Jump to content

Talk:15.ai

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COI

[edit]

Appreciate the reminder, PortalFan22. The reason is actually quite straightforward: there is a clear single-purpose editing going on here with yourself, GregariousMadness and HackerKnownAs (and perhaps also socking?). ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 18:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 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 Wikipedia). I'll make an effort to branch out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PortalFan22 (talk • contribs)

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. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 18:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm don't know how I can help here, but reading through Template:COI 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...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PortalFan22 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia article only to be slapped with a conflict of interest kinda killed the fun out of it. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PortalFan22 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit notice

[edit]

Can we get a consensus to put an edit notice here on this talk page to hopefully help quell the WP:NOTFORUM and vandalism problem happening here quite a bit? There was a similar edit notice implemented at Talk:SCP Foundation (which also gets a lot of NOTFORUM comments) recently and it can be seen at Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:SCP Foundation. wizzito | say hello! 00:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 65.190.56.180 (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More info needed on Troy Baker scandal

[edit]

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? Tacotron2 (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Potential good article nomination

[edit]

In preparation for a good article nomination, I am making edits to the article to ensure that it follows the good article criteria. Please post any urgent changes that should be made. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source on the use of 15.ai in pornography

[edit]

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 pornography. For instance, the Pony Zone videos is a series of erotic musical videos that heavily samples 15.ai as the vocals—the creators of such videos make frequent use of salacious emotional contextualizers and punctuation/ARPABET tricks to induce the models to grunt, sigh, and moan convincingly.

While one can find numerous examples of 15.ai being used in the context of Rule 34 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. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:15.ai/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SirGallantThe4th (talk · contribs) 23:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, and thank you for your GA nomination. I will be reviewing this article using the template below. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Well written throughout, though the "Resistance from voice actors" subsection seems redundant? I suppose it's not exactly the same as the mention of impersonation and fraud above it, but more information included there would be useful.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Looks good. The lead section summarizes the article concisely.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Notes and references look good.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). The other sources look reliable, but there are a few instances of potentially unreliable sources:
  1. the main website itself,
  2. the Twitter account of the subject,
  3. the 4chan link to the preservation project, and
  4. the YongYea Youtube video.

These are generally unreliable because they are self-published sources, but according to Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works, even though non-self-published sources are preferable, self-published sources can be used to support a direct quotation. (1) and (2) are used to corroborate the names of the developer and the model, so I believe this is okay (though obviously it is preferable that a non-self-published source be used, if at all possible). (3) is... iffy. Definitely peculiar to use 4chan as a source, but in this case, it is being used to support a direct quotation. I will give it a pass, though anyone else can veto my assessment if necessary.

As for (4), Youtube is not considered a reliable source (I learned it the hard way, myself) so that citation should be removed entirely, even if the publisher is generally known to be reputable.

The above comments have been resolved by the nominator. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2c. it contains no original research. The phrase "—as is the case with 15.ai—" in the "Copyrighted material in deep learning subsection" should be left out because the citation itself does not say this directly, and instead can be inferred by the reader.

The citation attached to the sentence explaining how the CMU Pronouncing Dictionary reduced the set of phonemes from 50 to 39 doesn't seem to explicitly support it. Is there a better citation that explains these changes explicitly instead of just linking the CMU Pronouncing Dictionary's home page?

The above comments have been resolved by the nominator. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. The main topic is addressed.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Good amount of focus. The Troy Baker scandal did seem to delve into the Twitter exchange quite a bit, but considering that they were also the focus of attention in the cited articles, this should be fine.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. WP:EDITORIAL: Remove the word "significantly" in "significantly reducing the required training time". The preface "Although the application costs several thousands of dollars a month to keep up and maintain" is unnecessary, unless you find a reliable source for this.

The above comments have been resolved by the nominator. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. A couple minor disagreements on certain things here and there from a few editors (usually about grammar and word choice), but appears stable for the most part.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Images are tagged correctly. I noticed that the original link to the logo that was uploaded to Commons [1] has been nominated for deletion since April. Is this a problem? If not, ignore this.

15.ai is nearly ready, So please wait a bit longer

6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. The images included are relevant and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. On hold. The article in its current state is close to ready for good article status, but some changes need to be made regarding the citations and neutrality.

All comments above have been resolved and the article is ready for good article status. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick review. I've edited the article to address all of your comments. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by HackerKnownAs (talk). Self-nominated at 03:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Raised to Good Article status within 7 days, long enough, multiple independent sources, I think that the cloning of a voice is pretty interesting to a broad audience. The hook could be shortened a bit, happy for further suggestions. Cardofk (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page issues and additional controversies?

[edit]

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. Pickled Undergarments (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 biased 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 Manual of Style. 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. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 nominated for deletion at Commons. I have nominated commons:File:GLaDOS.png for deletion at Commons as File:Glados.png at enwiki is copyrighted and has a fair use rationale. File:Screenshot from The Tax Breaks.png 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 WP:POINTed edit, I would add File:Screenshot from The Tax Breaks.png to the My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic 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 Them's Fightin' Herds. 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. 93 (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voiceverse Twitter image

[edit]

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 Dogman15 (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that Voiceverse owns the copyright of their Twitter icon, but I don't see why it shouldn't be included if Wikipedia allows it to be uploaded. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted material in deep learning section

[edit]

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 fair use. 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" [2]. 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? Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 06:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False information

[edit]

Why does someone keep lying that 15.ai was closed down for good due to creative differences? Gableruneintfeb88 (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Habanero-tan (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
because its been out for about 2-3 years at this point and no updates are coming from the creator. Mr.DetectiveMan (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Past Tense

[edit]

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. Elude107 (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. SuperStain (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change "under maintenance" to "dead".

[edit]

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. 94.192.47.230 (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

probably ⇒ Zhing-Za, they/them, 17:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok 72.45.9.148 (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

has anyone been able to trace the creator and ask if it will EVER be put back up so we can update this article? TheLostLaugh (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Thought 1915 (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found evidence of the site being used to host a TF2 server via SourceBans and what appears to be a landing page for the server itself, 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 remove mentions of similar websites or to promote 15.ai/remove perceived criticism of the website. 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. SuperStain (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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? TheLostLaugh (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 15[dot]ai domain for another purpose.
whatever happens, I categorized the site as abandoned. as Wikipedia is not a place for original research, it would not be correct to display the server hosting findings in the Wikipedia 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. Thought 1915 (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

aa de unatkozom… inkább megyek a gc-be 213.197.77.221 (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mi? Ez egy Wikipédia beszélgetési oldal. ⇒ Zhing-Za, they/them, 03:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing with respect to the last two topics of Past Tense

[edit]

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 a TF2 server 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 15[dot]ai 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. Thought 1915 (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RocketKnightX:
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. ltbdl☃ (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. RocketKnightX (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, he said that. 19 months ago. ltbdl☃ (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 15[dot]ai resting at 104.21.36.149 and tf2[dot]15[dot]ai 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 Wikipedia page instead of the website oddly enough. Thought 1915 (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the proof of an updated Twitter profile https://x.com/fifteenai/photo RocketKnightX (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 Thought 1915 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. SuperStain (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although archive[dot]org has blacklisted 15's Twitter account, his Twitter account's replies and bits of the Wikipedia 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. Thought 1915 (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RocketKnightX: why are you so insistent on marking it as under maintenance? ltbdl☃ (talk) 10:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The project is not abandoned.

[edit]

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

To @RocketKnightX,
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. Thought 1915 (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! Wrong post! Here it is! https://x.com/kokytkdl/status/1840395973647888432 RocketKnightX (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I can only 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 Thought 1915, 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 HackerKnownAs have some kind of vested interest in protecting the site's image, and that such interest will interfere with the neutrality of this article. SuperStain (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 15[dot]ai 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. Thought 1915 (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperStain 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. Thought 1915 (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. SuperStain (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RocketKnightX: this is a screenshot of https://pony.best, what does that prove? ltbdl☃ (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will never understand. RocketKnightX (talk) 08:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
???????????? ltbdl☃ (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RocketKnightX: can you explain? ltbdl☃ (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. RocketKnightX (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RocketKnightX: i really don't. ltbdl☃ (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RocketKnightX: do you have evidence to back up your assertions? ltbdl☃ (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just be patient, alright? We don't know yet. RocketKnightX (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's a no? ltbdl☃ (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said we don't know yet. RocketKnightX (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 [3] 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 [4]. 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. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wanna hash this out on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard? ltbdl☃ (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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? Knitsey (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well, on the "in operation" side, no sources. on the "has ended" side, no sources. ltbdl☃ (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Knitsey (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ltbdl @Knitsey 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. RocketKnightX (talk) 08:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Knitsey (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CMU Pronouncing Dictionary

[edit]

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. SuperStain (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't, no. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about this article.

[edit]

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 [5] here. You can even pinpoint exact edits which are being made by the timestamps, such as [6] 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 [7]. However, during the drafting process a comment was left that read 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 WP:SPA 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 [8] 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 >Do you have a Code of Conduct? Of course: 15.ai/code their Code of Conduct is the 15.ai Code of Conduct??? Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SPA Activity

[edit]

I have discovered further problems with the way things have transpired around this article. I surveyed the discussions that took place at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/15.ai in the past and have come to find that multiple keep votes which were wholly unscrutinized appeared to be from WP:SPA 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. 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 AfDSpecial:Diff/1134453033 where they voted keep Special:Diff/1135132021 and then disappeared again. Special:Contributions/SirGallantThe4th. The instructions for reviewing a GA, as I read them, state any uninvolved and registered user with sufficient knowledge and experience with Wikipedia 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 User:SirGallantThe4th 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. Given the blatant off-site activity and WP:SPA WP:Canvassing that seems to have taken place surrounding the articles deletion nomination, 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 deleted due to copyright violations raises grave, grave concerns about the competency of the reviewing editor. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Concerns

[edit]

I am of a mind to nominate this article for deletion again, because I'm not sure this meets WP:GNG, and I am quite certain that the previous process was manipulated by WP:SPA 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 [9]
  • GameInformer, Jan 18, 2021 at 11:54 AM, Directly References the Kotaku article. [10]
  • PC Gamer, January 19, 2021, Directly references the Kotaku article [11]
  • Rock, Paper, Shotgun, Jan. 18, 2021, Directly references the Kotaku article. [12]
  • Automatron, Jan. 19, 2021. Doesn't reference Kotaku. [13]
  • Den-fami Nico Gamer, Jan 18. 2021. References the Kotaku. [14]
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 WP:GAMESOURCES regarding Kotaku, 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 WP:SPS. This seems to very clearly fail WP:SUSTAINED. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 05:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Thought 1915 (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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'. Wikipedia 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??? Special:Contributions/216.194.47.139. 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. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

15.ai

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Detailed concerns about large-scale COI editing and neutrality issues in this article can be found at Talk:15.ai#Concerns about this article. GA criterion 4 is thus under serious question. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the current iteration of the article was as it was when the article was first accepted as a good article years ago. Much of the COI edits have been from vandals, and it's evident that the article has a major vandalism problem, the subject being a rather popular topic of discussion. I disagree with removing the GA label due to the edits of some bad-faith actors. HackerKnownAs (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While is this a good point, I would also like to express the concern over the fact that many of the citations make heavy references to one Kotaku article. Although I am repeating an concern already expressed in the above talk topic, I feel that it should be mentioned in this talk topic as well. Thought 1915 (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note, as I did on the talk-page discussion linked, that the GA approval very probably should have never happened. The original COI discussion topic was never rectified and was randomly expunged from the talkpage before the article was assessed.[15] The individual who assessed the article as good only assessed one other article as good, and that article was deleted for large amounts of copyvio. It was an assessment provided by a new reviewer, after an IP editor randomly elevated the article to B Status[16] and expunged an entire talkpage discussion about COI editing. The one who reviewed the article has done little else Special:Contributions/SirGallantThe4th after the review, departed, and returned only to defend 15.ai from deletion[17] and then promptly returned to the ether. Again, there was considerable activity by individuals involved in the "Pony Preservation Project" to edit this article [18] including bragging about having their artwork featured on a wikipedia article [19] the same artwork that is presumably the logo that was copyvio'd off the wikimedia commons and which was improperly re-added to the article. There are blatant references on the PPP thread on the archive _which was included as a source_ on the article that show users suggesting fabricating sources and showing a coordinated effort to drive the direction of the article. Given the involvement of the PPP with 15.ai and the extensive editing done by members of the PPP, it is clear WP:COI. Given the circular nature of the sources (which were deemed reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Reliable_sources, which is dubiously applicable to this article, as the article is tangentially related to video games) and the fact that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Reliable_sources says that editors should be cautious about blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance which the 15.ai article clearly is. If the Kotaku isn't reliable as "blog/geeky posts", that means every source that references the Kotaku article is likewise unreliable. Given that, the WP:NOTABILITY of the article itself is dubious. There are sources from Jan 2021 and then it only resurfaces in media covering a controversy of Voicesense, not articles about 15.ai itself. The problem with this article goes much deeper than some bad-faith actors who made random edits to the article over the years. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 05:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RGA, there's no minimum experience requirement for GA reviewers – questioning an editor's review history isn't based on Wikipedia policy.
The COI claims don't meet WP:COI burden of evidence – community discussion on PPP forums doesn't constitute "direct financial or close personal relationships."
Per WP:VG/RS, gaming outlets like Kotaku are considered reliable for tech coverage. The article meets WP:GNG through significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Gaps in coverage don't invalidate WP:SUSTAINED once notability is established.
Removing talk page content followed WP:TPO guidelines for outdated discussions. If specific violations exist, they should be raised at WP:AN/I rather than used to challenge GA status.
Furthermore, the last time WP:NOTABILITY of the subject was questioned, it was unanimously agreed that it met notability. Per WP:NTEMP, the relevant quote is "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." HackerKnownAs (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RGA, there's no minimum experience requirement for GA reviewers – questioning an editor's review history isn't based on Wikipedia policy.
It is entirely relevant when the editor in question had little activity on Wikipedia, reviewed two articles and two articles alone, and flagged them both as good when both articles had issues that should have failed them. Very specifically, this article failed GA Criteria for reliable sourcing when it was reviewed because it used WeGotThisCovered as a source [20] which has been an unreliable source on Wikipedia since 2020 WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED as well as using The Batch, which during the draft process was said to be an unreliable source.
The COI claims don't meet WP:COI burden of evidence – community discussion on PPP forums doesn't constitute "direct financial or close personal relationships."
The COI claims that were first brought against yourself, PortalFan22, and GregariousMadness Talk:15.ai#COI were never adequately addressed and were perfectly relevant. Moreover, the discussion was wrongfully expunged by IP Editor vandalismSpecial:Diff/1090463388. When the project you are writing about contains the notation Special shoutouts go to 4chan's /mlp/ and its anons who have spent hundreds of hours collecting, cleaning, and organizing clips of dialogue taken from the show My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. Their collective efforts as well as their constructive criticism via thorough tests of experimental model versions have proven to be extremely helpful and ultimately indispensable to the development of my work and when the PPP cites 15.ai's code of conduct as their own code of conduct, yes, participating in off-wiki discussions about editing an article about something they are heavily involved in the development of constitutes a WP:COI. When material goods, such as artwork and logos, are being provided to 15.ai by PPP, that is a clear relationship. When PPP is directing individuals to edit the article to include information about PPP that is a clear and blatant conflict of interest.
Per WP:VG/RS, gaming outlets like Kotaku are considered reliable for tech coverage.
Per WP:VG/RS, 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. The Kotaku Article is filed under Odds and Ends [21], not News. The article is not tagged as News. It is not a news post.
The article meets WP:GNG through significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Gaps in coverage don't invalidate WP:SUSTAINED once notability is established.
Furthermore, the last time WP:NOTABILITY of the subject was questioned, it was unanimously agreed that it met notability.
Notability isn't established. The coverage is trivial, and the previous AfD on this article was interfered with by blatant WP:SPA accounts that accounted for 4 Keep votes[22][23][24][25], and the AfD was specifically closed with the message Although not unanimous. The article plainly fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSUSTAINED which says Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. The Eurogamer coverage isn't about 15.ai, the 2022 converage is solely about the Voiceverse controversy and stolen content from 15.ai, it is not sufficient to establish notability for 15.ai.
I find it odd that you consider an IP Editor who did nothing but vandalize Wikipedia pages aside from increasing this article to B Status and expunging a thread about WP:COI editing to have followed WP:TPO guidelines. In fact, WP:TPO explicitly states: The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. The only exception given for deleting talk page content is Delete. It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself (as opposed to comments and discussion about the treatment of the subject in the article).
Nothing in WP:TPO allows for the wholesale deletion of a valid concern of WP:COI just because 3 months had transpired since the issue was brought up. Archival exists for a reason. Closing discussions exists for a reason. It is wholly inappropriate to delete and expunge the COI topic. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, the suggestion that 15.ai does not meet notability is dumbfounding. It pioneered accessible neural voice synthesis, was widely covered in tech media, and influenced numerous subsequent AI voice projects. I would not be exaggerating when I say its advent was one of the biggest news in the AI space in 2020 and 2021. Whether or not you agree with how the GA review was conducted, the project’s significance in AI development is well-documented and indisputable. The coverage is certainly not trivial, and the attempt to downplay it by cherry-picking coverage gaps or questioning the reliability of established tech journalism (and patently ignoring the sources that *are* reliable) does not seem motivated by Wikipedia policy.
~~ SirGallantThe4th (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, your continued penchant of vanishing from Wikipedia and returning only for championing the existence of this article is highly unusual.
I would not be exaggerating when I say its advent was one of the biggest news in the AI space in 2020 and 2021 the project’s significance in AI development is well-documented and indisputable
These are not only wholly uncited and unsubstantiated claims, but claims which would indicate you have some sort of interest in this project and, again, should have never been involved in assessing the article in the first place. I am not going to repeat my points about why much of the sourcing is unreliable. If there is such wide, well-documented, and indisputable source coverage, where is it? Why is none of it represented in the article? Why is it that the only sources used were WP:SPS and unreliable sources?
The coverage is certainly not trivial, and the attempt to downplay it by cherry-picking coverage gaps or questioning the reliability of established tech journalism (and patently ignoring the sources that *are* reliable) does not seem motivated by Wikipedia policy.
It's not "cherry-picking" to state the plain fact that the sources used are not reliable for the purposes they are being used for. Kotaku's Odds and Ends culture section is not News. Kotaku is deemed reliable for News Posts during this time period. Articles which circularly refer to Kotaku's Odds and Ends piece within the same week as the Kotaku article does not represent WP:SIGCOV. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What a concerning post. It’s extremely strange that my editing patterns are being used to cast suspicion on the subject’s notability and its GA status. As someone who works in AI, I naturally took interest in reviewing the 15.ai article given its significance in voice synthesis - in its heyday, it was literally the biggest thing in the voice AI space. The implication that my “return” to defend it from deletion was suspicious ignores the simple fact that many editors follow topics they find an interest in, and the fact that one can stay logged into my account without wanting to contribute to Wikipedia.
I suggest stepping back and seeing how presumptuous (and frankly alienating) your comments are. You’ve crafted an elaborate theory about coordinated editing and suspicious motives based solely on contribution patterns. Not every editor needs to be constantly active to make valid contributions, and returning to defend an article I reviewed from deletion is perfectly natural. Occam’s Razor applies here, and I hope anyone else who reads this can see it for themselves as well.
~~ SirGallantThe4th (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be coordinated disruptive editing going on. While the 15.ai article has experienced vandalism before, the current situation is unprecedented. The above editor's removal of well-sourced content followed by claims of insufficient citations is particularly concerning. That a non-neutral paragraph that blatantly violated WP:YESPOV (which I reverted recently) was "approved at DRN" is also strongly questionable, especially given the unusual spike in DRN activity as well.
I plan to restore the article next week in accordance with WP:BRD, and I hope other long-term editors familiar with the article's development can assist (including yourself). Per WP:ATD, I don't believe GA status should be removed until we've made a good-faith effort to address any legitimate concerns through collaborative editing. The current issues, while worth discussing, can be resolved through normal Wikipedia processes rather than immediately reverting to non-GA status. HackerKnownAs (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest stepping back and seeing how presumptuous (and frankly alienating) your comments are.
There is broad evidence of off-Wiki coordination to edit the article, coupled with the emergence of clear WP:SPA activity and manipulation in both the AfD and the editing of the article. It is not, frankly, presumptuous or absurd to suspect something is suspicious about an editor who erroneously assesses 2 articles as good, one of which is full of copyvio, and then disappears for an extended amount of time and returns only to defend this article. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve said multiple times that you have evidence of off-wiki coordination to edit the article, and yet you haven’t posted solid evidence at all. I wasn’t aware of any forum before I came across this article while surfing through random AI related articles two years ago, so how does that make my involvement with the article a coordinated affair? The burden of proof lies with the editor making serious accusations, and forum discussions and editing patterns alone don’t constitute evidence whatsoever. If you have actual evidence of coordination, please post them instead of throwing unfounded accusations at editors who just want to help.
~~ SirGallantThe4th (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be bludgeoning and belaboring the point to reiterate, again, the issues I already pointed to in the talk-page discussion and above, if you are not inclined to read what is already provided, I cannot help you. Whether you yourself were involved in the coordination is immaterial, my point is that because there was demonstrable coordination it is not unreasonable to view your assesment, disappearance, and return solely to defend the article, subsequent re-disappearance, and subsequent re-return to defend the article, with suspicion given the fact that the AfD was manipulated. I have levied no specific accusation against you beyond the fact that your assesment was improper, that your only other assesment was deleted for copyvio, that you were an inexperienced editor, and that you did little else after the review was done. All of these statements are easily verifiable. After your approval of 15.ai you made 9 Talk Page Edits, 7 Edits flagged as minor, and 8 Mainspace edits and then you disappeared. If you feel particularly aggreived at my characterization of your activity as "little" prior to reviewing the articles, I quite specifically mean that within your first 25 edits on Wikipedia you assessed an article now deleted for copyvio as good and then assessed an article that utilized a source deemed unreliable since 2020 and sources deemed unreliable when the article was a draft as good. That isn't a whole lot of activity and represents a lack of experience. Your improper assesment of the article as Good was also used at the AfD with the discussion being relisted by an admin who commented I'm very reluctant to delete an article that is a current GA. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out that I haven’t done “little else” on Wikipedia, I was responsible for creating the Berlin draw section in the Berlin Defence article, which has since been heavily cited numerous times in Chess.com articles, Youtube videos, and other places on the Internet. It’s not fair to pass judgment for not being active on Wikipedia when I prefer to edit articles where I’m familiar with the subject rather than editing as many articles as possible to pump my contributions number up.
If you want more volunteers to help improve Wikipedia, I suggest not scrutinizing casual editors. I’m honestly a bit offended that I somehow have less credibility just because I don’t edit articles frequently.
~~ SirGallantThe4th (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was responsible for creating the Berlin draw section in the Berlin Defence article
Which you did before the assesment. My statement, which you are apparently misunderstanding, was The one who reviewed the article has done little else...after the review. Which is to say, you made few edits after you assesed the article and then you left for 6 months and returned only for the AfD and then departed again. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn’t aware editors were required to edit Wikipedia 24/7 to have their past contributions count. It doesn’t look like it from reading WP:VOLUNTEER. Apologies for having a life outside Wikipedia. I’ll try to do better.
~~ SirGallantThe4th (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the maelstrom above, much of which seems to have little to do with the GA criteria (notability concerns should be taken to WP:AFD, conduct concerns to WP:ANI, COI concerns to WP:COIN), the point of relevant contention seems to be whether the article is overdependent on a Kotaku source? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main point of contention for the Good Article Criteria is reliability of sources and breadth of coverage. The Kotaku used isn't from the part of Kotaku that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Reliable_sources clarifies is generally reliable. The Kotaku used comes from Kotaku's "Odds and Ends" section, with VGRSN noting that caution should be applied to Kotaku's geeky/blog content, and all of the coverage of 15.ai comes either the same way of the Kotaku article, almost always referncing the Kotaku Article, or comes a year later with trivial mentions of 15.ai while covering the Voiceuniverse plagarism controversy. Prior to my excising them, the article relied heavily on WP:SPS and stuff posted on Gwern and other personal blogs. Gwern, notably, describes itself as The goal of these pages is not to be a model of concision, maximizing entertainment value per word, or to preach to a choir by elegantly repeating a conclusion. Rather, I am attempting to explain things to my future self, who is intelligent and interested, but has forgotten as well as fansites such as "Equestria Daily", which have been previously noted at WP:RSN to generally be reliable when dealing with interviews of the cast/crew of My Little Pony or official coverage from Hasbro only Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_100#Two_My_Little_Pony:_Frienship_is_Magic_sources.
In terms of "Broad Coverage", it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail, the article does not seem to stay focused on 15.ai and a number of the sources used and a great deal of the content is simply about the underlying technology and a scandal.
The neutrality of the article is also up for debate as the "Reception" section includes only positive mentions and sources misrepresented to praise 15.ai specifically. For instance, Rock, Paper, Shotgun that is cited says Machine learning is absolutely fascinating and yet I mostly just enjoy when people use impressive tech to create weird skits and memes, the article currently represents this statement in the reception section as Lauren Morton of Rock, Paper, Shotgun and Natalie Clayton of PCGamer called it "fascinating,". Similarly, the PCGamer piece actually reads Spotted by Kotaku over the weekend, 15.ai is a deep-learning text-to-speech tool trained on a library of audio clips for dozens of characters. It's all very fascinating to read about These quotes have been misconstrued into being glowing reviews of 15.ai itself when the articles are simply saying that the underlying technology is fascinating or fascinating to read about. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to fix these issues BrocadeRiverPoems? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this entire discussion sounds more like one person with a personnal vendetta against it
my opinion is there are alot of articles that have way worse sources that people should focus on deleting, not this one 108.191.41.11 (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of this article is not being proposed here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Fails criteria 2, several uncited claims in the article. Fails 4, the article is written to promote and celebrate 15.ai, its creations, and whatever the "Pony Preservation Project" is. Its also written by people who have a habit of defending the article whenever it is called into question and then running away. Probably fails 5 as well, with the large-scale edits being made. 210.10.4.224 (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


RFC on Status of Web Site

[edit]

How should the current status of the 15.ai web site be listed in the infobox?

  • A. Under maintenance.
  • B. Abandoned.
  • C. Omit the Current Status field from the infobox.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Survey

[edit]
I'd say something like "under maintenance since <date>" to avoid original research. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(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, North8000 (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, there is a source for the website being down for maintenance since 2022.
Since this was clearly from DRN, I wonder what its participants have to say and am surprised they have not commented yet. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a source? Where? 2400:79E0:8041:4880:1804:EAEA:346E:9670 (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can use https://archive.ph/sk2VL as a source. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abandoned, by a creator who has disappeared entirely from the internet. – SJ + 22:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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) Aaron Liu (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia 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. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Should the opening sentence of the article refer to the subject in the past tense? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, updated. – SJ + 22:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Thought 1915 (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:15.ai&oldid=1256537661"