Talk:15.ai

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

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

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

Done, thank you! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 13:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Having translated titles is really important, but it would also be very nice and genuinely helps verifiability to have translated relevant quotes. If it needs to be multiple quotes from the same source, cite the same source multiple times each time with a different suitable quote and I might convert the citation method to shortened footnotes. If you determine that any of the Asian sources aren't essential, and the statements are already made verifiable using English-language sources, please remove them. —Alalch E. 13:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... I just saw this message after I submitted an edit translating all of the other sources. What should I do? Should I revert my edit? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 13:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, please see Special:Diff/1264103607. Basically, there's no need to use {{efn}} for translations of quotes. —Alalch E. 13:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, what Japanese text in the reference no. 2 (as of special:permalink/1264103607) supports the statement "15.ai was conceived as a research project by a developer known as "15" during their undergraduate studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and was later implemented following the developer's successful exit from a startup venture." and what is the English translation of that Japanese text. —Alalch E. 13:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I'll get to that in a bit. I'm expanding some other sections but I'll definitely make those edits soon. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 13:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GregariousMadness: Please check the article out now. This is how it should be because this citation style enables multiple relevant quotes each with its translation, for any given single reference. It's just a start. —Alalch E. 16:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will use this style going forward. Thanks so much for your help! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 02:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A video of the Heavy from Team Fortress 2 in Home Alone 2 that was broadcast on a news network (it might have been CNN, but I don't remember) Found it. It was indeed CNN, and the transcript of the segment can be found here: [1].
• A video of the Team Fortress 2 voice actors commenting on 15.ai and AI voice cloning technology around 2021. I believe this question was asked to the voice actors at a convention panel (possibly Comic-Con?)
• A video of Nathan Vetterlein, the voice actor of the Scout, reacting to a line generated by 15.ai as the Scout.

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

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Firstly, please don't revert my edit saying "per talk page" when there's nothing like a consensus regarding that edit on the talk page, like you did in Special:Diff/1266859044. In my edit summary (diff) I wrote: this entire section is undue, veers on trivial, and most importantly, it repeats content already in the article; some unique statements can be reincorporated elsewhere. Saying "per talk page" would have meant that there was a consensus to revert my removal, and there wasn't.

The Among Us article has no bearing here. It is not even a relatively recent FA-class article to assert that it contains examples of best editing practices. A GA badge does not mean very much; a GA review is performed by a single reviewer most of the time. You should not primarily be using a single GA as inspiration, but should be guided by best editing practices. Among those is the commonsense convention that articles should not repeat themselves. An encyclopedia article is a standalone work of non-fiction prose. It should be written to function the best for a reader who will read it from start to finish. The article's statements are grouped together according to some organizational scheme and those groups are separated one from another using section headings. Sectioning serves to clarify articles by breaking up text, organize content, and populate the table of contents. We don't recycle the same content to come up with additional sections based on our feeling that an article should include a particular section, for example, because we want to highlight some aspect of the topic. Most of the statements in the "In fandom culture" section were the same or similar to statements made elsewhere in the article, and that section overlapped with the scope of other sections. In some respects the statements were poorly supported by sources. Another, distinct, problem is that too much emphasis on fandom culture, including every detail about the use of 15.ai by fans of this and that, is excessive detail on trivial subjects, and is simply unencyclopedic. While many articles have "In popular culture" sections, they are not as accepted as they used to be (this is applicable to any "In fandom culture" section by extension). MOS:POPCULT says: Cultural aspects of the subject should be included only if they are supported by reliable secondary or tertiary sources that discuss the subject's cultural impact in some depth. The mere appearance of the subject in a film, song, video game, television show, or the like is insufficient. What you came up with in your "In fandom culture" section fails that to a large extent. The mere use of 15.ai by a given online community of fans does not mean that 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it has a potential to be a decent article, but it has had a difficult history. Namely, it was affected by socking earlier on, causing it to improperly become a GA; then it underwent a GAR and was even deleted. In the recent discussions, primarily the last AfD, there was much discussion around the strength of sourcing. I am interested in an outside reviewer's position primarily on whether certain statements supported by some of the weaker sources should be removed. The second issue is the appropriateness of the 'Background' section, seeing how most of the statements there come from sources that are not about the subject.

Thanks, —Alalch E. 23:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on my phone, so I'm not in a position to be evaluating source quality. However, I do want to affirm that the background section is too detailed. This is not an article about 15.ai, not an article about speech generation generally. I think that section could be literally one paragraph that describes the shift from pre-2016 to DeepMind. At the end of it, put an "Also Tacotron was big at the time." If Microsoft FastSpeech was not a significant influence on 15, it does but belong here. It's not clear to me what the final paragraph even currently adds. After that one paragraph, you should be good to launch into the actual subject of the article: 15.ai. lethargilistic (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lethargilistic: Thank you. Would you kindly take a look, probably when you're on a computer, at the issues recently (after this peer review request was posted) identified by User:Emm90 in Special:Diff/1268071188, and which were either addressed or dismissed by User:GregariousMadness as seen in the following diff: Special:Diff/1268071188/1268086148. I am noting that many tags were removed without being resolved in the way intended by that tag, so for example, www.equestriacn.com was tagged as an unreliable source, and the tag was simply removed. Provided that you've reviewed the tags placed by Emm90, and how they were addressed and not addressed, would you say that as a whole these issues have been addressed appropriately or not quite? —Alalch E. 13:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I could do is move most of that background section into the article Deep learning speech synthesis article and summarize the key points in the 15.ai background section. Would that be okay? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 14:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. —Alalch E. 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done! I moved it over to deep learning speech synthesis. On that note, I reached out to the people who wrote the ElevenLabs blog post, and I found out that the CEO and founder of ElevenLabs himself (Mati Staniszewski) was the one who wrote the blog post (you can verify by playing the audio file, attached in the blog — it says his name). I'll add a short sentence about this as well. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 16:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]