influencers' covering content arising from right-wing platforms still means the content is stemming from right-wing platforms. Cheers. ] (]) 06:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for the comment. It is true that involvement of Sweet Baby Inc. was initially discovered on platforms like 4chan. However what {{U|Carlinal}} tried to do here is nothing else than substitution of concepts. The fact that it was discovered there doesn't change the fact that it got much more traction elsewhere among left-, middle- and right- wing actors.
:::::::Example: The fact that USSR launched the first artificial satellite doesn't make all artificial satellites soviet. ] (]) 06:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Maybe this is confusion but none of my edits (on the main page) tried to substitute anything beyond the section title and the mention of DEI, and it's a stretch to accuse me of something like that. The "conspiracy theory" mention is from the ] source, where the phrase appears several times, and knowing how contentious this subject is, I tried to create the best summary without any inaccuracies or accusations of substitution.
::::::::Also, what I mean by "all stemming from significantly far-right-wing platforms" is just Kiwi Farms, 4chan, and subreddit r/KotakuInAction, all of which are also mentioned on the main page. I never extended that to YouTube commentators, nor do I mean to. The former three are the few, if not only right-wing platforms mentioned altogether that are currently on the Misplaced Pages article, including reports of Sweet Baby from other publishers. I guess the last two sentences in my previous response are in bad faith, but from a glance the two YouTubers also ''seem'' to be taking clips OOC. I'm not watching those videos anyhow just to prevent anymore contentious edits than the ones I did now. If the YouTube videos Moon darker provided are included in a reliable source or are reliable themselves, that's your call. ] (]) 16:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:No. It isn't. It's gamers who aren't happy about the situation making themselves heard. This is the fans expressing why the games Sweet Baby worked on received such a negative reception from gamers.
:Interpreting it as harassment is simply a strategy which we've, of course, seen before. ] (]) 14:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::You can critique Sweet Baby as a company without harassing its employees directly, as many have. It's not inaccurate to call it harassment. ] (]) 16:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


The information, that the Sweet Baby Inc post, that created the controversy in the first place, was aimed at the steam user of the curator list and not only against his group is mentioned in a RS and is not mentioned in the article. This is not a neutral view of the controversy.
== This article needs more citations covering both sides of the "controversy" ==
--] (]) 02:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


:We need a reliable source that discusses that the operator of the group was targeted. We ''know'' they were from the primary sources, but we summarize what secondary and independent sources say, and none of them have really talked about this part, only the curator group itself. ] (]) 02:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
<big>First, allow me to propose a couple of edits:</big>
::But this is my point, a reliable source, <u>used already in this article</u>, mentioned it in the exact short and neutral way.
::We only need to add these 3 words from the already cited reliable source in this article.
::right now quote 26 in this article of Michael Beckwith: "Sweet Baby Inc Detected drana, explained" from. Dot Esports. Gamurs. mentiones the targeting of the creator of this group (and his list).
::To make it simple, we already used this source for the first paragraph, but we don't mention the '''"and its creator"''' in the article. I just ask to add these 3 words from the actual reliable source. --] (]) 14:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
:::That may be putting undue weight on a source of questionable reliability - especially in wiki-voice. ] (]) 15:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
::::If the source is of questionable reliability @] @], why is it already used in this article for months as Reliable source?This is the second time, that this sources, '''already used in this article for months,''' is called questionable to avoid to add 3 words.....It is rather misrepresenting a reliable sources by ignoring parts of their statements in this article.
::::This part of the controversy was asked to be added to the article by many different people already and was always denied by the claim of lack of reliable source. Now there is a reliable source already qualified by Misplaced Pages over months and even just the minor necessary change of only 3 words, wished by a lot of people is still blocked as somehow still questionable.
::::I try to have ] here, but this is getting into territories of ] and maybe even ]
::::NPOV means to represent all significant viewpoints, that have been published by reliable sources. This reliable source adds this information in the sentence, Misplaced Pages heavily used in this quoted sentence, but 3 words were not included. We can easily fix it by simply adding these 3 words to secure Verifiability of Misplaced Pages.
::::It seems to me to be rather undue to add on the other side singular random quotations of claims and opinions of whole articles from some sources into this article, while not stating everything in a factual sentence, stated in a reliable source in this article.
::::It is exactly ] in Articles to give these minority aspects of singular claims about this controversy a more detailed description as more widely known aspects of this controversy. --] (]) 01:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::The point NOT in that article which seems to be what others want pushed is that the SBI employee that called to attention to that group was blocked on Twitter because of connecting the Steam account to the Twitter account. That article from Dot Esports doesn't mention that. Simple saying that the group and its creator were called out isn't really a significant factor here. ] (]) 01:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::And the point is, that you argue against your own claims in the now mentioned discussion:
::::::''And while I do think that if an RS actually discusses it '''that we should include it''', it is a minor factor in the overall story: it is the fact that SBI employees called out the curator group that created a Streisand effect to grow the followers of the group. Masem (t) 03:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)''
::::::please be consistent at least about your own opinion.
::::::--] (]) 01:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The source having been in the article for some time doesn't mean it's a good source, just that nobody removed it. And even if it's good enoug to corroborate uncontroversial details that doesn't mean we use it as a sole attribution to say something in wiki-voice. ] (]) 13:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


== Bias in Misplaced Pages ==
In 2024, the studio became <u><s>the</s> '''<big>a</big>'''</u> target of online users who claimed it promoted a "woke agenda". ''(there is a long list of companies, it's not the only target)''
{{collapse top|reason=]}}
This line from above "We aren't actually here to "tell the truth". We're here to report what reliable sources say..."


So if your 'reliable sources' are left wing gutter trash sites and propaganda mills and most of the editors in this place are rabid leftists, then this place will always remain a biased leftist shithole. Congratulations you .....! This recent blow-up has brought many new visitors and yet they have all been shown how you operate this place with left leaning websites and news channels being made out to be 'reliable'. THIS IS NOT AN ENCYCLOPEDIA but just a conglomerate of parroted propaganda from american 'news' media and websites with their useful idiots. ] (]) 13:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
The group received increased attention in February when a Sweet Baby employee asked others to report it for <u>'''<big>allegedly</big>'''</u> failing Steam's code of conduct. ''(it's not against Steam's code of conduct, otherwise it would've been banned a few days ago. If you believe it is, please provide objective sources)''
{{collapse bottom}}


== Talk page protection ==
<big>Now back to the main topic, this article needs more diverse facts (not opinions):</big>


Isn't this too excessive, locking a talk page for a full year?! Was this a misclick or something @]? Have never seen anything similar --] (]) 17:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Since the tweet that started the whole "controversy" , it might be better to add as well as . It's also worth mentioning that this employee was for these tweets.


:It might seem extreme, but it's there to slow down kneejerk discussion, since it's part of what's considered a contentious topic. ] (]) 18:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I will also leave a couple of additional links here, that may or may not be good sources according to Misplaced Pages standards by themselves, however these contain a lot of '''facts''' that are '''ommited''' by this article:
:It only requires autoconfirmed, not exactly egregious for a page that's getting lots of drive-by comments from people who are just complaining. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
:The talk page isn't "locked", it's ] as an enforcement action under ]. Semi-protection still allows participation by registered users with accounts that are at least 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits.
:Protecting talk pages is something that administrators try to avoid, even for ], but it's unfortunately necessary in extreme cases. This talk page has had serious issues with ], ], ], and other ] to the point where revision deletion has been required multiple times. And those issues were predominantly from non-autoconfirmed editors. The duration was determined based on the persistence of the disruptive edits and influenced by the number of involved accounts, the frequency of disruption, and the severity of the issues encountered. Regards. ] (]) 18:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


== Support for my removal of capes ==
https://www.theshortcut.com/p/sweet-baby-inc-detected-what-actually-happened


@] I did not have enough space in the edit summary to properly explain my point, so I will elaborate here.
https://game8.co/articles/latest/sweet-baby-inc-employees-fail-spectacularly-at-trying-to-get-steam-curator-banned


The devs of capes have only made that one game. Presumably for that reason they have the credits for capes on their website: It does not mention Sweet Baby Inc.
I would like to kindly ask editors to be consistent in their efforts to be objective and include more dry '''facts''' in the article, instead of '''favoring facts''' of '''one side''' by not including any '''factual reasons''' behind actions of '''another side'''. ] (]) 03:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


The steam discussions do mention they facilitated some contact between voice actors and the company, but the question is does this count as "working on the game". Seeing the lack of representation in the credits, the devs do not see it that way. If you can show that there is a difference between website credits and in game credits (screenshots perhaps?) I think you could make a somewhat stronger case, or at least have a footnote to describe the situation more carefully. However we must realize that youtube videos of people with a clear bias and no editorial oversight cannot be cited as evidence.
:Thanks for your input. {{xt|the target}} still makes sense regardless of how many "targets" there are. {{!xt|allegedly}} is unnecessary since the sentence is referring to what the employee said. As mentioned above, tweets from employees are generally not notable on their own, so their inclusion here is dependent on inclusion in reliable sources. Neither of those sources has been ] by editors ]. <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 04:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
::Should the GDC talk be included as a source on its own? Or does it still need coverage from other reliable sources? ] (]) 04:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Unless it has relevance to the history of the company (discusses its founding, employee count, studio partners, etc.), I see no reason for it to be included without additional relevant coverage. <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 04:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
::::The GDC talk in question discussed the basic concept this entire company is built upon, surely it's important and relevant to the history of the company then?
::::Even if you deem that unimportant for the history of the company, it is one of the key points for the "Controversy" part of the article. ] (]) 04:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::The only source that talk about that GDC talk so far is from . They quoted a small part of her speech where she says:
:::::"If you’re a creative working in AAA which I did for many, many years: put this stuff up to your higher-ups. And if they don’t see the value in what you’re asking for when you ask for consultancy, when you ask for research: go have a coffee with your marketing team and just terrify them with the possibility if they don’t give you what you want.”
:::::But the quote seems to be out-of-context as there is no further commentary on that quote - except on the emphasis on the word '''terrify'''.
:::::Another GDC quote was featured in where she said:
:::::"We feed them the same thing that we know that they love and we keep on feeding it. We’re like, ‘Here you go. We know you love it. Eat this. Eat this. Eat this.’ So then when they get anything else they react as a picky baby would, which would be like, ‘Oh! No thank you. I do not want this.’ And we’ve actually done this so long that what we’re doing is creating an entire nation of picky babies and they make us scared to deviate from what we actually want to do. Just in case these picky babies don’t want to play our games."
:::::I am not comfortable including Thatparkplace.com as they have multiple articles attacking Sweet Baby Inc - including . I'm not 100% sure on NicheGamer, but they seem less extreme. ''] <sup>]</sup>'' 04:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::''Niche Gamer'' is considered ] per ]. <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 04:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|Rhain}} Thank you so much. I had no idea of the existence of ]. Yeah; both citations take her GDC comments out of context. To be frank, I don't care about the controversy, but I'm glad there is a Misplaced Pages page that condenses all of its history - without reactionary YouTubers and questionable sources talking about it. ''] <sup>]</sup>'' 05:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Adding to this, the full GDC video is nearly . The negative reactions use a similar trick done with ]'s Feminist Frequency videos where her points are taken out of context. ''] <sup>]</sup>'' 05:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
::::*{{ec}} The history of the company is already covered by other sources; is there anything in particular the GDC talk can add?{{pb}}Whether or not it's a "key point" for the "Controversy" section will be determined by reliable sources. <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 04:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


My personal view on the situation now is that it can best be described as Sweet Baby Inc. working with the company but not on the game, however that is simply a quick assessment of the situation and not a thorough analysis.
:*Also, per ], expressions of doubt like that can imply that something is untruthful, and should only be used when the source themselves uses them. An editor personally disagreeing with something is ] and is exactly the sort of situation where we're ''not'' supposed to use that sort of language. --] (]) 04:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:*:Would it be better to make it a quote then?
:*:The group received increased attention in February when a Sweet Baby employee asked others to report it for '''<big>"failing Steam's code of conduct"</big>'''. ] (]) 04:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:*::It doesn't need quotes; nothing about the sentence's phrasing is incorrect. <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 04:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:*:::Point 1: The group is not actually failing Steam's code of conduct
:*:::Point 2: It is a citation of an employee claiming the opposite
:*:::Solution: Clearly show that it is a citation, like you did with ] (]) 04:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:*::::Unless reliable sources deem otherwise, whether or not it actually fails Steam's code of conduct is irrelevant and ]. <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 05:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:*:::::You surely know the lists of reliable and unreliable sources well.
:*:::::From the bottom of your heart, do you believe to follow ]?
:*:::::It is pretty much impossible to cover the "controversy" part of the article without at least minimal use of ] because the absolute majority of people are going against all "reliable sources" in this case (notice: unreliable statement, no statistical research was done on this topic, but mass media together with all the loudest pro-SBI activists seem to be massively outnumbered here).
:*:::::While you can't base the article off what these people are saying, all main reasons that this "controversy" stems from fall nicely under ], and you seem to actively avoid the inclusion of sources containing those reasons, even with added context. That's why I mentioned ] in the first place. ] (]) 05:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::: I wouldn't be opposed to including the GDC talk personally, though as noted before we shouldn't put words in their mouth or take quotes out of context. ] (]) 05:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::*{{ec}} Self-published sources should almost never be used in "Controversy" sections. All information should be supported by reliable, verifiable sources. <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 05:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::*:Do you agree that it is as reliable as it gets in this situation? There are limits on what reliable source can cover.
:::::::*:It is verifiable that there is at least a quarter million people actively against the company though, and there is an uncountable amount of console players without a Steam account, plus those who simply never subscribe to Steam curators in general. ] (]) 05:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Of course there are limits on what reliable sources can cover—but it's not up to Misplaced Pages to ]. The matter of ] is only relevant insofar as reliable sources are concerned, not the number of people in a Steam group. <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 05:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Do you agree that it is a citation? And that it might not be accurate? If you do, then the current state of article is suboptimal.
:::::::Otherwise, is it not a citation, or is it an accurate citation?
:::::::What are the sources claiming that this Steam group did break community guidelines, and if it did, why is it not banned yet? ] (]) 06:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::] does not claim that the group broke Steam's community guidelines, so no such source is needed. <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 06:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't want to turn this into a forum, you know what I meant here. The meaning of sentence we're discussing is ambiguous right now. It might be percieved as a statement of fact unless quoted correctly. According to ], I don't see any reason not to clear things up. It's not a cultural norm, nor is it unneccessary - because a reader might percieve it as "Misplaced Pages's own voice". At the same time emotional background of that statement is quite obvious. ] (]) 06:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::{{xt|a Sweet Baby employee asked others to report it for failing Steam's code of conduct}} ''is'' a statement of fact. I don't think it's ambiguous, nor does it need quotation marks—it's comparable to the "Permissible" quote at ]. I'll leave it to others to share their thoughts. <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 07:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::From my understanding, they seem to have a problem with the wording line of the line about the group violating Steam's code of conduct, which they claim is incorrect since it hasn't been taken down yet. ] (]) 07:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I understand their point, I just don't think it's an actual problem for the reasons stated above. <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 07:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Though, as my previous edit implied, I would prefer not to go this deep on this aspect in the article at all - as far as I can tell only a single source actually discusses the reports; PCgamer actually only says that {{tq|The situation grew in scale as some Sweet Baby employees, frustrated at the idea of a curated list specifically made to avoid games they had worked on, acknowledged the group on social media. While the tweet has been removed, one employee also discovered and shared the group curator's Twitter account.}} Most other sources are similar. One thing I remember from ] is that there was this ever-shifting web of narratives presented by adherents that weren't really treated that seriously by the best ]es and which tended to lack long-term coverage, which kept creeping into the article. This feels similar - the sheer size of this section already shows the massively disproportionate amount of attention some editors and forums give to this sort of trivia and the narrative they've built around it based on a personal belief that it's central or a personal outlook in which it drives their own views. That can produce a lopsided or meandering article if we're not careful to take a step back and actually focus on what the sources say overall rather than the aspects that became emotive rallying cries on Twitter or the like. Obviously if things like that do get substantial coverage they still have to be covered (and when they have a lot of coverage, we can rely on that to determine how we approach them), but I'm simply not seeing it here, so a better option might just be to omit all mention of the group being reported entirely until / unless there's more coverage. Right now it is a single line cited to Dot Esports and nothing else (and while Dot Esports may be usable for games, we're going outside of the usually uncontroversial things we rely on sources like that for here.) Is that really ]? If most sources don't consider it worth even touching on, then we shouldn't include it out of a desire to "answer" those narratives or anything like that unless the sources do - we should just leave it out entirely. --] (]) 14:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::It ''should'' be ambiguous; we can't word it in a way that makes it sound definitive in either direction without unambiguous sourcing. You haven't actually presented any yourself - your arguments are ], in the sense that you're trying to make your own personal arguments for why your gut feeling tells you the group doesn't violate any policies. But that's not how we write articles; per ], we can't word the article in a way that implies to readers that that's the case. Right now we attribute it, which is the appropriate way to do it. And it's also worth pointing out that PCGamer says that {{tq|Regardless of your opinion on that, it should be noted that Steam's guidelines for this sort of thing prohibit insults, harassment, and discrimination. "The creators and members of these groups are responsible for ensuring that they adhere to all of the guidelines outlined above." It can be argued that the anti-Sweet Baby group is violating said guidelines.}} - which doesn't support your interpretation and which certainly wouldn't justify a wording that directly casts doubt on the idea that the reports. --] (]) 14:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::It's not my "gut feeling", Steam Support replied to the author of that group that it did not violate any policies, with limited . It's just common sense that the group would've been banned instantly if it did violate anything, considering the amount of traction this situation got. I deemed it unnecessary to mention that, because it was not covered by "reliable sources". It just goes to show how hilarious the situation is and how much extended confirmed editors are willing to dig into the situation.
:::::::::::I'll also mention here that articles by , (which is generally deemed unreliable by Misplaced Pages, and imo shouldn't be used in such articles) and were received , other outlets didn't dare to tweet their respective articles at all.
:::::::::::When in Rome, do as the Romans do, but imo ] exists exactly for situations like this, as all the primary sources are ]. It's impossible to cover the situation through "reliable" news outlets when they're scared to write a word in the wrong direction about it. ] (]) 16:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Whatever other users think of those articles isn't the point here, what matters is what Misplaced Pages considers a reliable source. Getting "ratio'd" on Twitter/X is not a reason to discount an article's reliability. ] (]) 17:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The last paragraph of my message addresses this, you added 0 valuable information by replying this way, plus you only covered one third of the message. ] (]) 17:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::A tweet is obviously not a ]; even beyond that, the screenshot in the image simply doesn't say what the tweet asserts it says. Even if it did, we wouldn't be able to use it; ] is inappropriate in this situation for numerous reasons. The tweet (by the creator of the group, presenting what looks to me like a canned ticket-closure message of no significance and using it to claim personal vindication) is clearly {{tq|unduly self-serving}}, and the image's province itself is unknown, so there are reasonable doubts to its authenticity. It also involves {{tq|claims about third parties}}, since you want to use it to imply via ] that reports against the group (which, I'll reiterate above, only a single source currently even notes happened) were invalid. Likewise, your feelings about the reaction to those tweets and your personal opinions about what that means aren't really usable to dictate article content. Consider the alternate possibility, which I outlined above, and which is really the default per ]: The reason nobody else has covered this aspect isn't because they're terrified of being ratioed on Twitter, it's because it is trivial. The reason Steam has been giving canned replies and has done little is because they give canned replies to almost everything, and rarely act at all. If these are significant developments, it should be easy to find ]es covering them; currently the entire tangent seems so trivial that it would probably be better to omit it entirely until and unless secondary sources cover it in more depth than the one line in a single source that we have currently. --] (]) 00:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Lets stop here.
:::::::::::::The first paragraph in it's entirety was addressing your accusation of me relying on "gut feelings", when in reality it's just <s>]</s> (]) supported by that particular tweet. Note that I did not ask to use that tweet in the article, and even noted that this screenshot is not complete, thus can't be used on its own.
:::::::::::::Regarding "canned replies", that sounds like your own personal opinion here without any ] provided. I've seen a recently.
:::::::::::::In my opinion, you and '''''{{U|Rhain}}''''' are harming the Misplaced Pages project by completely ignoring <s>]</s> (]), ] and ] ] (]) 02:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The point is, there are alternate explanations for everything that you are, personally, choosing to believe; and much of what you seem to believe is both fairly ] and contradicts the best available sources. Therefore, we cannot present the conclusions you personally feel are so obvious without an actual reliable source backing them up. If the things you believe are true, supportable and due, then it should be possible to find ]es to directly support them; if you can't find them then you should at least ''consider'' the possibility that the people on the forums you're reading this on may be distorting, exaggerating, or outright fabricating parts of what you read, which was a major problem with similar controversies in the past. Even if you're unwilling to consider that possibility, Misplaced Pages has to do so, which means that we can't rely on ] sources for the kinds of things you want to add. --] (]) 04:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::First of all, allow me to apologize, because I linked ] instead of ] both here and in the DRN thread, which led to confusion.
:::::::::::::::With due respect, I always consider the possibility of being wrong myself, or that sources I read might be incorrect. I did spend a considerable amount of time checking all available information, and taking everything into account: the information provided by people on the forums is exaggerated at times, and lies can be found here and there, but the main thought, as far as my "]" goes, (yes, I understand what I said here, it's a truthful irony if you will) is true at its core.
:::::::::::::::There are tweets by company employees confirming they worked on large chunks of plot for some games. The GDC talk can't be taken out of context - the CEO described how the company works. Then there are tweets with an attempt to start harassment campaign towards the Steam curator. I probably forgot something else that was already discussed on this talk page. All the links are here. If you want to be sure (for yourself) that all of this was posted by employees - LinkedIn is open + as far as I'm aware, SBI never stated that the people in Twitter are not related to the company, and they would've done it instantly if it was the case. It's all just ], it legit feels like most of active editors for the article didn't even attempt to investigate the timeline of events. ] (]) 09:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Tweets, by their nature, can only tell us so much on their own. I'd imagine SBI's involvement varies from game-to-game, but we can't know that from just tweets alone. Again, a tweet on its own is not a reliable source. The article already mentions that employees tried to get the Steam page taken down, since it's been reported on by other reliable sources. And as for "The GDC talk can't be taken out of context", it can. Anything can be taken out of context, that's how online discourse tends to work. If we're going to include it as a source we can't put words in their mouth. ] (]) 11:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::*No, we definitely couldn't use tweets from employees claiming X, Y, and Z about the company, for countless reasons. First, when they're not talking in an official capacity, then the company itself is a {{tq|third party}}, which immediately bars using them as an ] source in this article all on its own. Second, depending on the context, it could be {{tq|unduly self-serving}} (ie. people have an incentive to play up the importance of their work - yes, something can both be unduly self-serving in one context and negative in another.) Third, though, and most importantly, it's still ] and ] because you state yourself that your goal is to build a {{tq|timeline of events}} that you feel explains what "really" happened for the overarching event, based on things you personally saw where randos on Twitter and forums told you that these tweets were central to their own feelings and opinions on the topic. I can understand that you're upset that ] coverage doesn't reflect what you consider the timeline of events; but again, trying to "correct" it here is trying to ]. If you feel they got it wrong by not highlighting the things your gut tells you is important, then you should send letters to the editor asking for updates and corrections. But Misplaced Pages isn't the place to "reveal the truth"; your objection that we haven't performed the research you feel you did and haven't come to the conclusion that the tweets you feel are so significant shows the core problem, because that is textbook ]. Lots of people affiliated with the company make lots of tweets; the GDC talk is huge and covers a ton of different things. Why do you feel that the few random things you want to add, pulled out of context, are important? How would you demonstrate their relevance? Those are the things you need ]es for in order to avoid original research. Ultimately our article is going to reflect ] coverage, so if you think there are things your gut tells you are vital that were left out, the thing to do is to contact those reliable sources, or to wait and hope that it gets more coverage. We can't help you by presenting your personal theories of the "real timeline" as fact ourselves; all we can do is cover them if a ] does. Again, if there's one thing about Misplaced Pages that you need to understand, it's that we ''summarize reliable sources'', we don't do our own research. You're free to repeat the research you feel you've done on forums elsewhere, or to send it to various publishers and news sources hoping they cover it; but it's no use here. If you repeatedly fail - again, you should consider the possibility that you're wrong, that the quotes are pulled out of context to rile people up and push their buttons, and that, most importantly, the reason RSes haven't focused on them is because they've looked over the whole thing and decided (perhaps completely accurately!) "ah, it's another 4chan / kiwifarms / gamergate-style harassment op" and focused on that rather than on the usual ever-changing list of dubious faux grievances they always present when running that sort of op. Coverage is more internet-savvy than it was a decade ago, and the playbook is sort of tired right now; random internet shouty people going "hey, look at this list of quotes and clips we've assembled into a dosser! These people are TOTALLY BAD!" doesn't get the same traction it used to. That's not just my analysis - by my reading it's what most of the sources that ''have'' covered this more-or-less say in summarizing it. Those are, I think, the actually important points, based on current coverage. Even if you think that coverage is wrong, Misplaced Pages isn't the place to try and "correct" it. --] (]) 15:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::*:I already replied to most of these claims in other branches of the discussion.
:::::::::::::::*:It's not about my personal opinion at all, in fact, I just want will of people to be properly documented instead of "these far-right* keyboard warriors don't understand anything".
:::::::::::::::*:<nowiki>*</nowiki> - <s>citation needed</s> gamers are just people who want to play good games
:::::::::::::::*:The narrative you're following is supported by a vocal minority of people, while an actual majority is being ignored. I understand that ], however in its current state the "controversy" section of the article is . Not by my "personal opinion", it's just not the way situation unfolded, omitted information leads readers to ]. Remember, ].
:::::::::::::::*:This article is not rocket science, thus I deem your constant seeking of ] to be a bit ].
:::::::::::::::*:Once again, I do not want to include any emotional outcries from gaming community. I do not ask to humiliate SBI employees either. However, the contoversy part ] capture the real causes of events, a good alternative would be to remove this part completely otherwise.
:::::::::::::::*:I will kindly ask you once more, do not twist my words. ] (]) 20:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::*::It's never extreme to seek reliable sources, as everything--''everything''--on Misplaced Pages must be ]. That means you must be able to point to a reliable source outside of Misplaced Pages to corroborate what you're saying. Misplaced Pages simply cannot capture the "real causes of events" if they haven't appeared in reliable sources. That's simply axiomatic. I know that can be unsatisfying, and I also know that Misplaced Pages's policies are the worst possible way to run an encyclopedia (with the exception of all the other options). I am afraid the options are either to wait for coverage in reliable sources (or find some that currently exists), or to go through the AfD process and seek deletion of the article until such time as the subject has been more fully fleshed out. There is no exception to sourcing or verifiability policies either for "fairness" or "showing what really happened." Both of those goals come dangerously close to an attempt to ]. I would urge all involved to understand that Misplaced Pages is ever-evolving. The state of the article today will not be where it is in a few weeks. While any given snapshot of this encyclopedia can seem incorrect (sometimes egregiously so) in the moment, in the long sweep of time, the arc of Misplaced Pages bends towards accuracy. Sometimes we all have to have a bit of faith in that. Here's hoping everyone had a nice weekend. ] (]) 20:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::*:::Thanks for the comment!
:::::::::::::::*:::It just occured to me that claims in the article also seem to be quite ] per clause 4: <small>Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people.</small>. It is to be proven of course, and I'm not sure how to cover that.
:::::::::::::::*:::That's just for the future reference should the AfD process be initiated. ] (]) 21:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::*::::The 'relevant community' here are the journalists who have covered this, not the folks posting on Twitter or reddit. The article reflects the mainstream reliable sources quite well. ] (]) 22:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::*:::::Hard objection. Journalists nowadays are largely irrelevant to the gaming community. Especially so with sources like ] which behind it at all and ] with behind the article.
:::::::::::::::*:::::There are out there, but I doubt editors are willing to make use of those. ] (]) 22:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::*::::::If Misplaced Pages really followed the standard you are suggesting here, articles like ] would be very, very different. ] (]) 23:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::*:::::::That's just an indirect insult. And .
:::::::::::::::*:::::::Please refrain from commenting on things unrelated to ] ] (]) 23:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::*::::::::The point remains, on Misplaced Pages we follow the reliable sources, and subcultures do not get to substitute for that with their own version of reality. ] (]) 23:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::*:::::::::It would've been good if it was true. Unfortunately, subcultures do get to substitute everything with their own version of reality here, and it's a very rare occurence to see the real version of reality on Misplaced Pages when it comes to politics-related articles nowadays.
:::::::::::::::*:::::::::I do understand your stance on keeping the discussion in one place, but it would be better if we continue either at ] or ]. ] (]) 00:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
{{od|:::::::::::::::*:::::::::}} Misplaced Pages can only ever include content that's ] to one or more ]. As things stand right now, the content you're advocating for inclusion is not verifiable to a reliable source. You have, at best, a couple of tweets, and a whole bunch of speculation. While we can include tweets as citations, it is only within the limited scope afforded by ]. What you're advocating for inclusion is extremely far outside that scope, and seems to be a significant amount of ], something that is forbidden by policy in articles.{{pb}}Now if you have a reliable source that supports the changes you want to be made, please link it here now so that we can see what it says and figure out what (if any) changes need to be made. Otherwise, I strongly urge you to ]. Multiple experienced editors have pointed out the issues with the changes you're seeking, and simply repeatedly repeating it will not convince anyone. ] (]) 00:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:Please explain what speculations do you see in my proposals, I do not see any reason to continue discussing abstract matters. Just provide a list of what is false in your opinion, or what is being speculated upon.
:Like I said earlier, there are alternative solutions, refer to my message from ''<u>20:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)</u>''.
:With due respect, your reaction seems to be emotional and related to your affiliation with certain subcultures. ] (]) 01:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::Your comment at 20:18, 10 March 2024 offers no alternative solutions that are compatible with Misplaced Pages's ]. Per multiple policies (], ], ]) we can only include content in a Misplaced Pages article if it is verifiable to one or more reliable sources, see ]. It is not our purpose nor our role to document the {{tq|will of people}} in any way other than it is covered in reliable sources.
::{{tq|Please explain what speculations do you see in my proposals}} You are ] based upon your interpretation of a screenshot taken out of content. You have ] the {{tq|absolute majority of people are going against all "reliable sources" in this case}} without providing any evidence to back up the claim. You have ] employees of Sweet Baby Inc have {{tq| to start harassment campaign towards the Steam curator}} without providing any evidence to back up the claim. None of these assertions can be included in the article until you provide one or more reliable sources that support them.
::{{tq|With due respect, your reaction seems to be...}} Please comment on ]. Do not ] about my or any other editors emotional state, or whatever affiliations you perceive them to have. ] (]) 01:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Somehow all editors prefer to omit existence of other policies (] aka ] and ]), and, although not a policy, but it should become a policy: ]. What's the point in all the policies if it results in articles detached from reality?
:::{{tq|You are asserting that the sources are wrong based upon your interpretation of a screenshot taken out of context}} - I never said sources are wrong, did I? I'm saying that sources lie by omission. It's not wrong, it's actually a clever move, but it makes the overall picture incomplete.
:::{{tq|You have asserted that the absolute majority of people are going against all "reliable sources" in this case without providing any evidence to back up the claim.}} - well, I did provide evidence, ] in the previous claim, although Harryhenry1 argued that {{tq|Getting "ratio'd" on Twitter/X is not a reason to discount an article's reliability}}. One might treat subscriber count of the Steam curator a decent proof too, considering absolutely 0 positive coverage in mass media.
:::{{tq|You have asserted that employees of Sweet Baby Inc have to start harassment campaign towards the Steam curator without providing any evidence to back up the claim}} - that's simply false, I provided evidence in ]: , , and not mentioned in the original comment for context - it's hard to find an archived original of the last one, but I'll find you one if you need it.
:::Sorry for the last paragraph from previous message. Still, I believe you didn't really read my comments considering 80% of stuff you mentioned as "speculations" had proofs linked within this page. ] (]) 02:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::UCS is not a policy, it's an essay about ]. IAR and 5P5 have some exceptions, ], ], and ] are among them. LIE has been an essay since it's creation 14 years ago.
::::{{tq|I'm saying that sources lie by omission}} So you're asserting that the sources are wrong, because they're intentionally leaving out context.
::::{{tq|well, I did provide evidence}} A twitter ratio is not a reliable source, nor is it any reason to discount the reliability of an article or its publication. Neither is the number of subscribers to a steam curator list.
::::{{tq|that's simply false, I provided evidence in the comment that started this very topic}} None of those tweets are reliable sources, and do not qualify for the ABOUTSELF exception.
::::None of what you're saying here can be included in the article without a ]. No matter where you ask this question, you will get the same answer. ] (]) 02:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yup, sorry, I forgot to address {{tq|Your comment at 20:18, 10 March 2024 offers no alternative solutions that are compatible with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines}}. According to ] and due to lack of reliable sources, it does: {{tq|a good alternative would be to remove this part completely otherwise.}} ] (]) 02:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::At three relatively well balanced paragraphs, compared to the five for the rest of the article, we don't really have a RECENTism issue here. While I would hesitate at adding any additional content to the harassment section outside of some sort of significant change in the coverage, I see no compelling reason to remove any content at this time. We are giving a fair and verifiable accounting of the backlash against this company, as those events have been told through reliable sources. That is all we're here to do.
::::::If there is some element of these events that you feel are not being adequately covered within reliable sources, I would suggest that you contact them or another reliable source that you feel may be receptive to the idea and either pitch an article for publishing or ask them to make a correction to their coverage. Until the events that you are asserting we should cover are themselves covered in a reliable source, we cannot include them in any article. ] (]) 02:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::Additionally, even if you go out of your way to find any individuals supporting Sweet Baby Inc. within gaming communities, it's very hard to find any supporters of the company except for journalists and game developers (interested parties) and non-gamers (they haven't done any research and in general can not be considered to be a part of this conflict/controversy - I am referring to a few non-gaming-related subforums in this case). As a precaution, yep, ] - but ] doesn't change anything in context of this discussion where you ask for sources. ] (]) 06:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::I'm not sure what you're getting at there. As I talked about before, we don't judge the reliability of a source based on how vocal the backlash to it is. What do you think the reliable sources are missing here? ] (]) 06:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::See ] and other messages on this talk page. TL;DR is: Reliable sources have failed to process primary sources by omitting a lot of valuable information and interviewing only one side of the controversy. ] (]) 07:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Misplaced Pages isn't here to correct the failings of the reliable sources, see ]. ] (]) 13:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::See ] ] (]) 16:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::The problem is that Misplaced Pages only "knows" what is in the sources. If Misplaced Pages were about what is "real" or "true," then we could never have a collaborative encyclopedia worked on by a multitude of volunteers. You would just have people yelling at one another about what they "know" to be "true." So instead, the guiding ethos of Misplaced Pages is that it summarizes, in proportion, the various views on a subject as they are found in the reliable sources. That way, it's not you or me saying "this is right and I can prove it," but rather "here, let me show you the coverage in the sources" and objective metrics like how many sources mention a given idea. And you know what? There is still lots of yelling. But less I think. You say that the sources are "lying by omission," and while I understand what you mean, that's missing the point a bit. Again, Misplaced Pages ''only'' knows what is in those sources. What we are doing here is a lagging indicator. Misplaced Pages is very poorly set up to cover things as they happen in the moment. That's why you have pages like ] and ]. Your complaints are valid in the grand scheme of things, but Misplaced Pages is the wrong tool to address them. It's a bit like saying "my lawnmower is broken because it doesn't chop down trees." Lawnmowers weren't intended to do so, just as the use you seem to want to put Misplaced Pages to is not intended. Then again, if consensus decides I am all wet on this, then I am! It's the beauty of this strange collective. Cheers, and here's to hoping everyone has a good week ahead. ] (]) 02:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for the input. Like we discussed earlier, I fully support removal of unbalanced portions of the article - if that's the only way to deal with the problems of this article due to ]. Have a nice one. ] (]) 02:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::Unless you can provide ] what you're describing is ]. We simply report on the controversy as it is reported on by reliable sources, and as multiple editors have said that is what we're currently doing in the article. ] (]) 02:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::If there's nothing to ], then there is no ] ] (]) 02:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


] (]) (]) 12:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:Hi, I'm just a user that walked into here after adding that "Controversy" sub-heading. (Currently titled it "Online backlash" for better accuracy.) I saw this IP user make a couple of uncontributive edits including . In the edit summary they mentioned "a certain 'rant' that the CEO had" and I have no idea what that is since I never heard of this company until yesterday. For the sake of clearance and removing skepticism could someone clarify? ] (]) 21:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
::I assume they're referring to , which has got some people based on a brief clip. <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 23:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Brief clip. Okay. Gotcha. Yoshiman6464 is right anyhow. ] (]) 04:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
::*Things like that are definitely not usable as a primary source for a wide variety of reasons; most obviously, given the context, inclusion would be clear ] / ] in the sense that it guides the reader towards a conclusion not stated in the source. The purpose of ] is not for editors to surface what they consider juicy scandals or quotes they find objectionable. And since these are quotes by real people, they would be ] issues on top of that. --] (]) 07:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:Aquillion in ] talk thread , mentions this talk page and "An editor is arguing that they can be included under WP:ABOUTSELF." And Moon Darker on ] thread has mentioned most participants here. ] (]) 18:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


:That... is simply not true at all.
== Advert ==
:https://steamcommunity.com/app/2081080/discussions/0/4511002848511342049/
:Developer Penta clearly says:
:"but we were already able to explain that '''SBI only worked briefly''', mainly to bring the 4-5 people strong Indie-Dev team in contact with fitting Voice Actors, together with the Devs (2+ years ago) and many first sceptical players were able to find out that there is no hidden agenda or somethig else we "force down your throats" or other concerns they had - besides a well-rounded, diverse cast, obviously."
:In his own words: '''SBI only worked briefly''', he doesn't deny that SBI did worked in the game, quite the contrary, he confirms that they worked in the game.
:I don't even understand while we are having this discussion when the credits of the game 100% confirms that Sweet Baby Inc worked in the game, with the credits listing the name of each of their consultants who did have some part in it.
:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOSs2-Ivk-U&t=5560s
:To say that SBI did not worked in the game at this point is simply denying the reality. And from the way they're addressing it and also my personal view on the matter, the developers don't want to have their game to be a talking point of Sweet Baby Inc's controversies, because Sweet Baby Inc tends to be quite polarizing (I believe we can fully agree on that), and that alone can hurt the game's sales.
:Still, it's irrefutable proof and more than enough evidence that they had involvement in the game. ] (]) 16:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::If there's any question or dispute or controversy about whether or not they worked on the game, then we should wait for reliable, independent, secondary sources to make that call. ] (]) 16:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::The quote does not show they worked directly on the game itself. In fact, the quote you posted says they worked with putting the dev team {{tq|in contact with fitting Voice Actors}}. That's not direct work on the game itself, it's a consulting firm helping the devs find appropriate voice actors for the characters. This is not {{tq|irrefutable proof}} that Sweet Baby Inc. worked directly on the game itself.
::At this point, I think Woodroar has the right take: we need to wait for reliable secondary sources to cover this topic before inclusion. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 16:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:::But what do you have to say about the game's credits directly listing Sweet Baby Inc and with the name of each of their consultants who worked in the game?
:::Are the game's credits not reliable? ] (]) 17:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Credits will often cite people who helped consult, but did not directly work on the game. Your ''interpreteation'' of the credits is what's being questioned, and why we should wait for reliable ''secondary'' sources to cover the topic. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::But, isn't consultation exactly one of the things Sweet Baby Inc does? I'm pretty sure they are credited for story, writing, character consultation in a number of different games. I failed to see what is different in this specific case. ] (]) 19:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yes, that's literally what they do. They don't work directly on the game, they consult. And per your quote, they {{tq|barely}} were involved. They just gave the devs some VAs they thought might be a good fit, and were thanked in the credits for that. It seems like you're trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 20:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::No, my point is not that SBI was deepily involved in the game's development.
:::::::My point is that, they were involved to a certain extent and that is true. The developer and the game's credits have confirmed it. 12 consultants from Sweet Baby Inc have their names listed there, with SBI's logo above it. ] (]) 20:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Credits routinely list consultants, human resources and other hiring personnel, talent assistants, craft services, team pets/mascots, even the community/government of local production teams. Modern credits are ridiculous, including anyone and everyone who sneezed within a 20 mile radius of production. ] (]) 20:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|involved to a certain extent}} is a reach. Credits will sometimes include the names of children born during production, that doesn't make them "involved" in the game development. Trying to use this to include the game in this article is too much of a stretch. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ec}} Eh. Credits aren't very useful in most cases. For example, ] as well as ] goes into the limitations of primary sources—and they suggest only using them alongside reliable, secondary sources. ] (]) 18:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::I don't have much experience in video game wiki pages, so I will leave this to people who have more experience on this topic. We have once source that does include them, one that doesn't and (what feels like) OR to justify if we should or should not include it.
:::::I'll keep this on my watchlist but I don't think I can be much of a help further. Good luck editors!
:::::] (]) (]) 09:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)


== Request to add "Burning The Games Industry To The Ground" Controversy under Online backlash chapter ==
{{yo|TE(æ)A,ea.}} What parts of the article do you feel are {{diff2|1212866670|written like an advertisement}}? <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 23:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*]: (1) Could you upload the Sweet Baby logo locally (and in reduced resolution)? I've nominated it for deletion on Commons, and happened to notice that you uploaded it there. (2) As I said, most discussion of "the company's operations" (as you put it), both in general in the lede and the history of the company in the "History" section, are not neutral statements but rather promotional. I'm looking over the "controversy" section now ("Online backlash" is a bad name, but I'm not sure what current policy is for section names), so I'll get to that later; if just taking the company's own description of itself is advertisement, it's still an advertisement to repeat that description when it has been uncritically reported in news articles. (3) Is there a policy about now citing articles which are incorrect? When checking the source for one of the quotes in the "Controversy" section, I found a number of errors, and was thinking about removing it (even though it's from an accepted source). ] (]) 23:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:For the "harassment and doxing attempts" comment, the second article attributes the "doxxing" comment directly, and general harassment allegations later in that paragraph, to Belair. The first article is what I meant in (3)—it seems a very poor example of journalism to use to substantiate such an inflammatory claim. Did the ''Kotaku'' writer talk to Sweet Baby employees and/or CEO Belair for that point? Or did she copy it from another article and take out the important context that changes the meaning of the "paraphrased" information, like she did for other DEI-related comments? That is why I thought that the ''Kotaku'' article should be avoided. ] (]) 23:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:*(1) No, I'll let ] run its course. (2)&nbsp;Can you be more specific about what you think is ]? Something like "The company is good at improving narratives" would be promotional—simply stating "The company consults on narratives" is not. (3)&nbsp;Yes, the ''Kotaku'' writer spoke to several Sweet Baby employees. <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 00:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC) {{User:Rhain/watching}}
:**Thank you for responding; although I would like more than a denial, that's for other participants. Just an example from the lede, "the company consults on video game narratives during development to promote safer working environments and diverse representation within game narratives and studios" is purely promotional; the company could copy that text and put it in a corporate advertisement for its services. The long-form article does attribute both the doxing attempts and claims of harassment (in the paragraph discussing doxing attempts) to the CEO; the ''Kotaku'' article contains no attribution (which seems to be common in ''Kotaku'' writing), which leads me to believe that the information also originated from Belair. The third paragraph of the "Controversy" section seems to devote several sentences to discussing what individual journalists think of specific claims, which seems to me to be inappropriate; I'll look over the articles a bit more, but I'm tempted otherwise to simply delete the whole paragraph and add the few descriptive sentences to the preceding paragraph. ] (]) 00:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:***"The company successfully achieves" or "the company is good at" would be promotional; "promote" is accurate. It's not up to us to speculate who said what to the ''Kotaku'' writer; all we should do is state the information and reference it appropriately (which we have). It goes without saying, but I would strongly recommend against deleting an entire (well-referenced) paragraph without discussing with other editors first. <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 00:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:****]: I don't think that it is appropriate to describe a controversy relating to a company by stating what individual journalists think; that's not information about the controversy, it's the personal opinions of various journalists about the controversy. That's why I suggested deleting (most of) that paragraph. ] (]) 01:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::That doesn't make sense. They're journalists publishing things as fact in reliable sources. If you want to present their conclusions and descriptions as contested opinions, you need to present other sources of similar weight disputing them - and even then it would just become something we present with attribution as a dispute, it wouldn't mean they get removed. But you can't simply declare something to be the "opinions of journalists" and remove it based on personal disagreement. --] (]) 04:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:*These seem to be mostly what the sources say, though. It's not promotional to summarize that. If you think it's summarized differently elsewhere or that we're getting the sources wrong, you can point to other sources and say how you feel we should summarize them; but you can't reasonably tag an article as promotional because you disagree with ''coverage'' of the subject. If mainstream coverage is largely positive, then it's largely positive, and our article has to reflect that. --] (]) 01:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:**]: The problem is that the summary is promotional, not neutral. I'm looking at the other sections now, though, so I won't be editing that line at the moment. ] (]) 01:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Sorry, I'm simply not seeing it, and I don't think you've identified anything actionable. If it reflects the sources then it's not promotional; and we're required to state things that the sources state as facts, as facts. You're drastically rewriting the article, but you haven't really provided any new sources, and for the most part your changes seem to diverge from or downplay what the sources say - if the sources say something, then we need to reflect it, even if you personally disagree and therefore feel that it is promotional or mere opinion. --] (]) 02:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
::::It is important to note that neutral doesn't mean ]. Misplaced Pages is supposed to adopt the position of the best sources. When that coverage is positive, so too will be the Misplaced Pages article. ] (]) 12:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm not seeing any issue with how this article is written. The controversy is presented as covered by RSes, which as Aquillion and MrOllie point out, is written without creating a false balance. The coverage of this controversy in RSes is clearly weighted in Sweet Baby's favor and credulous of the points being made by Kiwi Farms, and while we can make sure attribution is used (which is why the quoting and naming of game journalists writing about this is correct), we cannot try to bury the fact that this is lop-sided in coverage in the RSes. And there's clearly no overly promotional tone. --] (]) 01:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


Dear eligible editors,
== Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2024 ==


Can I request to add the recent controversy submerged from an SBI employee named Camerin Wild admitting that their goal is to “Burning The Games Industry To The Ground” under Online Backlash chapter? It gathered quite a lot of attention and deserve to be added, thanks! ] (]) 10:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected|Sweet Baby Inc.|answered=yes}}
Hello, I read through this article and noticed that it has several bits of false information, and it does not let you access the sources which lacks all integrity of the article. I would like access to review the sources for accuracy and to make honest sourced changes to the page. The changes i would like to make is in regards to the online harassment and backlash. Sweet Baby Inc was not harassed by the curator Kabrutus nor did he ever attack them, instead he made a curator list on steam that merely ties the company to several games they have worked on, and attached links to his valid sources. Sweet Baby Inc then started a harassment campaign against the curator for no reason other than making their existence public for consumers to make informed choices on their purchases. Personally I find the lack of integrity on the article be pretty damning, and while I don't feel that I am the best person to write the changes, it needs to be fixed regardless. ] (]) 15:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


:Proposed edits must be supported by ]. - ] (]) 15:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC) :I don't think That Park Place counts as a reliable source (it's already been questioned in a previous talk page discussion), but if you find reliable sources for this I'd say it's fine to add. ] (]) 11:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:Even if that was a reliable source, the context of "burning the industry to the ground" seems to be more of a hyperbolic statement, tied to only this one person, and not a mission or goal of Sweet Baby. Fully can see why for those that are anti-"woke" why this would cause a stir, but for more neutral reasons, this is a nothing-burger at this stage, unless there are actual events that affect Sweet Baby as a result. ] (]) 12:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:That Park Place is certainly not a reliable source. ] (]) 08:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:32, 26 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sweet Baby Inc. article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find video game sources: "Sweet Baby Inc." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 7 days 
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

? view · edit Frequently asked questions

To view an answer, click the link to the right of the question.

Q1: Can I use a particular article as a source? A1: What sources can be used in Misplaced Pages is governed by our reliable sources guideline, which requires "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If you have a question about whether or not a particular source meets this policy, a good place to ask is the Reliable sources noticeboard. Q2: I found a post on Twitter, a YouTube video, or a blog that relates to Sweet Baby Inc. Can I use it as a source in the article? A2: All sources used in the article must comply with Misplaced Pages's standards for reliable sources. Self-published sources cannot be used for content on living persons. If such sources were used, then gossip, slander, and libelous material may find its way into the article, which would tarnish the quality of Misplaced Pages's information and potentially open up Misplaced Pages to legal action. For further information, please read the guidelines for sources in biographies of living persons. Q3: Why is Misplaced Pages preventing me from editing the article or talk page? Why is this article biased towards one party or the other? A3: Content on Misplaced Pages is required to maintain a neutral point of view as much as possible, and is based on information from reliable sources. The article and its talk page are under protection due to constant edit warring and addition of unsourced or unreliably sourced information prohibited by our policy on biographical content concerning living people (see WP:BLP). Q4: The "reliable sources" don't tell the full story. Why can't we use other sources? A4: Verifiability in reliable sources governs what we write. Misplaced Pages documents what reliable sources say. If those sources are incorrect or inadequate, it is up to other reliable sources to correct this. Misplaced Pages's role is not to correct the mistakes of the world; it is to write an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable sources.In addition, this article falls under concerns relating to content on living persons. Sources that discuss unverified or unsupported claims about living persons cannot be included at all—including on the talk page. Editors should review the talk page archives here before suggesting a new source from non-mainstream sources to make sure that it hasn't been discussed previously.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Sweet Baby Inc.. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Sweet Baby Inc. at the Reference desk.
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Misplaced Pages policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Misplaced Pages are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconVideo games Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
WikiProject iconCompanies Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Companies To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconInternet culture Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Targeted the creator in RS available

"The curator group, known as "Sweet Baby Inc detected", received increased attention in February when a Sweet Baby employee asked others to report it for violating Steam's code of conduct."

Source of this is

"They asked their followers to report it and its creator due to it failing Steam’s code of conduct, which states shared spaces on the platform must be respectful."

The information, that the Sweet Baby Inc post, that created the controversy in the first place, was aimed at the steam user of the curator list and not only against his group is mentioned in a RS and is not mentioned in the article. This is not a neutral view of the controversy. --2003:DF:A72F:9F00:88CF:E2C6:8E61:FD9D (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

We need a reliable source that discusses that the operator of the group was targeted. We know they were from the primary sources, but we summarize what secondary and independent sources say, and none of them have really talked about this part, only the curator group itself. Masem (t) 02:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
But this is my point, a reliable source, used already in this article, mentioned it in the exact short and neutral way.
We only need to add these 3 words from the already cited reliable source in this article.
right now quote 26 in this article of Michael Beckwith: "Sweet Baby Inc Detected drana, explained" from. Dot Esports. Gamurs. mentiones the targeting of the creator of this group (and his list).
To make it simple, we already used this source for the first paragraph, but we don't mention the "and its creator" in the article. I just ask to add these 3 words from the actual reliable source. --2003:DF:A72F:9F00:C960:AFA0:B301:1337 (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
That may be putting undue weight on a source of questionable reliability - especially in wiki-voice. Simonm223 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
If the source is of questionable reliability @Masem @Simonm223, why is it already used in this article for months as Reliable source?This is the second time, that this sources, already used in this article for months, is called questionable to avoid to add 3 words.....It is rather misrepresenting a reliable sources by ignoring parts of their statements in this article.
This part of the controversy was asked to be added to the article by many different people already and was always denied by the claim of lack of reliable source. Now there is a reliable source already qualified by Misplaced Pages over months and even just the minor necessary change of only 3 words, wished by a lot of people is still blocked as somehow still questionable.
I try to have WP:GF here, but this is getting into territories of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and maybe even WP:OWNBEHAVIOR
NPOV means to represent all significant viewpoints, that have been published by reliable sources. This reliable source adds this information in the sentence, Misplaced Pages heavily used in this quoted sentence, but 3 words were not included. We can easily fix it by simply adding these 3 words to secure Verifiability of Misplaced Pages.
It seems to me to be rather undue to add on the other side singular random quotations of claims and opinions of whole articles from some sources into this article, while not stating everything in a factual sentence, stated in a reliable source in this article.
It is exactly undue in Articles to give these minority aspects of singular claims about this controversy a more detailed description as more widely known aspects of this controversy. --2003:DF:A72F:9F00:D802:8DF:9FF3:2D16 (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
The point NOT in that article which seems to be what others want pushed is that the SBI employee that called to attention to that group was blocked on Twitter because of connecting the Steam account to the Twitter account. That article from Dot Esports doesn't mention that. Simple saying that the group and its creator were called out isn't really a significant factor here. Masem (t) 01:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
And the point is, that you argue against your own claims in the now mentioned discussion:
And while I do think that if an RS actually discusses it that we should include it, it is a minor factor in the overall story: it is the fact that SBI employees called out the curator group that created a Streisand effect to grow the followers of the group. Masem (t) 03:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
please be consistent at least about your own opinion.
--2003:DF:A72F:9F00:D802:8DF:9FF3:2D16 (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
The source having been in the article for some time doesn't mean it's a good source, just that nobody removed it. And even if it's good enoug to corroborate uncontroversial details that doesn't mean we use it as a sole attribution to say something in wiki-voice. Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Bias in Misplaced Pages

WP:NOTFORUM

This line from above "We aren't actually here to "tell the truth". We're here to report what reliable sources say..."

So if your 'reliable sources' are left wing gutter trash sites and propaganda mills and most of the editors in this place are rabid leftists, then this place will always remain a biased leftist shithole. Congratulations you .....! This recent blow-up has brought many new visitors and yet they have all been shown how you operate this place with left leaning websites and news channels being made out to be 'reliable'. THIS IS NOT AN ENCYCLOPEDIA but just a conglomerate of parroted propaganda from american 'news' media and websites with their useful idiots. 203.194.41.160 (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk page protection

Isn't this too excessive, locking a talk page for a full year?! Was this a misclick or something @Daniel Quinlan? Have never seen anything similar --FMSky (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It might seem extreme, but it's there to slow down kneejerk discussion, since it's part of what's considered a contentious topic. Harryhenry1 (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
It only requires autoconfirmed, not exactly egregious for a page that's getting lots of drive-by comments from people who are just complaining. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
The talk page isn't "locked", it's semi-protected as an enforcement action under WP:CT/GG. Semi-protection still allows participation by registered users with accounts that are at least 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits.
Protecting talk pages is something that administrators try to avoid, even for contentious topics, but it's unfortunately necessary in extreme cases. This talk page has had serious issues with BLP violations, personal attacks, usage as a forum, and other disruptive edits to the point where revision deletion has been required multiple times. And those issues were predominantly from non-autoconfirmed editors. The duration was determined based on the persistence of the disruptive edits and influenced by the number of involved accounts, the frequency of disruption, and the severity of the issues encountered. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Support for my removal of capes

@GuKeltke I did not have enough space in the edit summary to properly explain my point, so I will elaborate here.

The devs of capes have only made that one game. Presumably for that reason they have the credits for capes on their website: It does not mention Sweet Baby Inc.

The steam discussions do mention they facilitated some contact between voice actors and the company, but the question is does this count as "working on the game". Seeing the lack of representation in the credits, the devs do not see it that way. If you can show that there is a difference between website credits and in game credits (screenshots perhaps?) I think you could make a somewhat stronger case, or at least have a footnote to describe the situation more carefully. However we must realize that youtube videos of people with a clear bias and no editorial oversight cannot be cited as evidence.

My personal view on the situation now is that it can best be described as Sweet Baby Inc. working with the company but not on the game, however that is simply a quick assessment of the situation and not a thorough analysis.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 12:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

That... is simply not true at all.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/2081080/discussions/0/4511002848511342049/
Developer Penta clearly says:
"but we were already able to explain that SBI only worked briefly, mainly to bring the 4-5 people strong Indie-Dev team in contact with fitting Voice Actors, together with the Devs (2+ years ago) and many first sceptical players were able to find out that there is no hidden agenda or somethig else we "force down your throats" or other concerns they had - besides a well-rounded, diverse cast, obviously."
In his own words: SBI only worked briefly, he doesn't deny that SBI did worked in the game, quite the contrary, he confirms that they worked in the game.
I don't even understand while we are having this discussion when the credits of the game 100% confirms that Sweet Baby Inc worked in the game, with the credits listing the name of each of their consultants who did have some part in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOSs2-Ivk-U&t=5560s
To say that SBI did not worked in the game at this point is simply denying the reality. And from the way they're addressing it and also my personal view on the matter, the developers don't want to have their game to be a talking point of Sweet Baby Inc's controversies, because Sweet Baby Inc tends to be quite polarizing (I believe we can fully agree on that), and that alone can hurt the game's sales.
Still, it's irrefutable proof and more than enough evidence that they had involvement in the game. GuKeltke (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
If there's any question or dispute or controversy about whether or not they worked on the game, then we should wait for reliable, independent, secondary sources to make that call. Woodroar (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
The quote does not show they worked directly on the game itself. In fact, the quote you posted says they worked with putting the dev team in contact with fitting Voice Actors. That's not direct work on the game itself, it's a consulting firm helping the devs find appropriate voice actors for the characters. This is not irrefutable proof that Sweet Baby Inc. worked directly on the game itself.
At this point, I think Woodroar has the right take: we need to wait for reliable secondary sources to cover this topic before inclusion. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
But what do you have to say about the game's credits directly listing Sweet Baby Inc and with the name of each of their consultants who worked in the game?
Are the game's credits not reliable? GuKeltke (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Credits will often cite people who helped consult, but did not directly work on the game. Your interpreteation of the credits is what's being questioned, and why we should wait for reliable secondary sources to cover the topic. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
But, isn't consultation exactly one of the things Sweet Baby Inc does? I'm pretty sure they are credited for story, writing, character consultation in a number of different games. I failed to see what is different in this specific case. GuKeltke (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that's literally what they do. They don't work directly on the game, they consult. And per your quote, they barely were involved. They just gave the devs some VAs they thought might be a good fit, and were thanked in the credits for that. It seems like you're trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. — The Hand That Feeds You: 20:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
No, my point is not that SBI was deepily involved in the game's development.
My point is that, they were involved to a certain extent and that is true. The developer and the game's credits have confirmed it. 12 consultants from Sweet Baby Inc have their names listed there, with SBI's logo above it. GuKeltke (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Credits routinely list consultants, human resources and other hiring personnel, talent assistants, craft services, team pets/mascots, even the community/government of local production teams. Modern credits are ridiculous, including anyone and everyone who sneezed within a 20 mile radius of production. Woodroar (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
involved to a certain extent is a reach. Credits will sometimes include the names of children born during production, that doesn't make them "involved" in the game development. Trying to use this to include the game in this article is too much of a stretch. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Eh. Credits aren't very useful in most cases. For example, our guidance on games as sources about themselves as well as other official sources goes into the limitations of primary sources—and they suggest only using them alongside reliable, secondary sources. Woodroar (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't have much experience in video game wiki pages, so I will leave this to people who have more experience on this topic. We have once source that does include them, one that doesn't and (what feels like) OR to justify if we should or should not include it.
I'll keep this on my watchlist but I don't think I can be much of a help further. Good luck editors!
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 09:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Request to add "Burning The Games Industry To The Ground" Controversy under Online backlash chapter

Dear eligible editors,

Can I request to add the recent controversy submerged from an SBI employee named Camerin Wild admitting that their goal is to “Burning The Games Industry To The Ground” under Online Backlash chapter? It gathered quite a lot of attention and deserve to be added, thanks! RAZOR91 (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think That Park Place counts as a reliable source (it's already been questioned in a previous talk page discussion), but if you find reliable sources for this I'd say it's fine to add. Harryhenry1 (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Even if that was a reliable source, the context of "burning the industry to the ground" seems to be more of a hyperbolic statement, tied to only this one person, and not a mission or goal of Sweet Baby. Fully can see why for those that are anti-"woke" why this would cause a stir, but for more neutral reasons, this is a nothing-burger at this stage, unless there are actual events that affect Sweet Baby as a result. Masem (t) 12:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
That Park Place is certainly not a reliable source. Symphony Regalia (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Categories: