Talk:Automatic1111

Notability

The main sources demonstrating notability are:

the book written about it published by ja:技術評論社

The Register's article: https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/29/image_gen_guide/

howtogeek's article: https://www.howtogeek.com/832491/how-to-run-stable-diffusion-locally-with-a-gui-on-windows/

There are more sources I can add if needed. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Alpha3031 Thanks for marking this page as reviewed. Could you elaborate on what issues you have with the sources used in terms of demonstrating notability? Using Wikipedia:Multiple sources as a guide that "it seems that challenges to notability are successfully rebuffed when there are three good in-depth references in reliable sources that are independent of each other," I think the sources used qualify for that. Would like to get your input on it. Some news sites cited are The Register, PC Watch, how-to-geek (RSN), geeky gadgets, and PC Guide. There are also some academic papers cited that discuss it. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I removed the notability banner for now for the reasons above and because it is not a website as stated in the banner - it is client side software that has a web UI. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi J2UDY7r00CRjH, I have no objection to the removal of the tag. The reason I added the tag is based on how well the sources fulfilled being secondary and the amount of useful content it would be possible to extract. For various reasons, how-to guides are usually less useful in terms of the amount of content we can extract for use on Wikipedia. I do not see this as a major issue though, so as long as someone has read the tag I'm happy for it to be removed. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

recent edit

Hi @Andrewman327 I just saw your recent edit removing . What issue did you have with the study? J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

The way the conference paper was used doesn't really support its central findings. Here's just one quote:

"To evaluate the effectiveness of Promptify, we conducted a 14-participant user study comparing Promptify with Automatic1111 [11], a popular tool for SD widely used by the community. Participants found Promptify significantly more useful in assisting the text-to image generation workflow than the baseline tool and were able to create more visually appealing images on their first attempt."

The paper was cited as if it were a scientific survey of users. I don't think it's necessary to say "Automatic1111 is almost as good as Promptify" in the article, but I just think the article is good enough without the citation.

Andrew³²⁷ 14:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I was using it to show that it was popular and to explain why it is popular - ease of use. The details quoted in the article aren't about being better in general, just better that its competition in certain ways. I'm ok with not including it, I just wanted to understand what the issue was with it. I thought the issue would be that it was only a six person study. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)