Talk:15.ai#rfctag

@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}}

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

• 15chill.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

See WP:WTRMT, you don't just remove them because you personally do not like them. I explained in the edit summary why I added each tag. Please, you really need to stop treating maintenance tags as an attack. You claim you want the article to be "Good Article" status, but whenever flaws are pointed out in the article to be fixed you get overly defensive about it all. The entire point of cleanup tags is that they put the article in categories so people who do cleanup can go through and improve the article, it isn't an attack or a vendetta against the article, @GregariousMadness WP:CTAGS, stop treating them like they are. The most recent Good Article review literally failed with reasons of "several in depth off topic coverages" as well as "Fourth, relies heavily on some sources that are clearly not RS (example TheLinuxCode) and many of questionable reliability." Tag bombing is "the unjustified addition" of multiple tags, not just simply adding multiple maintenance tags.

"This article may relate to a different subject or has undue weight on an aspect of the subject."

Undue weight is given in this article to VoiceverseNFT Scandal, it is the single largest portion of the history section of the article despite only being tangentially related to 15.ai overall. This realistically doesn't need so many words dedicated to it.

"This article may contain an excessive number of citations."

The article has 114 sources and uses excessive citations. Surely the article does not require seven citations to support the statement "Upon its launch, 15.ai was offered as a free" followed by more citations supporting it is "non-commercial". It also probably doesn't need 15 sources cited for "Voiceverse NFT had taken credit for voice lines generated from 15.ai without permission", followed by more citations saying they were sold as NFTs. WP:REPCITE {{tq|If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill}}

"This article may contain excessive or inappropriate references to self-published sources."

• The fansite Equestria Daily is a self-published source, it is referenced six different times.
• YongYea, a YouTuber, is both a self-published source as well as dubious in terms of reliability.

"Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable."

• Animesuperhero is not a reliable souce per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_383#c-VickKiang-20220830222700-Mike_Christie-20220830215000]
• shazoo.ru has no listed editorial board or policies, making it dubious
• YongYea, a YouTuber, is both a self-published source as well as dubious in terms of reliability.
• Mobidictum.com according to the archived version of the page allows you to submit sponsored articles.
• https://thegeek.games/ has no notable editorial board or policies on a glance. It also lists WCCFTech as the source of their information which seems to have been deemed generally unreliable Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_404#c-Nathanielcwm-20230503162300-RfC:_Wccftech_articles, it is also listed Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Unreliable_sources as unreliable. Given that its information is drawn from a source that is unreliable, I don't think that makes it reliable.
• The article also currently cites WCCF Tech, which as noted above is listed as an unreliable source.
• StopGame.ru has a big glaring notice at the bottom of it that says using any information from the website without express permission is forbidden. According to their "About" section it also sounds like it is WP:SPS.
• https://ixbt.games has no clear editorial board and the present article linked doesn't even seem to list an author.
• https://gamezo.gg has no clear editorial board or process and describes itself in its about page as a place for game tutorials, it also seems to exist to advertise dubiously legal casinos.

"Primary Sources/Sources Too Close."

The entirety of Temitope's article seems to just repeat what is said by 15.ai on their Twitter account.

The article also cites 15.ai for information directly and has an entire quote from them posting on hackernews.

As for my identity, I locked myself out of my account and cannot be bothered to create a new one. Anywho, good luck fixing the issues. Or ignore them, I really don't care. 172.90.69.231 (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)