Talk:15.ai#COI

: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)

@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: {{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.

::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|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: {{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 Wikipedia 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)

{{Wikipedia:Peer review/15.ai/archive1}}

I've cleaned up the MOS:JARGON from the background section per the peer review from @Lethargilistic . While neat, the indepth information about WaveNet is accessible, and explained, at WaveNet. As the article subject is 15.ai, it does not need to get overly technical with what WaveNet did. Emm90 (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Talk:15.ai/GA2}}