Loading

  • 21 Aug, 2019

  • By, Wikipedia

Talk:Sweet Baby Inc.
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 Wikipedia, 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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That may be putting undue weight on a source of questionable reliability - especially in wiki-voice. Simonm223 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Bias in Wikipedia

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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: [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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![2] RAZOR91 (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That Park Place is certainly not a reliable source. Symphony Regalia (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&oldid=1253547104"