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 |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 16 January 2023. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | 15.ai has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 11, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about 15.ai. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 15.ai at the Reference desk. |
![]() | A fact from 15.ai appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 9 July 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: SirGallantThe4th ( talk · contribs) 23:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
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)
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). |
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.
The above comments have been resolved by the nominator. SirGallantThe4th ( talk) 18:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC) |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. |
The above comments have been resolved by the nominator. SirGallantThe4th ( talk) 18:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC) |
![]() |
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. | The above comments have been resolved by the nominator. SirGallantThe4th ( talk) 18:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC) |
![]() |
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. | All comments above have been resolved and the article is ready for good article status. SirGallantThe4th ( talk) 18:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC) |
Thanks for the quick review. I've edited the article to address all of your comments. — HackerKnownAs ( talk) 18:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
22:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by HackerKnownAs ( talk). Self-nominated at 03:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
اني مصطفى 37.236.83.200 ( talk) 05:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
A movie about a boy named Marco 2601:244:4A00:FB0:4094:2387:40DA:9A06 ( talk) 03:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Mi pequeño pony 200.68.140.65 ( talk) 23:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Spong-bob.4445 185.244.153.27 ( talk) 20:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
انا شجاعة 197.117.146.242 ( talk) 09:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi guys do you wanna get this voice 112.204.102.125 ( talk) 11:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
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 |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 16 January 2023. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | 15.ai has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 11, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about 15.ai. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 15.ai at the Reference desk. |
![]() | A fact from 15.ai appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 9 July 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: SirGallantThe4th ( talk · contribs) 23:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
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)
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). |
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.
The above comments have been resolved by the nominator. SirGallantThe4th ( talk) 18:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC) |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. |
The above comments have been resolved by the nominator. SirGallantThe4th ( talk) 18:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC) |
![]() |
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. | The above comments have been resolved by the nominator. SirGallantThe4th ( talk) 18:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC) |
![]() |
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. | All comments above have been resolved and the article is ready for good article status. SirGallantThe4th ( talk) 18:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC) |
Thanks for the quick review. I've edited the article to address all of your comments. — HackerKnownAs ( talk) 18:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
22:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by HackerKnownAs ( talk). Self-nominated at 03:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
اني مصطفى 37.236.83.200 ( talk) 05:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
A movie about a boy named Marco 2601:244:4A00:FB0:4094:2387:40DA:9A06 ( talk) 03:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Mi pequeño pony 200.68.140.65 ( talk) 23:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Spong-bob.4445 185.244.153.27 ( talk) 20:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
انا شجاعة 197.117.146.242 ( talk) 09:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi guys do you wanna get this voice 112.204.102.125 ( talk) 11:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
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)