Misplaced Pages

Talk:15.ai: 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 22:02, 25 November 2024 editPolygnotus (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers20,144 edits →Disproportionate scrutiny?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:05, 8 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,629 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:15.ai/Archive 1) (bot 
(120 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Peer review|archive=1}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header | search= yes}}
{{Old AfD multi |date=16 January 2023 |result='''keep''' |page=15.ai}}
{{Old AfD multi |date=16 January 2023 |result='''Keep''' |page=15.ai |date2=2 December 2024 |result2='''Delete''' |page2=15.ai (2nd nomination) |date3=20 December 2024 |result3='''No consensus''' |page3=15.ai (3rd nomination)}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{DYK talk|9 July|2022|entry=... that the developer of ''']''' claims that as little as 15 seconds of a person's voice is sufficient to clone it up to human standards using ]?|nompage=Template:Did you know nominations/15.ai}} {{DYK talk|9 July|2022|entry=... that the developer of ''']''' claims that as little as 15 seconds of a person's voice is sufficient to clone it up to human standards using ]?|nompage=Template:Did you know nominations/15.ai}}

{{Article history {{Article history
|topic = engtech |topic = engtech
Line 19: Line 20:
|currentstatus = DGA |currentstatus = DGA
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=c| {{WikiProject banner shell |1=
{{WikiProject Articles for creation |ts=20241219150636 |reviewer=Pokelego999 |oldid=1263931400}}
{{WikiProject Robotics |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Linguistics |importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Internet|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Computing |importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Internet culture|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Computer science |importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Websites |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Internet culture |importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Technology}}
{{WikiProject My Little Pony |importance=Low}} {{WikiProject My Little Pony |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Artificial Intelligence|importance=low}}
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config

| algo = old(30d)
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion ==
| archive = Talk:15.ai/Archive %(counter)d
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
| counter = 1
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: speedy | 2022-02-17T19:37:13.473414 | 15ai logo.png -->
| maxarchivesize = 250K
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —] (]) 19:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
| archiveheader = {{Archive}}

| minthreadstoarchive = 1
== COI ==
| minthreadsleft = 5
Appreciate the reminder, {{U|PortalFan22}}. The reason is actually quite straightforward: there is a clear ] going on here with yourself, {{U|GregariousMadness}} and {{U|HackerKnownAs}} (and perhaps also socking?). ]<sup>]</sup> 18:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks {{U|Styyx}}. I only have the expertise to add information about this one particular article because it's a project that I've followed for a very long time (and I'm fairly new to Misplaced Pages). I'll make an effort to branch out. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span>
:The fact that there are multiple accounts that have ''only'' edited this article for a long period of time is a sign of a conflict of interest, and simply editing a few more articles doesn't change the COI status here. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
:I'm don't know how I can help here, but reading through ] says "In order to be tagged, the article should have a specific, articulatable, fixable problem. Do not apply this tag simply because you suspect COI editing, or because there is or was a COI editor." (Also, one of those accounts you linked is from two years ago, and the other one is from over a year ago...) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Welp, I'm going to take a break from editing for a while. Making edits to try to help and figure out the best practices to write a Misplaced Pages article only to be slapped with a conflict of interest kinda killed the fun out of it. Sorry. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Edit notice ==

Can we get a consensus to put an ] here on this talk page to hopefully help quell the ] and vandalism problem happening here quite a bit? There was a similar edit notice implemented at ] (which also gets a lot of NOTFORUM comments) recently and it can be seen at ]. ] &#124; ] 00:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

:I agree ] (]) 00:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion ==
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: speedy | 2022-03-16T19:22:26.460006 | 15.ai logo.png -->
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —] (]) 19:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2022-04-10T18:21:58.353107 | 15 ai Transparent.png -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 18:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

== More info needed on Troy Baker scandal ==

I wrote some more technical background for the article, but I'm not in the loop with the Troy Baker NFT company scandal that happened in January/February. Can anyone with more information on this topic chime in? ] (]) 18:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

:I can add some paragraphs explaining the events that occurred in greater detail. A number of Voiceverse and co.'s tweets have since been deleted, but fortunately some of the references still have screenshots of the deleted posts. &mdash;] (]) 03:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

== Potential good article nomination ==

In preparation for a ], I am making edits to the article to ensure that it follows the ]. Please post any urgent changes that should be made.
&mdash;] (]) 20:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

== Source on the use of 15.ai in pornography ==

I'm finding it very difficult to find a reliable source for the following paragraph under the "Fandom content creation" section:

''Moreover, the project has been utilized as a creative tool in ]. For instance, the ''Pony Zone'' videos is a series of ] ] that heavily samples 15.ai as the vocals&mdash;the creators of such videos make frequent use of salacious emotional contextualizers and punctuation/ARPABET tricks to induce the models to ] convincingly.''

While one can find numerous examples of 15.ai being used in the context of ] with a simple Google search, not a single reliable reference mentions its use case in pornography. In the meantime, I've removed the above excerpt from the main article. Please feel free to re-add the above when a proper source has been identified.
&mdash;] (]) 20:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

{{Talk:15.ai/GA1}}

==Did you know nomination==
{{Template:Did you know nominations/15.ai}}

== Page issues and additional controversies? ==

I find it far too meme-centered, with unnecessary images that don't add much to the article at all.
But also, I recall the person who made 15ai being notorious for let's say less-than cordial behavior towards people including their fans (which became even less cordial when said fans became critics because of his treatment), showcased even in some tweets featured/refrenced in the article. He's far from an level-headed person. Although I'm not certain if there's enough to add a seperate section in the reception paragraph. But since tweets seem to be considered proper sources these days I or someone else could look to use those I guess. ] (]) 21:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

:I did not regard these as issues with the article during my GA review. The tweets you mention are of an exchange between the developer (whose pronouns are unknown) and the company that plagiarized their work, which were also substantiated in the other referenced articles noted with in-line citations - there was not an instance where the tweet was referenced with the ONLY citation being the tweet. It also seems that the exchange was very well received by the fans, so I don’t know where you were getting this idea.
:Without proper evidence of your claims, it sounds like you are ] against the developer. Tweets are indeed not proper sources, but articles that have been published in a legitimate outlet containing those Tweets are.
:As for the images, I do not believe they are excessive or primarily decorative, which follows the ]. As of writing this reply, there are only four supplemental images, each of which is relevant to how the subject is used. To say that the article is “meme-centered” is also misleading, as only one subsection of the article focuses on the meme-creation potential of the subject, and most of the article talks about the technical details and background surrounding the subject. ] (]) 22:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

::With regard to the images three are likely copyrighted and will need to be given a free use rationale. The 15.ai logo has been ]. I have nominated ] for deletion at Commons as ] at enwiki is copyrighted and has a fair use rationale. ] has a multitude of copyrighted characters and lacks the plausible deniability argument that the logo has and will probably not stand against a deletion nomination. If I were to make a ]ed edit, I would add ] to the '']'' article to illustrate the look of a typical episode using a purportedly CC-BY-SA image and see how fast the image gets deleted.
::Hasbro does not pull punches when it comes to their copyrighted characters as evidenced by ''Fighting is Magic'' having to be reworked into '']''. Even with Lauren Faust herself as character designer, the character designs are notably distinct from the original Mane 6 that were initially planned to be implemented there. ] (]) 00:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

== Voiceverse Twitter image ==

Instead of a solid blue circle, what if the quoted Tweet section had the Voiceverse icon, so that both quoted Twitter accounts show their image? https://twitter.com/VoiceverseNFT/photo https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1528722372684943360/Gc14JM09_400x400.png ] (]) 10:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

:I assume that Voiceverse owns the copyright of their Twitter icon, but I don't see why it shouldn't be included if Misplaced Pages allows it to be uploaded. &mdash;] (]) 05:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion ==
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: speedy | 2022-09-11T19:22:01.560012 | Screenshot from SPY IS A FURRY.png -->
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —] (]) 19:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

== Copyrighted material in deep learning section ==

This section cites the case of Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. for the proposition (I think) that companies are able to train their AI's with copyrighted material under ]. An anonymous editor over at WP:RFPP wanted the talk page unprotected so that they could point out that the decision "is entirely misrepresented in the article" . I'm posting this since this page is protected, and frankly because I think the ip has a point. The columnist to whom that section is sourced does not appear to be a lawyer. Perhaps the comment should be credited to him as an opinion rather than listed as the holding of the case? ] ] ] 06:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

== False information ==

Why does someone keep lying that 15.ai was closed down for good due to creative differences? ] (]) 22:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

:I am not sure who the " someone" you're referring to is, but it's been dead for 15+ months. Read the room. The developer never gave actual, direct answers on the underlying technology beyond cool-sounding unverifiable technobabble. What off the shelf tools built the foundation? Tensorflow? Pytorch? We never got that type of answer. Personally, I genuinely believe you were all lied to by very good scam artist. ] (]) 18:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
:because its been out for about 2-3 years at this point and no updates are coming from the creator. ] (]) 00:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

== Change to Past Tense ==

It's been down for over a year and eight months, there is absolutely nothing on the website, and the last communication from the developer was a year and three months ago. At a certain point, references to the website in the article need to be changed to the past tense, the time it has been down is almost as long as the time the site was up.

At a minimum, a section should be added that mentions the removal of the website and its extremely long downtime. ] (]) 06:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

:Have done the latter. However, edit history shows that mention of the downtime was present as recent as this week, but was removed by User:HackerKnownAs. I'm concerned over potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article but will dedicate a separate post here to this. ] (]) 15:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

== Change "under maintenance" to "dead". ==

Reading the room and calling it as I see it. Site's in limbo and it will always be in limbo, so it's good as dead. ] (]) 21:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

:probably ⇒ <span style="background-color: #d62828; border: none; padding: 5px; border-radius: 8px;"><span style="font-family:Atkinson Hyperlegible, Arial;font-size:100%;color:white;background-color:transparent;;">]</span></span>, they/them, 17:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok ] (]) 18:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

:has anyone been able to trace the creator and ask if it will EVER be put back up so we can update this article? ] (]) 11:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::the closest thing I could find are unverified rumours. People claim that the creator competely abandoned the site and is using the money gained from the Patreon to host a TF2 server. The closest thing to concrete that could reasonably be placed is that the creator promiced not to go on Twitter until the site was finished, but the creator changed the profile's picture.
::honestly, I think it would be fine if they considered the site dead; it's been more than a year since any contact occured (other than the unverified rumours mentioned before and the profile change). the site is simply a blank page as well, when there would usually be a message when the site was being maintained before. ] (]) 01:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Found evidence of the site being used to host a TF2 server and , with both showing that 15.ai is in fact being used to host a TF2 server. While there is no clear proof that Patreon money is being used to host the server, I believe the fact that the site is currently being used to host a TF2 server while having been inactive for over two years should be enough to deem the site abandoned. I recommend paying attention to this article, however. I've previously mentions my concerns over possible conflicts of interest with User:HackerKnownAs. This account was created shortly after a wave of articles from various gaming news outlets discussing the website, their contribution history is comprised almost exclusively of edits to this article and other AI-related articles and many of these edits have been done either to or to /. With this in mind, I believe that this account is being operated either by the owner of the website or someone with close ties to the website. I'll check both this article's edit history and HackerKnownAs' user contributions periodically over the next few days and see if anything pops up after posting this. ] (]) 17:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Ironic because 15 has made websites this year, all MLP themed, and they have been traced to openly operated in 4chan's /mlp/ section in the past, while hosting the TF2 server.
::::It's uncertain if the TF2 server is still operational, but it would help if someone is able to enter it and check on it to confirm? ] (]) 22:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I have the article on watch as well. Whoever runs the account seems to edit in a monthly span though. The TF2 server mentions permanent bans of a user within this month (which is September of 2024 as I write this).
::::I have not TF2 installed, and the server rules seem so strict that I could not join even if I wanted to without also being permanently banned. either way, the creator has clearly made other projects and uses the 15ai domain for another purpose.
::::whatever happens, I categorized the site as abandoned. as Misplaced Pages is not a place for original research, it would not be correct to display the server hosting findings in the Misplaced Pages article without an independent party which also confirms it. I say that everything has been solved in terms of the topic. Please object if you believe something else. ] (]) 00:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

aa de unatkozom… inkább megyek a gc-be ] (]) 23:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

:Mi? Ez egy Wikipédia beszélgetési oldal. ⇒ <span style="background-color: #d62828; border: none; padding: 5px; border-radius: 8px;"><span style="font-family:Atkinson Hyperlegible, Arial;color:white;">]</span></span>, they/them, 03:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

== Editing with respect to the last two topics of Past Tense ==

After an inital attempt to place the ideas of the last two topics into the page, a series of reverts and anti-reverts have taken place over the span of the last few days. It is altogether fitting that there be a reevaluation regarding whether the change of the article to Past Tense was merited.

For those supporting the addition of past tense, they point to the fact that 15 mentioned not changing the account's profile picture until the site was updated. 15's profile picture has been updated without an ajoint update to the site. The domain currently hosts as well.

For those against the addition of past tense, they point out that no explicit mention of abandoning the project was made by 15, and that 15 mentioned that 15 was still working on the project.

I would also like to mention that another valid criticism from a neutral standpoint has been stated: how would the abandonmnet, if kept on the page, be cited? Would simply linking to the tweet of 15 stating about not using Twitter until updating 15ai and linking some proof of the profile picture be enough, or should a different citation be used?

This is one of my first major attempts at contibution to an article, so please state anything else that would be worth mentioning in this topic. ] (]) 21:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

:@]:
:1. the site is completely blank.
:2. 15 has not said anything for 19 months.
:3. a tf2 server is hosted on 15's servers.
:the site is abandoned. ] (]) 02:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::Once again 15 said "I've been alerted that there appears to be a coordinated attack against my project by another service, with affiliated groups spreading rumors that I had abandoned http://15.ai, or that I had placed it behind a paywall, or that I had killed myself, etc. I assure you that I am still the same stubborn person I was three years ago when I first launched my project – please don't believe these malicious lies. I'm doing the best I can, and I'll always continue to do so." I suggest you cease and desist vandalizing the page and be patient. ] (]) 07:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
:::yes, he said that. 19 months ago. ] (]) 08:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::::There is some information I would like to add to further a consensus:
::::Although the TF2 server shares the same domain as the base site, it appears that the servers are completelty different, with 15ai resting at 104.21.36.149 and tf215ai resting at 74.91.123.131.
::::There is an alledged site made by 15 located at https://pony.best/, located at 172.67.187.214. The projects part of the page links to the Misplaced Pages page instead of the website oddly enough. ] (]) 16:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
:Here's the proof of an updated Twitter profile https://x.com/fifteenai/photo ] (]) 08:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::We aren't shown when their profile picture was updated, or that it was ever even updated. This proves nothing. Checking the site linked by ] shows that 15 has been credited with web development for several MLP fan conventions as well as some kind of pony-themed Second Life(?) server. Their work on these projects should be taken as confirmation that 15 has no intention of returning to work on 15.ai. Let it go. It's over. ] (]) 17:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Although archiveorg has blacklisted 15's Twitter account, his Twitter account's replies and bits of the Misplaced Pages page removed by a user before mention 15's profile page.
:::I agree with you on the point that 15's involvement with other projects should be taken as a sign of abandoning this project though, especially considering the time since any last contact related to the site occurred. ] (]) 19:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
:@]: why are you so insistent on marking it as under maintenance? ] (]) 10:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

== The project is not abandoned. ==

Here's the proof: https://x.com/robonkerz/status/1841229951573647696 ] (]) 10:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

:To @],
:I believe you have sent a different URL to what you intended to place, as this URL links to a completely unrelated profile change.
:To be quite blunt, you're the main person who has been against considering the site abandoned. What is the main reason that has you believing that the site would not be considered abandoned at this point? There have been multiple proofs that 15 has been uninterested in maintaining this project.
:The 3RR threshold was broken a while back. This is significant, as it means that this is now an edit war, and Administrators could place editing restrictions on everyone involved.
:I was under the impression that a decision was already made in the talk pages, but I was mistaken. I request again quite bluntly: please make a decision, whether it be by vote, reasoning, or other method. ] (]) 12:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::Whoops! Wrong post! Here it is! https://x.com/kokytkdl/status/1840395973647888432 ] (]) 16:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry, but I can <u>only</u> take this as proof that 15 has no intention of returning to work on the site. The URL you've linked shows an image of the website linked by ], and the person who uploaded the image is clearly using it to prove that 15 still uses the internet while not updating the site. At this point, I can only assume that you and ] have some kind of vested interest in protecting the site's image, and that such interest will interfere with the neutrality of this article. ] (]) 19:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I verily feel like this issue has taken up more time than it should. I will place my personal opinion on this issue because of this.
::::There have been multiple evidences used to prove that 15 has abandoned this project, including counterevidence to the one piece of evidence that refutes the claim that 15 has abandoned this project (that being proof of 15 moving onto other projects and all lack of update within the last 1.5 years).
::::Due to this, I believe that it would be appropriate to deem the placing of this article in the past tense and the declaration of 15ai as abandoned to be the correct decision. Even though many editors have this sentiment, I feel that placing this consensus shared by the editors will be enough provide the possible conclusion to this edit war. ] (]) 22:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::@] If this truly be the case (which you can check by looking at RocketKnightX's contribution history and the bottom of Libdl's talk page), and if it truly interferes with the neutrality of the site, what would you suggest be done about it? Any further reverts risk 3RR sanctions and a third party has already issued a warning and has taken notice.
::::In the rare case of tone confusion, this reply is intended to be interpreted as a genuine and curious response. ] (]) 00:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I feel that the best course of action in preventing future interference would be to block both RocketKnightX and HackerKnownAs from making edits to this article. Many of the former's edits seem to be made from misguided beliefs in the site's return, while edits made by the latter seem to be made purely for promotional reasons. ] (]) 00:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
:::@]: this is a screenshot of https://pony.best, what does that prove? ] (]) 01:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::::You will never understand. ] (]) 08:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::???????????? ] (]) 08:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::@]: can you explain? ] (]) 12:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::People thinks 15.ai is dead, but it's not. Something tells me 15 will make the project not just perfect, but something new and interesting. You know what I mean. ] (]) 19:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@]: i really don't. ] (]) 00:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@]: do you have evidence to back up your assertions? ] (]) 10:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Just be patient, alright? We don't know yet. ] (]) 12:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::that's a no? ] (]) 13:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I said we don't know yet. ] (]) 15:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:No offense, but what you've linked is a picture demonstrating that the creator has worked on a bunch of projects '''''except''''' this one. Like, per this picture dude has it listed as "stuff I worked on"...Which is past tense? Even the person who tweeted that picture does not have a rosy appraisal of 15.ai's survival . The point of the tweet showcasing that image was to demonstrate that the creator of the project hasn't said anything about this particular project in forever '''''despite the fact that they have been actively working on other projects'''''. That is the very definition of '''''abandoned'''''. <b>]</b> 12:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
{{outdent|::::::::::}}
wanna hash this out on ]? ] (]) 15:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

:If it helps, I know nothing about this web app and have no involvement (that I can remember) in editing the article.
:Looking at this from a no involvement standpoint, would it help to list the sources that state the app has ended or appears to have ended and list those that say it's still in operation? ] (]) 15:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::well, on the "in operation" side, no sources. on the "has ended" side, no sources. ] (]) 15:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Lol ok, thanks ltbdl. For my two wikibucks worth, asking for a third opinion or dispute resolution might be the way to go. Wherever you report this to, I suggest that you both acknowledge you have edit warred over this but have stopped that in the hopes you can both find a resolution. Someone will pick up on the 3rr violations straight away. ] (]) 15:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::::@] @] Look, I don't really know what you guys are talking about, but I assure you that the project isn't abandoned and that is final. We have to be patient. ] (]) 08:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::RocketKnightX, repeatedly saying the same thing over and over isn't helpful. I do think you both need a third opinion on this as it appears neither of you are satisfied with the others reasoning. It might also help with looking for resources or coming to a compromise. ] (]) 09:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

== CMU Pronouncing Dictionary ==

I know it's probably not the best time to ask this, but does this page ''really'' need a table of the CMU Pronouncing Dictionary's phonemes? The page for the dictionary has the exact same table and is linked multiple times in this article. ] (]) 00:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

:It really doesn't, no. <b>]</b> 01:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
== Concerns about this article. ==
{{Archive top
|status = resolved
|result = I'm closing this discussion because it is no longer needed. <b>]</b> 00:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
}} }}


== 15.ai finally responds ==
I have significant concerns about the fact that the 4chan archive linked to reference 15.ai's involvement with the Pony Preservation Project contains several mentions about editing the 15.ai article as seen here. You can even pinpoint exact edits which are being made by the timestamps, such as and {{special:diff/1073079627}}.

For comparisons sake, the article was released from draft status {{special:diff/1072335677}} on the 17th, which is mentioned on the 4chan archive . However, during the drafting process a comment was left that read {{tq|A large portion of the sources used are not reliable, notably The Batch, which appears to be the personal blog of Andrew Ng}}. Despite that, the vanished user re-inserts Andrew Ng's The Batch as a source in a erroneously flagged minor edit {{special:diff/1074150423}}.

I find it equally strange that a conversation about potential COI editing by what appeared to be ] accounts was completely scrubbed {{special:diff/1090462519}} by an IP Editor with the notation of "cleanup", after the above user vanished, after the same IP Editor had changed the "Start Classes" to "B Class" in an edit that carried no summary.

I'm really scratching my head trying to figure out how this isn't COI-impacted to have the Pony Preservation Project folks editing an article about 15.ai that says the Pony Preservation Project was inspired by 15.ai to include mentions of the Pony Preservation Project, or, you know, coordinating what seems to be a weird attempt to fabricate sources as seen here {{tq|Hey GeekBrony and BGM, could you write up somewhere (on a personal blog or something, like Twitter) how you got the 15.ai models to moan and grunt in the Pony Zone videos? I need a citation for the claim on Wiki and you guys are the only ones who can substiantiate this.}}

Especially when, y'know, the PPP Folks say {{tq|>Do you have a Code of Conduct?
Of course: 15.ai/code}} their Code of Conduct is the 15.ai Code of Conduct??? <b>]</b> 14:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
===SPA Activity===
I have discovered further problems with the way things have transpired around this article. I surveyed the discussions that took place at ] in the past and have come to find that multiple keep votes which were wholly unscrutinized appeared to be from ] {{special:diff/1135933989}}, {{special:diff/1135224026}}, {{special:diff/1134483927}}, {{special:diff/1134457478}} whose activity began, and seemingly ended, with their voting Keep or who otherwise attempted to have other AI Articles deleted and then ended their activity with a Keep on 15.ai

More than that, though, a number of editors cited the GA Status of the article as reason for why it should be kept. However, the editor who assigned GA Status to the article approved another article that contained problems for GA Status. <del>{{special:diff/1093148912}} {{special:diff/1138373104}} The GA Reviewer in question seemed to stop activity in August of 2022, and returned only when directed to the AfD{{special:diff/1134453033}} where they voted keep {{special:diff/1135132021}} and then disappeared again. ]. The instructions for reviewing a GA, as I read them, state {{tq| any uninvolved and registered user '''''with sufficient knowledge and experience with Misplaced Pages''''' may review the nominated article against the good article criteria}}. By my count, within the first 25 edits of SirGallantThe4th was this GA review in June 2022, from a user created in April 2022. The article was nominated {{Special:diff/1092361428}} on June 9 2022, by 10 June 2022 ] had taken up the cause of reviewing this article and the now-deleted article that was full of copyright vios, and approved them both as Good Articles on 11 June 2022. The fact that the article was 'good status' was also used to support the DYK nomination {{special:Diff/1093418257}}.</del>
Given the blatant off-site activity and ] ] that seems to have taken place surrounding the articles deletion nomination, <del>I am highly suspicious of the fact that a user with hardly any experience swept in, approved two articles for Good Article Status and then swept out. Moreover, the fact that one of their approved articles is now due to copyright violations raises grave, grave concerns about the competency of the reviewing editor.</del> <b>]</b> 23:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

===Notability Concerns===
I am of a mind to nominate this article for deletion again, because I'm not sure this meets ], and I am quite certain that the previous process was manipulated by ] accounts. Of the arguments that were made in the last deletion, it was stated that because Kotaku, PC Gamer, Game Informer, etc. had covered 15.ai, that it had significant coverage to establish notability. However, a timeline of articles, if you will.
:* Kotaku, Published January 17, 2021
:* GameInformer, Jan 18, 2021 at 11:54 AM, Directly References the Kotaku article.
:*PC Gamer, January 19, 2021, Directly references the Kotaku article
:*Rock, Paper, Shotgun, Jan. 18, 2021, Directly references the Kotaku article.
:*Automatron, Jan. 19, 2021. Doesn't reference Kotaku.
:*Den-fami Nico Gamer, Jan 18. 2021. References the Kotaku.
:All of the other sources utilized throughout this page only refer to 15.ai in trivial mentions or don't mention 15.ai at all and instead discuss the underlying technology behind it. I have located exactly 0 coverage from reliable sources following Jan 17-20, 2021 range where a majority of sources simply regurgitated what Kotaku had put out. Per ] regarding Kotaku, {{tq|News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable, although editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance}}.
:Beyond that, the article had ]. This seems to very clearly fail ]. <b>]</b> 05:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

:The zero coverage from reliable sources aligns quite well with the bit of difficulty finding a proper source in the unrelated dispute. I would like to see what happens if this article is nominated for deletion. I worry if the translations of the article into other languages would hinder this though. ] (]) 12:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::Whether the article has been translated into other languages on other Wikis isn't really overly relevant on ENWiki. From what I can tell, there has been significant outside manipulation on this article, editing by individuals associated with the "Pony Preservation Project", a GA Appraisement that came from an individual who existed on Misplaced Pages only briefly and who had rated another article as GA only for that article to be deleted for gross copyright violations. The previous COI warning that was on the article was unilaterally deleted, the user who was accused of COI vanished when it was explained why they were being accused of COI, and an anonymous IP arrived, changed all the statuses to B Class, and then expunged all mention of the COI before the GA Nomination. Then, when the article was nominated for deletion, Users with very limited edit history arrived to vote 'Keep' on the article, adding at least 4 votes to the pile. The article's status as "Good", a status it frankly should have never been afforded, was used as justification for Keep votes in the last round of discussion.
::On 29 May 2022, the COI Discussion was expunged {{special:diff/1090462519}} and the article elevated to B Status {{special:diff/1090462519}} by an IP Editor who in one case left no edit summary and who classified the next summary as 'cleanup'. Misplaced Pages policy generally prohibits editing other people's talk activity, so deleting an entire discussion thread (instead of any sort of archival) is a giant red flag. The IP that did the above activity was blocked for 2 years for abuse. Outside of what appears to be a spree of BLP Vandalism the only thing the IP Editor did was suspiciously erase a discussion about COI editing??? ]. On 9 June 2022, the article was nominated for GA. What is also strange to me is that an editor that seems concerned with vandalism on this talk page, didn't bat an eye {{special:diff/1090463388}} at the fact that an entire discussion topic had been expunged by an IP Editor. <b>]</b> 00:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}


https://x.com/fifteenai/status/1865439846744871044 ] (]) 10:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
==GA Reassessment==
{{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/15.ai/1}}


== Contested deletion ==


] and ], I rewrote this article from scratch last night. You can see the edit history to prove it. I even asked the closing admin to ''not'' give me the old version of the article because I wanted to do the subject justice. I even asked ] what the proper steps I should take to make sure that I was doing everything correctly. I spent hours writing up a neutral, original version of the article as a draft, submitted it to AfC, and continued to make edits throughout the day. Please reconsider the speedy deletion, because it isn't an ''unaltered'' and ''unimproved'' version of the article. ] (]) 15:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
==RFC on Status of Web Site==
<!-- ] 02:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1733709675}}
{{rfc|sci|rfcid=6082824}}


:I'm admittedly not too involved in this discussion, so I'll refrain from saying much, but I have no issues with keeping this article around since it seems to meet bare notability and can be verified as being a new version of the article via the creator's edit history. I'd appreciate an admin verifying the edit histories are different so as to dispel all reasonable doubt. However, I do have concerns about the fact there's an ongoing deletion review for the subject. I'm admittedly unsure as to how it's handled when the article is recreated while the deletion review is ongoing, but I do have concerns it may interfere with the discussion. It's still not grounds for a speedy to my knowledge, but there may be problems there. ''] Considerer:'' ''']''' (]) (]) 15:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
How should the current status of the ] web site be listed in the infobox?
::That's my mistake. When I was creating the draft, it said that approvals could take up to 8 weeks, so I decided to submit it and continue editing it. I wasn't expecting it to be approved so quickly. But it's ''definitely'' not true that what I wrote is an ''unchanged draft'', which was the rationale for this speedy delete. I spent so much time researching and writing this up, and this version of the article has a lot of sources that weren't present in the now-deleted one. The second AfD for the original article was closed as a "delete" due to the sockpuppetry and canvassing, so my new research that was posted after the re-listing was never taken into consideration in the AfD. This version of the article includes all of the new sources that meet reliability and significant coverage. ] (]) 16:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*A. Under maintenance.
*B. Abandoned.
*C. Omit the Current Status field from the infobox.
] (]) 01:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)


== Reliable sources ==


I'm posting this as a reference. According to archived discussions on the Teahouse, a good rule of thumb is three independent and reliable sources that demonstrate significant coverage to establish ]. Here are the major reliable sources that provide significant coverage for the subject:
Please enter A, B, or C, with a brief statement in the Survey. Please not reply to other editors in the Survey. That is what the Discussion section is for.


*'''''' '']'' . Reliable as one of the largest and oldest-running newspapers in Taiwan. Listed as one of the three major Chinese-language newspapers in ]. Significant coverage includes an overview of the technology behind 15.ai, particularly noting its ease of use and limited data, and also discusses how 15.ai works, its features, and the viral videos that have spawned using 15.ai. Over 400 (approximate since the article is written in Chinese) words of coverage.
===Survey===
*'']'' . Reliable as listed in ]. Significant coverage includes an overview of the DeepMoji technology used for emotiveness, applications of the voices not restricted to viral videos, and how to use it. Over 400 (approximate since the article is written in Japanese) words of coverage.
:I'd say something like "under maintenance since <date>" to avoid original research. ] (]) 02:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
*'']'' . While not listed in ], ''AUTOMATON'' is one of the largest and reputable gaming news outlets in Japan, and has been used in multiple GA's like '']'', '']'', and ]. Significant coverage includes DeepMoji, a list of characters available on the application, examples of video content users have created with the platform, an overview of the pronunciation capabilities of the model, as well as a mention of how to use ARPAbet strings. Almost 800 (approximate since the article is written in Japanese) words of coverage.
:(invited by the bot) Leave it out. WP:Ver requires sourcability for whatever is put in there and there is no source in the article for any such characterization. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 20:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''''' Rionaldi Chandraseta . While the article itself is written on Medium (which is not considered reliable), Medium is only being used as a vessel to host the article itself (similar to how Google Docs can be used to host an article), which is part of a very popular newsletter called ''Towards Data Science'', which has almost 800K followers on social media. Following alone means nothing in determining the reliability of a source, but Rionaldi Chandraseta, the author of the article, is an ]-published machine learning specialist who has published papers that are listed on Google Scholar . The newsletter has a solid editorial board that consists of multiple masters and PhD's in machine learning and computer science. '''Over 1,000''' words of English-language coverage detailing every facet of 15.ai, from its capabilities to its underlying research.
::However, there is a source for the website being down for maintenance since 2022.
*'''''' Yongqiang Li . Since the article is locked to foreigners without an account, I asked a friend to translate this for me. The article goes into great detail about the technology behind 15.ai and talks about its features, its future, and potential problems. The author is a professor at the ] and has multiple publications listed on Google Scholar and ResearchGate .
::Since this was clearly from DRN, I wonder what its participants have to say and am surprised they have not commented yet. ] (]) 21:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
*'']'' . Reliable as listed in ]. While the main focus of the article isn't 15.ai, it goes into detail the controversy and Twitter exchange that happened when Voiceverse NFT misappropriated 15.ai's work. From {{tq|However, in now-deleted tweets, Voiceverse was found to have boasted about using its tech for the voice of a cartoon character - which was in fact created using 15.ai, a popular non-commercial text-to-speech service.}} to {{tq|"Hey @fifteenai we are extremely sorry about this," Voiceverse NFT wrote. "The voice was indeed taken from your platform, which our marketing team used without giving proper credit. Chubbiverse team has no knowledge of this. We will make sure this never happens again."}}, this is about 300 words of coverage.
:::There is a source? Where? ] (]) 00:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
*''Stevivor'' . After doing more research, I found that Steven Wright, the author of this article, ''also'' writes for '']'', a solid and well-known technology and gaming publication. In addition, ''Stevivor'' is reliable and independent, and it is the most-read independent gaming news network in the Oceanic region.
::::This throws a wrench in things... the inline citation confused me into thinking it cited the entire sentence. I'm now not sure what we should do. ] (]) 12:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
*'']'' . While ''Kotaku'' is in ], it also states {{tq|News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable,}} (the article is from 2021, so it meets this criteria) but also states {{tq|although editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance}. It's still debated whether an article from the "Odds and Ends" category is considered "News", and the entry in ] says {{tq|articles should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.}} There is no clear consensus to this, but the description for the "Odds and Ends" category is "Odds and Ends - Gaming Reviews, News, Tips and More.". The argument in the previous AfD was that this article did not meet reliability, although it met independence and significant coverage. I personally believe that this article is reliable.
::::I think we can use https://archive.ph/sk2VL as a source. ] (]) 12:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
*'']'', '']'', and '']'' All three of these sources are found under ], but there has been a debate whether these three met significant coverage. While they all pass ], it is not a Misplaced Pages policy and their significant coverage can be debated.
:::Regarding DRN. Two of the participants at the DRN have said the conversation went on too long and noted they did not wish to participate in the RfC or continued dispute, one of the editors was indef blocked for a different issue, one of the editors didn't participate in the DRN at all basically, and I have been busy (as my userpage indicates) with school. That should explain why they have not commented. <b>]</b> 02:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
*'']'' . ] notes ''NME'' is reliable in its expertise, and it has been debated whether gaming is one of their areas of expertise. The Misplaced Pages article for NME states that this is so, and gaming is listed as one of NME's header sections, but there has been debate whether NME's expertise extends outside of music. Similar coverage to ''Eurogamer'', but with fewer words, but still above the threshhold for ] (which, again, is not Misplaced Pages policy).
: Abandoned.<s>, by a creator who has disappeared entirely from the internet</s> <span style="color:#666">&ndash;&nbsp;]]</span> 22:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
*] . The author, Andrew Ng, is one of the most famous and influential artificial intelligence researchers in the world, with a healthy Google Scholar profile and was included in the Time 100 Most Influential People in AI list in 2023. While 15.ai is mentioned as a blurb and likely does not meet significant coverage, it shows that the subject wasn't a mere curiosity and was under the radar for a large number of prominent figures in AI while the service was active. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::We'd need a source to say that the creator has disappeared entirely (which isn't true either; their 𝕏 audience has found https://pony.best/ with their byline) ] (]) 22:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
::: I stand corrected! Abandoned, nonetheless. That's not a permanent state, it can be revised if that ever changes. <span style="color:#666">&ndash;&nbsp;]]</span> 03:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
* '''C''', because there is no requirement to have the website current status listed in the infobox. Second Choice '''B'''. I find the argument of using an archive from the website as under maintenance from 2022 as a source to be uncompelling. I could equally point to the https://pony.best// Credits page, a more recent page, which lists 15.ai as "Stuff I've '''worked''' on", past tense with a link to the Misplaced Pages article, to indicate the project is abandoned, and it'd probably be equally dubious, no? I mean, it isn't listed as "Currently Working" or "Current Projects", it is quite plainly past tense. Anyways, I don't realistically believe that would be an appropriate source for the claim, nor do I think a 2 year old "under maintenance" notice is a valid source to say it's under maintenance. At some point the fact that the project is abandoned becomes self-evident, but we don't have any real sources to substantiate its status. Better to just leave it out. --<b>]</b> 02:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
*:My original opinion was made under the assumption that a secondary and reliable source claimed the site was down for maintenance since September 2022. Since the assumption has been proven false, I now also support '''C''' per Brocade. ] (]) 02:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
* '''C''' as there is not a source to support anything else. Other options require ]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
* I feel C. At the moment as this has widespread thoughts in the community we should keep a more neutral term. ] ] 13:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*:I second this and would also prefer '''C'''. ] (]) 18:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
*::The entire root of this, in my opinion, seems to be the current status section ] ] 19:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::Out of curiosity, how long does the RFC run before the survey's results are applied? ] (]) 20:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::There's no specific timeframe, though 30 days is the general limit. In this case, I think a ] close would be appropriate, given the sheer weight of editors in favor of option C after two weeks of discussion. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 20:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Especially given how the only (either one or three, depending on whether they're telling the truth in their appeal) editor(s) who were in favor of another option decided to start an ANI thread instead of respond to the RfC. ] (]) 21:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''C''' In the interests of ending edit wars, I think removing this from the Infobox would help this disputed fact from being a flashpoint. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''C''' We don't have a recent reliable source for anything else. ] (]) 21:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)


However, some of these have been contested in ''some form'', the arguments for which I personally disagreed with. Think of these sources as you will. I still haven't gone over many of the the sources that are used in the newly written page, but I will continue to do my research and update this.
===Discussion===
I wonder if this RfC is still needed. I haven't followed the dispute but it looks to me like it might only exist because a sock-farm was trying to keep option A and with this sock farm now hopefully gone it might be unnecessary. I appreciate one editor is supporting B above while the rest are supporting C and maybe the RfC having started it's too late but it just looks to me like the sort of thing which could have been resolved via normal discussion were it not for the sock farm. ] (]) 17:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
:It seems the original cause of this entire thing was caused just because of the current status section- It is very disputed between multiple people and many accounts can be created for spamming/reverting the final decision- This dispute has been active for about a month, and it is taking way too long in my opinion ] ] 17:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
:Even if there is a claim, it is hard to find one that follows reference guidelines- and it also probably isnt WP:NPOV. ] ] 17:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{tq|it just looks to me like the sort of thing which could have been resolved via normal discussion were it not for the sock farm.}} Incidentally, it had actually been resolved normally. The entire reason it became an RfC was because the sockfarm returned and reverted the edits that were decided upon at DRN. Everyone who participated in the DRN case had no problems with the proposed solution that it should be removed from the infobox. <b>]</b> 05:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
====Past tense====
:Should the opening sentence of the article refer to the subject in the past tense? —⁠ ⁠] (]) 11:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:: Yes, updated. <span style="color:#666">&ndash;&nbsp;]]</span> 22:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
:: Yes. <b>]</b> 02:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:: I should have warned you sooner, but there will likely be one person who will resist and attempt that you make to do such edit. I personally am fine with this decision. ] (]) 18:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
::: It does seem that user has ] the talk page for over a month. <span style="color:#666">&ndash;&nbsp;]]</span> 03:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::I agree that it should be rephrased to past tense -- that user does seem to be edit warring against the general interest of most people here? Any thoughts? ]<sup>(])</sup> 05:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I would like to mention that this is the fifth (5th) talk page topic regarding this very question, and that each time, a majority of editors seemed to agree with the suggested change. ] (]) 16:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::They are engaged in a very slow, protracted edit-war outside of the one time in October where 3RR was flagrantly violated by both sides. <b>]</b> 18:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::I don't see why not, so, sure. ] (]) 16:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:: Software can exist in the present tense long past its last update, as people continue to use it. Web apps can not. I see no meaningful sense in which this still exists today. I converted the rest of the article to past tense. {{ping|RocketKnightX}} don't get into a revert war; if you want the project to still be active, convince its authors to bring it back to life. <span style="color:#666">&ndash;&nbsp;]]</span> 17:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, and Im very close to bringing the people who constantly revert against consensus to ANI. ] (]) 03:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::180., that seems appropriate at this point. <span style="color:#666">&ndash;&nbsp;]]</span> 03:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Oh wait, there already is one. ] ] (]) 04:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)


Yes, I'm aware that this is a contentious article that was submitted to AfD. But the AfD was closed largely due to the misbehaving of new Misplaced Pages editors, who are likely to be children, which is not surprising given the popularity of the application among younger people. I'm committed to doing this subject justice, and I argue that this subject not only meets the bare minimum of notability, but meets it well-within question. ] (]) 17:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
== Added more citations to verify the text ==


:These sources look largely reliable to me. It was a large part of why I accepted the original draft in the first place, since it's rare to see a draft with such good sourcing. I personally believe this meets notability, especially since it's been clarified outright this is much expanded from the deleted article. ''] Considerer:'' ''']''' (]) (]) 18:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I noticed the top menu, that the article may contain citations that do not verify the text. I added some more links to help verify the contents. I will move them around some more soon. ] (]) 19:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you. Sorry for all the trouble. I never meant for all this to happen. I can get carried away at times and I felt a fire light up inside me when I was writing the new article. I really hope this version gets to stay. ] (]) 21:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


== Please fill out the missing stuff in the Japanese source citations ==
:I added citations for all of the templates. I'll remove that from the top box unless anyone has any objections. ] (]) 20:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::Hi, ]! I noticed that you deleted the citations I used for the article. I believe these would be acceptable to keep because ], ], Resemble.ai, and Play.ht are notable leaders in the voice AI space and thus meets the criteria for ]. Since we already have plenty of reliable sources establishing notability of the subject, I think it's reasonable to use less prominent sources (like blog posts) for additional details - such as the developer being named 15 (which is already mentioned in the AUTOMATON article we're already using) or the high operational costs. Given the number of articles verifying this information, I believe we can apply ] and ] to consider them valid secondary and tertiary sources. I believe it's common Misplaced Pages practice to use high-quality sources for establishing critical claims while using relatively lower-tier but still acceptable sources for non-controversial supplementary details. I'll revert your edits for now and I've removed the TVTropes article (because that one clearly is violation of ]) but I'd be happy to discuss if others disagree! ] (]) 19:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Hi,
:::As I mentioned on your talkpage before I noticed this here, the reason I removed a number of the sources that you added was less because they were blogs but because they seemed to be advertisements and might run afoul of ]. For instance, is basically intended to discuss 15.ai for the sake of advertising elevenlabs as an alternative. This seems like it is advertising speechify, advertising resemble.ai, so on and so forth. Removing TVTropes is a good play. If other people disagree and feel that eleven labs, et al are acceptable sources, that's fine by me.
:::Cheers, <b>]</b> 02:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Your edits are fine. 11labs and Speechify are definitely notable, no problems there. The rest, while not as notable, are still known contributors to AI speech. ] (]) 00:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::::As I mentioned above, my complaint regarding Eleven labs et. all is that they are pieces of advertisement and might run afoul of ]. Being known contributors to AI Speech doesn't guarantee their acceptability. Per ], {{tq|competitor's website}} are considered non-independent sources, adding an extra layer of complexity to the ] claim. <b>]</b> 12:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::I have opened a discussion at the RSN regarding my concerns for these sources. ] <b>]</b> 02:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)


@]: Please see the example for a foreign-language reference below. What's needed are the trans-title, language, quote, and trans-quote params
== Neutrality and COI cleanup ==
<pre>
{{cite news
|last=Vučković
|first=Branko
|date=28 September 2013
|title=Železnice Srbije u sve lošijem stanju
|trans-title=Serbian Rail in Increasingly Worse Condition
|url=https://www.slobodnaevropa.org/a/zeleznice-srbije-u-sve-losijem-stanju/25120244.html
|access-date=5 November 2024
|website=Radio Slobodna Evropa |language=sh
|quote=Koliko je železnica u Srbiji zaostala, najbolje se vidi iz poređenja sa Evropskom unijom, gde se vozovi kreću prosečnom brzinom između 200 i 300 kilometara na sat, dok je prosečna brzina na domaćim prugama 44 kilometra, samo nekoliko kilometara brže od prvog voza koji je saobraćao na tek sagrađenoj pruzi Beograd - Niš u septembru 1884. godine.
|trans-quote=The extent to which the railway system in Serbia has fallen behind is best illustrated by comparing it with the European Union, where trains travel at an average speed of between 200 and 300 kilometers per hour, while the average speed on domestic tracks is just 44 kilometers, only a few kilometers faster than the first train that operated on the newly constructed Belgrade–Niš line in September 1884.}}
</pre> —] 12:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


:Done, thank you! ] (]) 13:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I revised the article to address the neutrality and COI notices. I went through several citations and improved neutrality by adding citations for technical claims while avoiding overly relying on tertiary/unreliable sources for claims without a more reputable source, modified some wording, and ensured fair representation of different viewpoints, particularly from voice actors and their concerns.
::Thanks a lot. Having translated titles is really important, but it would also be very nice and ''genuinely helps verifiability'' to have translated relevant quotes. If it needs to be multiple quotes from the same source, cite the same source multiple times each time with a different suitable quote and I might convert the citation method to ]. If you determine that any of the Asian sources aren't essential, and the statements are already made verifiable using English-language sources, please remove them. —] 13:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Oh... I just saw this message after I submitted an edit translating all of the other sources. What should I do? Should I revert my edit? ] (]) 13:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::No worries, please see ]. Basically, there's no need to use {{tl|efn}} for translations of quotes. —] 13:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::In other words, what Japanese text in the reference no. 2 (as of ]) supports the statement "15.ai was conceived as a research project by a developer known as "15" during their undergraduate studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and was later implemented following the developer's successful exit from a startup venture." and what is the English translation of that Japanese text. —] 13:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I see, I'll get to that in a bit. I'm expanding some other sections but I'll definitely make those edits soon. ] (]) 13:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::@]: Please check the article out now. This is how it should be because this citation style enables multiple relevant quotes each with its translation, for any given single reference. It's just a start. —] 16:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you. I will use this style going forward. Thanks so much for your help! ] (]) 02:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== Looking for Twitter videos ==
I think the article now meets Misplaced Pages's neutrality standards (]) and so I'll remove the tags in the top box. Feel free to make any further edits if I missed anything! ] (]) 00:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)


Hi! I'm looking for a few videos that had circulated around Twitter around 2021.
== Troy Baker / Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal section ==
* <s>A video of the Heavy from ''Team Fortress 2'' in ''Home Alone 2'' that was broadcast on a news network (it might have been CNN, but I don't remember)</s> Found it. It was indeed CNN, and the transcript of the segment can be found here: .
* A video of the ''Team Fortress 2'' voice actors commenting on 15.ai and AI voice cloning technology around 2021. I believe this question was asked to the voice actors at a convention panel (possibly Comic-Con?)
* A video of Nathan Vetterlein, the voice actor of the Scout, reacting to a line generated by 15.ai as the Scout.
If anyone has any clue where I could find these, it would be of much help. Thank you! ] (]) 00:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


== Toolify ==
This entire section appears to be about some twitter drama that is offtopic on this article. How is the fact some non-notable company plagiarized some voice lines from work that is probably already infringing on copyright worth mentioning on this article? ] (]) 04:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)


:''Re ]''
:How do you mean? The event wasn’t mere twitter drama and has been documented extensively by independent outlets and primary sources. It clearly meets ]. ] (]) 20:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Toolify articles are obviously ]. Not a reliable source. I've removed hopefully all content sourced to it. —] 13:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::GNG is about the notability of topics for articles. That boring twitter drama is only tangentially related to 15.ai. It might be an important part of a potential article about Voiceverse NFT but that company is nonnotable. ] (]) 20:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Strongly disagree. Not only are ] and ] for the event met, but 15.ai is the subject of plagiarism that is well documented. It isn’t mere tangential relation if the subject is the one getting plagiarized. ] (]) 20:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Neither WP:GNG nor WP:EVENT is met for the event, and if that would be the case you could write an article about it. The story is about the fact that ''someone else'' potentially infringed on copyright. It is not about 15.ai, which ''probably also'' infringed on copyright. ] (]) 20:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Then by that logic, the section isn’t relevant on ]’s article either because of his mere relation to the scandal while ''someone else'' was doing the plagiarism, but I don’t think anyone would argue that. ] (]) 21:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::There are many, many articles written about the event, so that’s just untrue. ] (]) 21:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Indeed, it should also be removed from the Troy Baker article (or at the very least drastically cut down). Troy, as a business partner, is of course more involved than 15.ai. But not much more. ] (]) 21:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Just because there are articles written about the Voiceverse event doesn't necessairly mean it belongs in the 15.ai Misplaced Pages article. See ], ] and ]. All of the many sources that detailed the Troy Baker/Voiceverse scandal occurred in a 3 day range in January. <b>]</b> 00:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The sources actually span a much longer period than just 3 days in January. Looking at the citations in the article, coverage continued through at least January 31st 2022 when Baker discontinued his partnership (covered by The Verge, Tweaktown, and others). See: (January 18), (January 31).
:::::::From what I can tell, this wasn't a sensationalized news cycle, as it was covered by a variety of legitimate sources. In addition, it's appropriate for inclusion in this article because it represented a significant moment in 15.ai's history that demonstrated real-world consequences of AI voice technology misuse. The incident contributed to ongoing discussions about voice actor rights, proper attribution of AI-generated content, and commercialization of voice synthesis technology. These are lasting impacts that help readers understand the broader context and implications of 15.ai's development.
:::::::That said, if there are concerns about the section's length or detail, consider condensing it while retaining the key points about the plagiarism incident and its significance instead of removing it outright. ] (]) 04:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Right, and the source from January 31st is used only to support the statement {{tq|Two weeks later, Baker discontinued his partnership with Voiceverse}} and doesn't mention 15.ai at all. {{tq|it was covered by a variety of legitimate}}. ] does quite literally state {{tq|Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous "silly season" reporting}}, being covered by seemingly reliable outlets doesn't make it inherently not sensationalist. Its relevance to 15.ai is tangential at best. See ] which reads {{tq|If reliable sources – other than the critics themselves – provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms, then sections and subarticles about them may be justified, but only within the limitations of WP:BLPGROUPS}} which indicates the controversy should be discussed at Troy Baker or Voicesense, not necessairly at considerable undue length at an article about 15.ai <b>]</b> 04:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::While you're right that the January 31st source focuses on Baker's withdrawal, the earlier coverage (like the NME article) shows that 15.ai wasn't tangential to this controversy - it was central to it as the victim of direct plagiarism. The initial reporting specifically focused on how 15.ai's technology was misappropriated, including technical details about voice line manipulation and verification through 15.ai's log files.
:::::::::Your citation of WP:CSECTION actually supports including this content in the 15.ai article. The guideline states that sections about controversies are justified when reliable sources provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies. We have exactly that - reliable sources documenting how 15.ai's technology was specifically targeted and misused (NME is considered a reliable source as per ). This wasn't just about Baker or Voiceverse - it was about the unauthorized exploitation of 15.ai's platform.
:::::::::WP:CORG doesn't suggest we should only discuss this at Troy Baker or Voiceverse's articles - rather, it supports discussing it where relevant to the subjects involved. Since 15.ai was directly impacted as the plagiarized party, this controversy is relevant to its article. The fact that it's also relevant to Baker's article doesn't diminish its significance to 15.ai's history.
:::::::::I agree we could potentially condense the section, but suggesting it should only appear in other articles overlooks how central 15.ai was to this controversy. As a new editor I cannot directly edit the article, so I'd appreciate it if someone could make these suggestions on my behalf. Best regards. ] (]) 04:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::NME is considered reliable within its area of expertise, which is music. . My citation of CSECTION does not support its inclusion because the key is {{tq|substantial coverage}}. See ] which says news coverage of a {{tq|a '''prolonged''' controversy}} (emphasis mine) is considered substantial. Again, we have coverage over the course of 3 days and then articles 2 weeks later announcing that Troy Baker is dropping them. That is not evidence of a prolonged controversy by any stretch of the imagination. It was, as Polygnotus summarized, a controversy where someone who used plaigarized datasets that were furnished by 4chan had their work plaigarized by some NFT company. Were it not for the fact that Troy Baker was associated with the company, it likely wouldn't have even made it to the news that it did receive. <b>]</b> 06:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::The noticeboard you posted states that NME is generally reliable as a source, not only in music. Besides, if we demanded absolute encyclopedia-like reliability and reputation for every single source and months of sustained coverage for every event and dismissed publications whenever they report outside a narrowly-defined expertise, we'd make Misplaced Pages nearly impossible to write and maintain. Many significant events have relatively brief news cycles but still merit inclusion for their broader impact and historical significance. It is clearly, at the very least, mentionable in the article, if not deserving of its own section in the article. ] (]) 15:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I have to agree with Brocade here. This was a flash-in-the-pan, and it only got any traction because Troy Baker was mentioned. It's an issue of ] here, adding this to the article is overstating its importance to 15.ai as a topic. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Even so (I'm still of the opinion that the event warrants its own section, as an inclusionist Wikipedian myself), the existence of reliable sources connecting the event with 15.ai makes it ''at the very least'' mentionable in the 15.ai article. Maybe a fair compromise would be to have a redirect/main article template pointing to the ] article instead, and have much of the contents be in that article instead. ] (]) 17:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Again, ] means no, it's really not mentionable. Not everything that happens should be included. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::WP:DUE is actually in favor of including it as a mention, contrary to your claim. To quote, " fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.
:::::::::::::::All due respect, but your philosophy is one of many valid contrasting encyclopedia standards listed on Wikimedia ( and , for example). I see that you adopt an exclusionist stance on Misplaced Pages as is written on your user page, which is totally valid. I myself am more leaning towards the inclusionist side, but even so I've offered a potential compromise that would address both sides of the aisle. But what I don't agree with is asserting one side's opinion as the sole reigning truth - I'd wager there are many Wikipedians who would agree that the event deserves at least a mention on the article, especially with the existence of reliable sources headlining it. ] (]) 18:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::{{ec}} At some point, when a bunch of people disagree with you, it is time to move on. {{tq|WP:DUE is actually in favor of including it as a mention}} That is incorrect. {{tq|I'd wager there are many Wikipedians who would agree that the event deserves at least a mention on the article}} I doubt it, so far it has been ] but if a ] forms that it should be included then it surely will. ] (]) 19:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Please don't close a discussion so soon. I have limited free time as a grad student, and I came back to this discussion just now. To explicitly state, I disagree that the section should be removed, as I thought the section was fine as it originally was before your edits. ] (]) 19:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::What "bunch of people"? Are you an admin? I see three people disagreeing with me, and three people (including myself) agreeing with me. What consensus is there? ] (]) 19:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::You ignored {{tq|significant}}. There is nothing significant about an event that barely got reported, and ONLY got reported because of one actor's name being involved. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::There's a number of articles that was reported on this very controversy and the fact that the voices were plagiarized from 15.ai. Plenty of other events on Misplaced Pages have sections on articles with a comparatively negligible number of sources, but I find it doubtful that an event like this that was on the front page of a number of tech outlets isn't as significant. To copy paste from what I posted before, see: . These are more than enough to establish notability. ] (]) 20:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Again, it was a flash-in-the-pan. Tons of news sites will pick up a minor thing to get clicks, that does not make the event significant as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 21:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:Ok, what even happened here while I was gone for the weekend? (o_O)
:I've read through it and think both sides make fair points - yes, it was a brief controversy that mainly blew up because of Baker's involvement, but it did directly involve 15.ai's tech being stolen and raise some important questions about AI voice synthesis ethics - plus, this controversy wasn't just a couple days long (it was at least several weeks long if I remember correctly), and there are notable sources that do specifically state that 15.ai's tech was stolen. Let's also remember ]: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."


:Maybe we don't need a whole section on it, but removing it entirely seems like overkill. Could just mention it briefly in a broader section about impact/reception, possibly even within the "reaction from voice actors" section. That way we keep the historically relevant bits without giving Twitter drama too much weight. I like ]'s suggestion. I'll go ahead and edit the article to reflect that. ] (]) 19:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC) :Thank you, I'll look for more reliable sources to support these statements! ] (]) 15:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|GregariousMadness}} {{tq|it did directly involve 15.ai's tech being stolen}} That didn't happen. {{tq|raise some important questions about AI voice synthesis ethics}} That is incorrect, the important question raised is by 15.ai's use of copyrighted material by others, not by that NFT companies marketing person passing of a sample produced by 15.ai's work as someone elses. {{tq|we keep the historically relevant bits}} there are none. ] (]) 19:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|That didn't happen.}} The NFT company used a non-commercial service for commercial purposes and passed it off as their own. If that isn't stealing, then I don't know what is.
:::{{tq|That is incorrect, the important questions raised is by 15.ai's use of copyrighted material by others, not by that NFT companies marketing person passing of a sample produced by 15.ai's work as someone elses.}} Not in this particular event.
:::{{tq|there are none.}} I disagree. ] (]) 19:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Generating an audiofile or two via someone elses service and pretending your service generated them is not {{tq|stealing tech}} of course. {{tq|Not in this particular event.}} Yeah in this particular event no important questions were raised and nothing notable happened. {{tq|I disagree.}} that is allowed, others disagree with you. ] (]) 19:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::That's fine! I think it's healthy for discussion that we have disagreements. But what isn't good is your trying to force consensus through repetitive disagreement and telling people to "move on". Let's remember to be civil. ] (]) 19:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::I don't see anything Polygnotus has done that is incivil. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I was mostly referring to {{tq|At some point, when a bunch of people disagree with you, it is time to move on.}} before anyone else had the chance to chime in. It feels like an attempt to prematurely close discussion when there's plenty of things to discuss, and I found that to be weird, especially when the discussion hadn't even been 24 hours old yet... ] (]) 20:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::That's still not ]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 21:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:@]: As per your latest edit: {{tq|also this is probably factually incorrect (the company didnt plagiarize work, someone in the marketing department used an audiofile generated by 15.ai and pretended it was generated via their software)}} Please note the definition of "plagiarism": ''the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own'' (according to Oxford Dictionaries). This was by definition plagiarism, and I'm asking you to take a step back a little instead of editing so haphazardly when no consensus has been reached yet. ] (]) 19:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::So according to your definition this isn't plagiarism. They didn't take work or ideas, they used an online service to generate an audiofile. ] (]) 19:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::The terms of service of the free service stipulated that any outputs ''must'' be used for non-commercial purposes, a violation of the terms, taking the work of 15.ai. See, for example, . ] (]) 19:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Breaking the ToS != plagiarism. ] (]) 19:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::I don't what to tell you. Every outlet that reported on this uses some sort of phrase meaning "stolen" or "taken without permission" or "plagiarized", and it's not up to you to decide whether a company plagiarized something or not when pretty much every news outlet universally agrees that some sort of unethical behavior took place.
::::: ] (]) 19:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Breaking the ToS ''could'' be {{tq|some sort of unethical behavior}} but that isn't the same thing as plagiarism and I searched for the string "plag" in those 4 links and Firefox found no results so I am unsure why you posted them. And of course "stolen" or "taken without permission" do not have the same meaning as "plagiarized". ] (]) 21:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Plagiarism, specifically, involves presenting someone else's work as their own. Voiceverse did this when announcing their partnership with Troy Baker. If we're talking pure semantics, you could argue that instead of ''plagiarism'', the term ''misrepresentation'' could be a better fit, but then why remove that point altogether? You can easily change the term to "misrepresented" and it would still be appropriate for the article. Removing the incident entirely from the article would be throwing out important factual information. ] (]) 21:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::If I create an AI model from scratch, then the AI model is my work. But when I then train the AI model on data generated by others (sound files/artwork/whatever) it would be unreasonable for me to claim the copyright to what the AI model created. We ''are'' talking semantics, and words matter, specifically when we are accusing people or companies of stuff. We have to be exact. I don't think the information is important to this article because it has little to do with 15.ai. It would however be relevant if we would have an article about that NFT company, but we do not and it is not notable. ] (]) 21:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I've addressed this below, but this is still plagiarism by definition, as agreed upon by multiple academic sources. For example (from my own alma mater):
:::::::::{{tq|1. Plagiarism: Copying and pasting text, images, media, etc. generated by AI software into your document without attribution counts as plagiarism as defined by Duke. Repeating or slightly modifying phrases, sentences, or passages generated by AI tools without attribution is also plagiarism. Proper scholarly procedures require that all quoted material be identified by quotation marks or indentation on the page, and the source of information and ideas, if from another, must be identified and be attributed to that source. As described in the Duke Community Standard, plagiarism is not tolerated and may result in disciplinary action. Note that using AI as a grammar correction tool does not count as plagiarism. Duke library has a website with resources on proper AI citation.}} ] (]) 21:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Duke specifically says they are using their own definition of the word, which is fine of course, but that does not mean we have to. ] (]) 21:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)


== Strange repetition of content ==
== Disproportionate scrutiny? ==


@]: What are you thinking when you add a sentence like ] when the exactly same thing is stated up above in the article? I've seen you make such additions to this article before and I've reverted some of them. You're even repeating links. Please see ]. But the more significant problem is not overlinking as such, the problem is repetition. —] 13:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Having roamed around other Misplaced Pages articles to edit in my spare time, it feels like the level of scrutiny being applied to this article seems disproportionate compared to many other Misplaced Pages articles. While maintaining high standards is paramount, I notice that articles with far more questionable sources often go unchallenged. The discussion around the Troy Baker/Voiceverse incident involves multiple reliable sources (both primary and secondary) documenting a significant event involving 15.ai, yet faces intense push for removal, while similar incidents documented with comparable sources remain unchallenged in other articles. We should focus on improving content rather than removal, especially when reliable sources exist. Let me know what you think! ] (]) 19:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:Its not an {{tq|intense push for removal}}, its just that if you say things that aren't true Wikipedians are possibly the group most likely to correct you. ] (]) 20:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::@] I'm sorry, but this isn't a valid justification for undoing the latest revision. You insist that plagiarism never took place ({{tq|also this is probably factually incorrect (the company didnt plagiarize work, someone in the marketing department used an audiofile generated by 15.ai and pretended it was generated via their software}}) despite the reliable sources listed above that literally state that Voiceverse stole work from 15.ai ({{tq|Troy Baker's Partner NFT Company Voiceverse Reportedly '''Steals''' Voice Lines From 15.ai}}, {{tq|Voiceverse NFT admits to '''taking''' voice lines from non-commercial service}}, {{tq|Troy Baker-backed NFT company admits to '''using content without permission'''}}, {{tq|Voiceverse NFT Service Reportedly Uses '''Stolen''' Technology from 15ai}}), and you continue to dismiss the side disagreeing with you. The assertion that Voiceverse plagiarized (and to repeat, Oxford Dictionaries defines "plagiarism" as {{tq|the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own}}) 15.ai is well-documented by multiple sources, and there is no consensus in this talk page whether to keep the section.
::I'm going to have to ask you ''why you believe that no plagiarism took place and why it isn't notable when the aforementioned plagiarism is the headline in multiple articles''. In the meantime, I'll revert your edits. As I don't want to start an edit war, I'm hoping that we will come to a consensus in a civil manner. Cheers! ] (]) 21:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ping|GregariousMadness}} See ]. ] (]) 21:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|this isn't a valid justification for undoing the latest revision}} if you are referring to that comment then I agree, but I explained my position elsewhere. {{tq|You insist that plagiarism never took place}} The quote you are using shows that I use the word probably, which people who insist on something never do. {{tq|reliable sources listed above that literally state that Voiceverse stole work}} if I create an AI model and you take some of its output while ignoring my ToS, that isn't plagiarism, right? Thats just breaking the ToS. If you steal my actual work, the AI model itself, things might be different. {{tq|there is no consensus in this talk page whether to keep the section}} see ]. {{tq|I'll revert your edits}} you shouldn't because editwarring is uncool and we haven't finished discussing things yet. ] (]) 21:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, you're right that you used the word "probably", which is why I stopped myself from reverting your edit. I'm hoping that we can come to a consensus about this topic. {{tq|if I create an AI model and you take some of its output while ignoring my ToS, that isn't plagiarism, right? Thats just breaking the ToS. If you steal my actual work, the AI model itself, things might be different.}} No, that's ''both'' stealing/plagiarism ''and'' breaking the TOS. This has happened many times in academia, where students have been expelled for plagiarism simply for misattributing sources, and recent orientation curriculums ''specifically include the misattribution/stealing of generative AI outputs in their research papers as an example of '''plagiarism''''' (they warn all students of this on day 1 of orientation). {{tq|you shouldn't because editwarring is uncool and we haven't finished discussing things yet.}} You're right, and I refrained from reverting your edit. ] (]) 21:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::::See, for example:
::::{{tq|1. Plagiarism: Copying and pasting text, images, media, etc. generated by AI software into your document without attribution counts as plagiarism as defined by Duke. Repeating or slightly modifying phrases, sentences, or passages generated by AI tools without attribution is also plagiarism. Proper scholarly procedures require that all quoted material be identified by quotation marks or indentation on the page, and the source of information and ideas, if from another, must be identified and be attributed to that source. As described in the Duke Community Standard, plagiarism is not tolerated and may result in disciplinary action. Note that using AI as a grammar correction tool does not count as plagiarism. Duke library has a website with resources on proper AI citation.}} ] (]) 21:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::I do not believe that the developer of an AI model owns the copyright to all output of that AI model, and certainly not if the AI model was trained on the copyrighted works of others. It would make more sense to give the owners of the copyrights of the works the model is based on the copyright. The law is slow to change. While human authors have copyright, AI models do not at this point. The example of students expelled for plagiarism is, in my view, not comparable because the university cares about whether they've done the work themselves, not if they are infringing on the rights of others. And the university is certainly not trying to protect the hypothetical rights of an AI model. ] (]) 21:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::While you raise some interesting points about AI copyright law (and I tend to agree with some of the points you make), these are ultimately ''your personal interpretations''. {{tq|The example of students expelled for plagiarism is, in my view, not comparable because the university cares about whether they've done the work themselves, not if they are infringing on the rights of others. And the university is certainly not trying to protect the hypothetical rights of an AI model.}} The comparison to academic plagiarism remains relevant because plagiarism and copyright are distinct concepts - plagiarism is about misrepresenting the source or creator of work, regardless of copyright status.
::::::In the Voiceverse case, the key issue isn't about who owns copyright to AI outputs. It's that they explicitly claimed content generated by 15.ai was created by their own different system. That misattribution fits the basic definition of plagiarism as stated in the above PDF: presenting someone else's work as your own.
::::::{{tq|I do not believe that the developer of an AI model owns the copyright to all output of that AI model, and certainly not if the AI model was trained on the copyrighted works of others.}} Your view that AI model developers shouldn't own copyright to outputs is a legitimate position in an ongoing debate, ''but it doesn't change the fact that falsely claiming to be the source of content is plagiarism, regardless of copyright status.'' Even if content is in the public domain or has ambiguous copyright, presenting it as your own original work is still plagiarism. ] (]) 21:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::We have now reached what I believe to be the crux of the issue, in order to plagiarize the "victim" needs to be the copyright owner of the work. But since the "victim" is an AI model, a glorified Markov chain, it owns nothing and it cannot posses copyright. In the same way you can't steal physical possessions owned by an AI model you also can't steal intellectual possessions owned by an AI model. See ]. I can't plagiarize the sound of the waves, or the wind rustling some leaves. Mother Nature (although personified here) has no legal personhood. Claiming that your AI model generated somehing another AI model generated is possibly not nice, but I don't think it can qualify as plagiarism. As far as I know there is no copyright law against victimless plagiarism. Universities of course do have rules against victimless plagiarism (you are not allowed to pay someone else to do the work for you and then pretend you did it). ] (]) 21:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|We have now reached what I believe to be the crux of the issue, in order to plagiarize the "victim" needs to be the copyright owner of the work.}} I disagree - the "victim" isn't just the AI model, but the combined set of the AI model and the developer. You wouldn't say you plagiarized Word or Microsoft when you copy someone's text, but you would say you plagiarized the author who wrote using Word. Similarly, 15.ai is both the tool AND the service created by its developer - when Voiceverse used 15.ai's output and claimed it as their own, they were plagiarizing both the system's output and misrepresenting the work of the developers who created that system.
::::::::{{tq|But since the "victim" is an AI model, a glorified Markov chain, it owns nothing and it cannot posses copyright. In the same way you can't steal physical possessions owned by an AI model you also can't steal intellectual possessions owned by an AI model. See Personhood.}} The AI model isn't just a "glorified Markov chain" operating in isolation - it's a complete service and system developed by people who specified terms for its use. When Voiceverse claimed output from this system was generated by their own technology, they were misrepresenting both the source of the content (15.ai) and implicitly the work of the developer who created that system.
::::::::{{tq|I can't plagiarize the sound of the waves, or the wind rustling some leaves. Claiming that your AI model generated somehing another AI model generated is possibly not nice, but I don't think it can qualify as plagiarism. }} Plagiarism, ultimately, is about honest attribution of sources and work. (And this is what they tell us at orientation, just to be clear.) Just as academic plagiarism can occur with public domain works that have no current copyright holder, plagiarism can occur when misrepresenting the source of AI-generated content, regardless of the complex questions around AI copyright law and who ''technically'' owns what.
::::::::The key issue is that Voiceverse claimed someone else's system's output was created by their own different system. That's plagiarism of both the output and misrepresentation of the developer's work, plain and simple. If I were a professor (I'm still a few years away from that, sadly), I would certainly categorize this as a cut-and-dry case of plagiarism - ''who'' was the victim of this plagiarism would be irrelevant. ] (]) 21:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::The law currently does not give an AI model creator the copyright over the output of the AI model. {{tq|the "victim" isn't just the AI model, but the combined set of the AI model and the developer}} not according to the law as I understand it. {{tq|Plagiarism, ultimately, is about honest attribution of sources and work.}} that is not how the law works. For example, you can freely copy text from works in the public domain whose copyrights have expired without attribution. {{tq|If I were a professor}} thank god you are not studying law! ] (]) 21:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)


:My line of thinking was that if someone were to be linked to the specific section of the article (say through the link ]), a summarizing sentence would be helpful to get the reader up to speed if they hadn't read the earlier sections of the article. Also, it can be pretty hard to keep track of what information has already been stated since sometimes I don't realize what content has been removed by other editors. I've been using the article '']'' as inspiration for formatting and style, and I do believe that there's enough rationale to keep an "In fandom culture" section for the article. I'll be doing more research to support the statements that had been supported by Toolify, but I believe that the other statements can be kept in that section. ] (]) 15:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:There's nothing unusual here, especially for an article that recently had multiple ] issues. As to {{tq| I notice that articles with far more questionable sources often go unchallenged}}, that's an ] argument. Feel free to bring up the problems those articles have so they get some attention. It's a volunteer project, so people pick and choose what they get involved with. Until they know there's a problem, they can't to do anything about it. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 21:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::Firstly, please don't revert my edit saying "per talk page" when there's nothing like a consensus regarding that edit on the talk page, like you did in ]. In my edit summary (]) I wrote: {{tq|this entire section is undue, veers on trivial, and most importantly, it repeats content already in the article; some unique statements can be reincorporated elsewhere}}. Saying "per talk page" would have meant that there was a consensus to revert my removal, and there wasn't.
::I see. I was beginning to think there was a coordinated effort to remove content from an article that I drafted up as my first Wikipedian project, but that makes more sense. I still think that the contentious section has more than enough references and relevant to keep, but I understand the scrutiny now. ] (]) 21:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::The ''Among Us'' article has no bearing here. It is not even a relatively recent FA-class article to assert that it contains examples of best editing practices. A GA badge does not mean very much; a GA review is performed by a single reviewer most of the time. You should not primarily be using a single GA as inspiration, but should be guided by best editing practices. Among those is the commonsense convention that articles should not repeat themselves. An encyclopedia article is a standalone work of non-fiction prose. It should be written to function the best for a reader who will read it from start to finish. The article's statements are grouped together according to some organizational scheme and those groups are separated one from another using section headings. Sectioning serves to {{tqi|]}}. We ''don't'' recycle the same content to come up with additional sections based on our feeling that an article should include a particular section, for example, because we want to highlight some aspect of the topic. Most of the statements in the "In fandom culture" section were the same or similar to statements made elsewhere in the article, and that section overlapped with the scope of other sections. In some respects the statements were poorly supported by sources. Another, distinct, problem is that too much emphasis on fandom culture, including every detail about the use of 15.ai by fans of this and that, is excessive detail on trivial subjects, and is simply unencyclopedic. While many articles have "In popular culture" sections, they are not as accepted as they used to be (this is applicable to any "In fandom culture" section by extension). ] says: {{tqi|Cultural aspects of the subject should be included only if they are supported by reliable secondary or tertiary sources that discuss the subject's cultural impact in some depth. The mere appearance of the subject in a film, song, video game, television show, or the like is insufficient}}. What you came up with in your "In fandom culture" section fails that to a large extent. The mere use of 15.ai by a given online community of fans does not mean that Misplaced Pages has to report on that.
:::Please list or tag problems in other articles, and if you ping me I'd be happy to take a look. ] (]) 21:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::There is enough information about 15.ai's use by fans of various stuff in the Features and the Legacy section. —] 21:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Sure. One article that I recently looked at that has a ''lot'' of unsourced text is ], but having been a participant in Olympiad mathematics, I can safely say that it is notable and much of the information there is correct. If we followed the standards exhibited in this talk page, however, I would feel like over 70% of the article would have to be removed. The 15.ai article is extremely well-sourced in comparison. ] (]) 21:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Thank you. I have added the {{tl|Sources}} template which adds it to ]. ] (]) 22:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC) :::Okay, got it. Thanks for the comments. Is it okay to put info from the now-deleted section into the current version of the article in appropriate places? ] (]) 21:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::You're welcome. I'd like to see how you'd do it, and please think about condensing and not going further than the source in making particular claims. Just to take the first sentence as an example, Scotellaro 2020b doesn't contain "especially popular in the My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom" and doesn't contain "50 voices". The sole fact that 15.ai is being written about on that website is only evidence that someone able to make posts on that website finds it interesting. At the same time, the sections "Development, release, and operation" and "Legacy" already discuss how 15.ai was significantly used by the MLP community and there's no need to restate that using specifically the words "especially popular ..." —] 21:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I understand now, thank you so much for the detailed comments. I'll think about it some more! ] (]) 21:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:05, 8 January 2025

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 15.ai article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
A fact from 15.ai appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 July 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
  • Did you know... that the developer of 15.ai claims that as little as 15 seconds of a person's voice is sufficient to clone it up to human standards using artificial intelligence?
A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2022/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/15.ai.
Misplaced Pages
Former good article15.ai was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 11, 2022Good article nomineeListed
November 18, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconArticles for creation
WikiProject iconThis article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
Note icon
This article was accepted from this draft on 19 December 2024 by reviewer Pokelego999 (talk · contribs).
WikiProject iconInternet Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
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:
WikiProject iconWebsites: Computing Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
WikiProject iconTechnology
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology
WikiProject iconMy Little Pony Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject My Little Pony, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of My Little Pony related articles 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.My Little PonyWikipedia:WikiProject My Little PonyTemplate:WikiProject My Little PonyMy Little Pony
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconArtificial Intelligence
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Artificial Intelligence, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Artificial intelligence 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.Artificial IntelligenceWikipedia:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceTemplate:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceArtificial Intelligence

15.ai finally responds

https://x.com/fifteenai/status/1865439846744871044 RocketKnightX (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Contested deletion

User:Sirfurboy and User:Pokelego999, I rewrote this article from scratch last night. You can see the edit history to prove it. I even asked the closing admin to not give me the old version of the article because I wanted to do the subject justice. I even asked User:Liz what the proper steps I should take to make sure that I was doing everything correctly. I spent hours writing up a neutral, original version of the article as a draft, submitted it to AfC, and continued to make edits throughout the day. Please reconsider the speedy deletion, because it isn't an unaltered and unimproved version of the article. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 15:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm admittedly not too involved in this discussion, so I'll refrain from saying much, but I have no issues with keeping this article around since it seems to meet bare notability and can be verified as being a new version of the article via the creator's edit history. I'd appreciate an admin verifying the edit histories are different so as to dispel all reasonable doubt. However, I do have concerns about the fact there's an ongoing deletion review for the subject. I'm admittedly unsure as to how it's handled when the article is recreated while the deletion review is ongoing, but I do have concerns it may interfere with the discussion. It's still not grounds for a speedy to my knowledge, but there may be problems there. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
That's my mistake. When I was creating the draft, it said that approvals could take up to 8 weeks, so I decided to submit it and continue editing it. I wasn't expecting it to be approved so quickly. But it's definitely not true that what I wrote is an unchanged draft, which was the rationale for this speedy delete. I spent so much time researching and writing this up, and this version of the article has a lot of sources that weren't present in the now-deleted one. The second AfD for the original article was closed as a "delete" due to the sockpuppetry and canvassing, so my new research that was posted after the re-listing was never taken into consideration in the AfD. This version of the article includes all of the new sources that meet reliability and significant coverage. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 16:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I'm posting this as a reference. According to archived discussions on the Teahouse, a good rule of thumb is three independent and reliable sources that demonstrate significant coverage to establish WP:GNG. Here are the major reliable sources that provide significant coverage for the subject:

  • United Daily News . Reliable as one of the largest and oldest-running newspapers in Taiwan. Listed as one of the three major Chinese-language newspapers in List of newspapers in Taiwan. Significant coverage includes an overview of the technology behind 15.ai, particularly noting its ease of use and limited data, and also discusses how 15.ai works, its features, and the viral videos that have spawned using 15.ai. Over 400 (approximate since the article is written in Chinese) words of coverage.
  • Den Fami Nico Gamer . Reliable as listed in WP:VG/RS. Significant coverage includes an overview of the DeepMoji technology used for emotiveness, applications of the voices not restricted to viral videos, and how to use it. Over 400 (approximate since the article is written in Japanese) words of coverage.
  • AUTOMATON . While not listed in WP:VG/RS, AUTOMATON is one of the largest and reputable gaming news outlets in Japan, and has been used in multiple GA's like Only Up!, Visions of Mana, and Sprigatito, Floragato, and Meowscarada. Significant coverage includes DeepMoji, a list of characters available on the application, examples of video content users have created with the platform, an overview of the pronunciation capabilities of the model, as well as a mention of how to use ARPAbet strings. Almost 800 (approximate since the article is written in Japanese) words of coverage.
  • Rionaldi Chandraseta . While the article itself is written on Medium (which is not considered reliable), Medium is only being used as a vessel to host the article itself (similar to how Google Docs can be used to host an article), which is part of a very popular newsletter called Towards Data Science, which has almost 800K followers on social media. Following alone means nothing in determining the reliability of a source, but Rionaldi Chandraseta, the author of the article, is an IEEE-published machine learning specialist who has published papers that are listed on Google Scholar . The newsletter has a solid editorial board that consists of multiple masters and PhD's in machine learning and computer science. Over 1,000 words of English-language coverage detailing every facet of 15.ai, from its capabilities to its underlying research.
  • Yongqiang Li . Since the article is locked to foreigners without an account, I asked a friend to translate this for me. The article goes into great detail about the technology behind 15.ai and talks about its features, its future, and potential problems. The author is a professor at the Harbin Institute of Technology and has multiple publications listed on Google Scholar and ResearchGate .
  • Eurogamer . Reliable as listed in WP:VG/RS. While the main focus of the article isn't 15.ai, it goes into detail the controversy and Twitter exchange that happened when Voiceverse NFT misappropriated 15.ai's work. From However, in now-deleted tweets, Voiceverse was found to have boasted about using its tech for the voice of a cartoon character - which was in fact created using 15.ai, a popular non-commercial text-to-speech service. to "Hey @fifteenai we are extremely sorry about this," Voiceverse NFT wrote. "The voice was indeed taken from your platform, which our marketing team used without giving proper credit. Chubbiverse team has no knowledge of this. We will make sure this never happens again.", this is about 300 words of coverage.
  • Stevivor . After doing more research, I found that Steven Wright, the author of this article, also writes for Inverse, a solid and well-known technology and gaming publication. In addition, Stevivor is reliable and independent, and it is the most-read independent gaming news network in the Oceanic region.
  • Kotaku . While Kotaku is in WP:VG/RS, it also states News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable, (the article is from 2021, so it meets this criteria) but also states {{tq|although editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance}. It's still debated whether an article from the "Odds and Ends" category is considered "News", and the entry in WP:VG/RS says articles should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There is no clear consensus to this, but the description for the "Odds and Ends" category is "Odds and Ends - Gaming Reviews, News, Tips and More.". The argument in the previous AfD was that this article did not meet reliability, although it met independence and significant coverage. I personally believe that this article is reliable.
  • Game Informer, PC Gamer, and Rock, Paper, Shotgun All three of these sources are found under WP:VG/RS, but there has been a debate whether these three met significant coverage. While they all pass WP:100WORDS, it is not a Misplaced Pages policy and their significant coverage can be debated.
  • NME . WP:RS notes NME is reliable in its expertise, and it has been debated whether gaming is one of their areas of expertise. The Misplaced Pages article for NME states that this is so, and gaming is listed as one of NME's header sections, but there has been debate whether NME's expertise extends outside of music. Similar coverage to Eurogamer, but with fewer words, but still above the threshhold for WP:100WORDS (which, again, is not Misplaced Pages policy).
  • Andrew Ng . The author, Andrew Ng, is one of the most famous and influential artificial intelligence researchers in the world, with a healthy Google Scholar profile and was included in the Time 100 Most Influential People in AI list in 2023. While 15.ai is mentioned as a blurb and likely does not meet significant coverage, it shows that the subject wasn't a mere curiosity and was under the radar for a large number of prominent figures in AI while the service was active. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregariousMadness (talk • contribs) 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

However, some of these have been contested in some form, the arguments for which I personally disagreed with. Think of these sources as you will. I still haven't gone over many of the the sources that are used in the newly written page, but I will continue to do my research and update this.

Yes, I'm aware that this is a contentious article that was submitted to AfD. But the AfD was closed largely due to the misbehaving of new Misplaced Pages editors, who are likely to be children, which is not surprising given the popularity of the application among younger people. I'm committed to doing this subject justice, and I argue that this subject not only meets the bare minimum of notability, but meets it well-within question. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 17:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

These sources look largely reliable to me. It was a large part of why I accepted the original draft in the first place, since it's rare to see a draft with such good sourcing. I personally believe this meets notability, especially since it's been clarified outright this is much expanded from the deleted article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Sorry for all the trouble. I never meant for all this to happen. I can get carried away at times and I felt a fire light up inside me when I was writing the new article. I really hope this version gets to stay. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Please fill out the missing stuff in the Japanese source citations

@GregariousMadness: Please see the example for a foreign-language reference below. What's needed are the trans-title, language, quote, and trans-quote params 

{{cite news 
|last=Vučković 
|first=Branko 
|date=28 September 2013 
|title=Železnice Srbije u sve lošijem stanju
|trans-title=Serbian Rail in Increasingly Worse Condition 
|url=https://www.slobodnaevropa.org/a/zeleznice-srbije-u-sve-losijem-stanju/25120244.html 
|access-date=5 November 2024
|website=Radio Slobodna Evropa |language=sh 
|quote=Koliko je železnica u Srbiji zaostala, najbolje se vidi iz poređenja sa Evropskom unijom, gde se vozovi kreću prosečnom brzinom između 200 i 300 kilometara na sat, dok je prosečna brzina na domaćim prugama 44 kilometra, samo nekoliko kilometara brže od prvog voza koji je saobraćao na tek sagrađenoj pruzi Beograd - Niš u septembru 1884. godine. 
|trans-quote=The extent to which the railway system in Serbia has fallen behind is best illustrated by comparing it with the European Union, where trains travel at an average speed of between 200 and 300 kilometers per hour, while the average speed on domestic tracks is just 44 kilometers, only a few kilometers faster than the first train that operated on the newly constructed Belgrade–Niš line in September 1884.}}

—Alalch E. 12:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Done, thank you! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 13:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Having translated titles is really important, but it would also be very nice and genuinely helps verifiability to have translated relevant quotes. If it needs to be multiple quotes from the same source, cite the same source multiple times each time with a different suitable quote and I might convert the citation method to shortened footnotes. If you determine that any of the Asian sources aren't essential, and the statements are already made verifiable using English-language sources, please remove them. —Alalch E. 13:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh... I just saw this message after I submitted an edit translating all of the other sources. What should I do? Should I revert my edit? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 13:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
No worries, please see Special:Diff/1264103607. Basically, there's no need to use {{efn}} for translations of quotes. —Alalch E. 13:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
In other words, what Japanese text in the reference no. 2 (as of special:permalink/1264103607) supports the statement "15.ai was conceived as a research project by a developer known as "15" during their undergraduate studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and was later implemented following the developer's successful exit from a startup venture." and what is the English translation of that Japanese text. —Alalch E. 13:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I see, I'll get to that in a bit. I'm expanding some other sections but I'll definitely make those edits soon. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 13:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
@GregariousMadness: Please check the article out now. This is how it should be because this citation style enables multiple relevant quotes each with its translation, for any given single reference. It's just a start. —Alalch E. 16:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I will use this style going forward. Thanks so much for your help! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 02:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking for Twitter videos

Hi! I'm looking for a few videos that had circulated around Twitter around 2021.

  • A video of the Heavy from Team Fortress 2 in Home Alone 2 that was broadcast on a news network (it might have been CNN, but I don't remember) Found it. It was indeed CNN, and the transcript of the segment can be found here: .
  • A video of the Team Fortress 2 voice actors commenting on 15.ai and AI voice cloning technology around 2021. I believe this question was asked to the voice actors at a convention panel (possibly Comic-Con?)
  • A video of Nathan Vetterlein, the voice actor of the Scout, reacting to a line generated by 15.ai as the Scout.

If anyone has any clue where I could find these, it would be of much help. Thank you! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 00:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Toolify

Re Special:Diff/1266840008

Toolify articles are obviously WP:RSML. Not a reliable source. I've removed hopefully all content sourced to it. —Alalch E. 13:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll look for more reliable sources to support these statements! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 15:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Strange repetition of content

@GregariousMadness: What are you thinking when you add a sentence like Special:Diff/1266840373 when the exactly same thing is stated up above in the article? I've seen you make such additions to this article before and I've reverted some of them. You're even repeating links. Please see MOS:OVERLINK. But the more significant problem is not overlinking as such, the problem is repetition. —Alalch E. 13:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

My line of thinking was that if someone were to be linked to the specific section of the article (say through the link 15.ai#In fandom culture), a summarizing sentence would be helpful to get the reader up to speed if they hadn't read the earlier sections of the article. Also, it can be pretty hard to keep track of what information has already been stated since sometimes I don't realize what content has been removed by other editors. I've been using the article Among Us as inspiration for formatting and style, and I do believe that there's enough rationale to keep an "In fandom culture" section for the article. I'll be doing more research to support the statements that had been supported by Toolify, but I believe that the other statements can be kept in that section. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 15:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Firstly, please don't revert my edit saying "per talk page" when there's nothing like a consensus regarding that edit on the talk page, like you did in Special:Diff/1266859044. In my edit summary (diff) I wrote: this entire section is undue, veers on trivial, and most importantly, it repeats content already in the article; some unique statements can be reincorporated elsewhere. Saying "per talk page" would have meant that there was a consensus to revert my removal, and there wasn't.
The Among Us article has no bearing here. It is not even a relatively recent FA-class article to assert that it contains examples of best editing practices. A GA badge does not mean very much; a GA review is performed by a single reviewer most of the time. You should not primarily be using a single GA as inspiration, but should be guided by best editing practices. Among those is the commonsense convention that articles should not repeat themselves. An encyclopedia article is a standalone work of non-fiction prose. It should be written to function the best for a reader who will read it from start to finish. The article's statements are grouped together according to some organizational scheme and those groups are separated one from another using section headings. Sectioning serves to clarify articles by breaking up text, organize content, and populate the table of contents. We don't recycle the same content to come up with additional sections based on our feeling that an article should include a particular section, for example, because we want to highlight some aspect of the topic. Most of the statements in the "In fandom culture" section were the same or similar to statements made elsewhere in the article, and that section overlapped with the scope of other sections. In some respects the statements were poorly supported by sources. Another, distinct, problem is that too much emphasis on fandom culture, including every detail about the use of 15.ai by fans of this and that, is excessive detail on trivial subjects, and is simply unencyclopedic. While many articles have "In popular culture" sections, they are not as accepted as they used to be (this is applicable to any "In fandom culture" section by extension). MOS:POPCULT says: Cultural aspects of the subject should be included only if they are supported by reliable secondary or tertiary sources that discuss the subject's cultural impact in some depth. The mere appearance of the subject in a film, song, video game, television show, or the like is insufficient. What you came up with in your "In fandom culture" section fails that to a large extent. The mere use of 15.ai by a given online community of fans does not mean that Misplaced Pages has to report on that.
There is enough information about 15.ai's use by fans of various stuff in the Features and the Legacy section. —Alalch E. 21:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Okay, got it. Thanks for the comments. Is it okay to put info from the now-deleted section into the current version of the article in appropriate places? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'd like to see how you'd do it, and please think about condensing and not going further than the source in making particular claims. Just to take the first sentence as an example, Scotellaro 2020b doesn't contain "especially popular in the My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom" and doesn't contain "50 voices". The sole fact that 15.ai is being written about on that website is only evidence that someone able to make posts on that website finds it interesting. At the same time, the sections "Development, release, and operation" and "Legacy" already discuss how 15.ai was significantly used by the MLP community and there's no need to restate that using specifically the words "especially popular ..." —Alalch E. 21:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I understand now, thank you so much for the detailed comments. I'll think about it some more! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: