Talk:List of video game console emulators/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

OpenEmu is different than stated

As a user of the program OpenEmu, seeing it posted here with the phrase "Last update: June 1, 2012" made me feel angry. The first stable release of OpenEmu was a year later, and they still make updates. The list of systems next to it is also wrong. The correct supported systems include the Atari 2600, Game Boy/Game Boy Color, Game Boy Advance, NeoGeo Pocket/Color, Game Gear, NES, SNES, DS, Genesis, Master System, Turbografx-16, and Virtual Boy. Because it includes the Atari 2600, someone should put it in the list of 2600 emulators. I cannot do all of these requests myself because I don't know when the last release came out. So can anyone do the above requests? And OpenEmu can't support arcade systems as well. Thanks.

Wiki nol ege (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

It is illegal to download, distribute, or play video game roms that you do not own. It is not illegal to emulate these systems or make rom backups of games that you own.

arcadeOX

excuse me if i don't now what im talking about here, but should we mention the snes emulator in arcadeOX which can be used at www.retrouprising.com ? i thought that since it's one of the few java based snes emulators that can be integrated into the browser, it desereved mention. 75.72.25.219 (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget about Virtual Boy!

There are people out there who would like to forget about Virtual Boy, but Wikipedia shouldn't! It needs to be listed among the Nintendo consoles and the part about the Wii emulating all Nintendo consoles needs to be removed as it doesn't emulate VB games. --Logomachist (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Virtual Boy-section (here) just created! Feel free to add columns and missing info! regards, Hippo99 (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sega X Emulator

The Sega X Emulator may not actually be real, a google didn't turn up anything to suggest it exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.190.24 (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Expanding the page

Optimally, this list should be a table, with the relevant information for each emulator in it. Also, non-notable emulator articles should be merged into this page.--_{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 04:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Looking to get people's thoughts on merging List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System emulators into this article. I don't really see why it's seperate. List of Nintendo Entertainment System emulators could probably be trimmed down (it doesn't need to have EVERY emulator, does it?) and merged in, too. Thoughts, anyone?  :) Lychosis ^T/C 20:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why all the lists of emulators can't be merged here. Either we have a bunch of lists for each console, or just this one, it isn't really useful to have both.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like anyone else is going to comment on this, so I'll get to merging those in ASAP. Lychosis ^T/C 10:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone removed the "Derivative" and "Programming Languages Used" columns, which is quite useful for developers looking to cross-compare. If I'm a developer and I'm looking for an emulator written in Java to learn from or contribute to, because that's the language I know, now I have to click on every single emulator article to see if there is one. Some of the emulators don't even have articles because they don't have notability requirements. Likely, someone who isn't a developer removed them because that's the only type of person would would assume they're useless. I'm adding them back in, leave it alone this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BansheeX (talk • contribs) 15:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Listing current version?

I think that the "current version" part of the table might have to be removed. It seems like way too much of an effort to update every single emulator with the current version. Maybe a "cancelled? y/n" color box will do instead.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This is actually a really good idea. I'll fix that when I'm getting all of these put together. :) Lychosis ^T/C 16:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I think it is important to include

• an "Actual version" column
• a version "date" column, as well as
• an "Alive/discontinued" column.

There are a lot of Wikipedia contributors who are video game enthusiasts, so I do not see the problem of updaing the database frequently. There is a lot of emulators for each system available and not losing an overview is sometimes a difficult task.

• Further, I replaced "Systems" column by yes/no templates.

There is no pont in repeating 12 times "Nintendo 64" when itis the only system emulated.

Because many systems "overlap", it might be an option to

• make just ONE sortable wiki table using 'yes/no' to save space and reduce character size to 8pt

(as for example applied in this (Comparison of Nvidia graphics processing units) wikipedia article).

Please feel free to share your opinion on these suggestions.

best regards, Hippo99 (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Time to get to work

This article's been in the pits for too long, and I meant to work on it a while ago.

Things to do:

• Clean up article, either format the entire thing as tables, or leave as individual links
• Merge in List of Nintendo Entertainment System emulators
• Remove all non-notable emulators

If anyone wants to help, give me a shout.  :) Lychosis ^T/C 15:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to help, I think this list is currently a mess. --Netol (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lychosis, I'm in the boat, please read my suggestions in the above section. What do you think? Hippo99 (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

GNU/Linux not just "Linux"

Someone removed "GNU" from the phrase GNU/Linux as a supported OS of the emulators PCSX-df and PCSX-Reloaded. On the home pages of both emulators they say they support GNU/Linux (not just "Linux"). See on this page. See on this page.

"Linux", is a superset of GNU/Linux. There are more operating systems built around Linux than their are around the combination of GNU + Linux. The emulator authors only claim to support the GNU/Linux subset of Linux operating systems. So for instance they do not support the Google Android OS, which is "Linux", but it is not "GNU/Linux". See here.

I did not add "GNU" to the other emulators claiming to support "Linux", because I have not researched whether or not they support just GNU/Linux OSs, or "Linux" OSs in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.25.177 (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I was that "someone". Let me clarify by saying that GNU/Linux and Linux are one and the same. To further elaborate my point, let me direct you towards the GNU/Linux naming controversy article. While Linux is generally referred to as GNU/Linux in some circles, it has been decided that on Wikipedia, it should be simply called Linux, since that is the term in widespread use, and also because not all Linux distros (as the aforementioned Android OS) do not use GNU userland tools, but just the Linux kernel. Regards --CoolingGibbon (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone changed it to GNU/Linux again while linking to the Linux page. I'm going to change it back. Charwinger21 (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Wiki-linking to specific sections???

I notice the SNES article has a

See also: List of SNES emulators

How can I do this with the Mega Drives article??

See also: List of Mega Drive emulators

That just doesn't work.--SexyKick 13:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I figured out I had to use this syntax.

See also: List of Mega Drive emulators

--SexyKick 11:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Listing whether the emulator can fully emulate gameplay?

I ask this, because I believe that there are at least some Playstation 2 emulators that can only let users see videos or listen to music from a game and not play it.

512upload (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Something very important is missing in this article: the definition of "alive"

Don't you agree?

512upload (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. What is the meaning of "alive"? A readily available website with a download link available? Current development? I don't see a reason for this parameter to be there. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I also agree, as some emulators have died off and have not been updated for several years or more. Some have become obsolete or have never been finished beyond demo stages. I would classify "alive" as currently being distributed and widely available. Or still recieveing occasional updates or conversions. For instance, I would classify Mupen64 as being alive because of its popularity and multiple ports of it. I would classify some of the early Nintendo 64 emulators as "dead" because they have become obsolete and never made it far, not to mention some only play demos and have not been updated for many years.

Mcdudeman (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

PlayStation Portable/Next Generation Portable & Xperia Play

Should we lump Next Generation Portable with this or should it have it's own sub-category under the Sony category?

And should we give that phone it's own sub-category? - Jigsy (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Next cleanup

Wikipedia is not a directory: each item in this needs either an article, or a solid citation to a reliable secondary source. Marasmusine (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I propose:

• removing "alive" column per WP:OR
• remove "version" column, I don't see how this is useful.
• adding "developer" and "year" columns
• Change "last release" column to year-month-day format: concise, and allows for sorting. Marasmusine (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of these changes. Alive makes no sense. Version really is of no use. Developer might not always be available though. Year would be nice. Also agree with last release. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the rearrangement of the information in this article, noting that the List of computer system emulators still retains the 'old-style' formatting. The two pages ought to be formatted identically. If this newer format is to be used, then it should apply to both the video game console and computer system emulator articles alike, and even then, ONLY with the general consensus of approval by the editors on BOTH pages. I would add, personally, that I dislike very much the 'revised' presentation of information on this page. I would note, for example, that the ability to sort sounds very nice in theory, but, IMO, the information is ultimately made less readable and more difficult to search and parse (say, when one chooses to sort by console, for example, some equivalent entries will not be adjascent). If some changes are to be made regarding what information is presented, then fine, however, I personally feel that the article's original format is much more reader-friendly than the current setup. -Grammaticus Repairo (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've altered the system column a bit so that it's easier to navigate when sorted: All the Nintendo and Sega emulators are adjacent now, for example. If you still think it is harder to search, perhaps you can give me a few examples. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I really don't think that anything we do on this page has anything to do with that page. They are completely different, written by completely different editors. The style does not need to be uniform between pages. I do however think that each platform still deserves their own sections to make things easier to find. Having one massive table as an article is usually not the way to go. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

OKAY, let me go point-by-point over the thoughts expressed here by others:

I fail to understand why it is worth noting that "Wikipedia is not a directory" with respect to this article, as none of the 8 'exclusions' expressed in the 'WIKIPEDIA IS NOT...' guidelines specifically apply (or 'in any way apply', really) to this type of article. While I would certainly agree that it is reasonable to 'require' either an article or reliable external source for specific entries in the list, justifying this by pointing to 'WIKIPEDIA IS NOT...' makes no sense.

• I would consider the removal of the 'alive' column to be reasonable, particularly as one can generally infer a project's current 'life' status by the 'latest release' date
• I would agree that the version column is not particularly useful, so removing it seems reasonable as well
• I fail to understand the relevance of adding such categories to this particular list of software, as (1) most of the emulators appearing on this list were/are being developed not by a single individual or company, but rather by a either a community or a significantly-sized group of people (which may be ever-changing, in the case of 'alive' projects), making the idea of including an accurate list of developers less than feasible, and (2) like the 'alive' and 'version' columns, the 'developer' column seems to me to be not particularly useful to the vast majority of people who view the article. As far as 'year' goes, I don't see the importance of noting when the project was first 'born'--the 'last release' is certainly much more important information to provide as far as a calendar date goes.
• I have no beef with a concise and logically-formatted date column
• As far as the ability to sort goes, I would say again that, while it seems nice in theory, the ability to sort every column for every emulator within a single table is ultimately not that useful. I mean, how realistic is it to assume that viewers of the article are even remotely likely to need a list of disparate emulators for completely different platforms listed chronologically by date of last release? Seriously? And given that 'sortability', the only apparent real benefit of having all of the emulators for different systems merged into a single list, comes at the expense of useability/readability, I would argue that the merge is not worth doing. In my opinion, readability (specifically, the ability to locate desired information promptly) in an encyclopedic article trumps the 'bells-and-whistles' feature of being able to sort using obscure criteria. And, frankly, the regrouping of consoles together by manufacturer notwithstanding, the new single table is substantially less reader-friendly than the article's previous format.

I do appreciate Blake's support for each platform having its own section, as this substantially improves the readability of the article. I do, however, disagree with the assertions:

"I really don't think that anything we do on this page has anything to do with that page. They are completely different, written by completely different editors. The style does not need to be uniform between pages."

That the pages are written by different contributors is part of my point. The two pages are, in fact, so similar in topic that it might not require too big a stretch of the imagination to think the two articles ought to be merged (though I personally would argue against it). In reality, video game consoles are simply very specialized computers--nothing more. Indeed, several years ago the government took advantage of the Playstation 3's powerful cell processing capability and networked several thousand of them to create a massive, cost-effective supercomputer for the Pentagon. Video game consoles are ultimately just a subset of computers. I would argue that the lists are certainly similar enough to warrant very similar (though perhaps not identical) formatting. This is why I would assert that if significant changes are to be made to the formatting here, then they should also be made there, and as such would need the support of that article's contributors. If support for changing that article doesn't exist, then this article shouldn't be altered either. I would like to note that I did check out the 'OTHERSTUFFEXISTS' article and I actually believe the guidelines presented there support my bid for consistency between the two articles. The intro to the guidelines states:

"In various discussions regarding a wide variety of articles, editors will inevitably point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular article or policy. Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid. The invalid comparisons are generally so painfully invalid that there has been a backlash against the "other stuff exists" type of rationales. (See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid). When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc."

I believe I have made a 'legitimate comparison' between the two pages and have explained my rationale. The guidelines state that "...the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides..." I would argue that that it is then fairly obvious that 'consistent content' ought to be presented in a 'cosistent format' wherever it is appropriate to do so (i.e. here). Ultimately, my argument is that the information should be presented in a useful (that is, readable) format. The previous formatting style was, IMO, readable. The computer emulator article remains formatted in a useful/readable manner. And even if one believes the single-table presentation of information in this article is an improvement, I don't believe one can justify dramatically altering this article's format without also altering the computer emulator article's format as well, given how closely and directly related the two topics are. -Grammaticus Repairo (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent comments. I think I've decided against a "developer" column too... it would make sense for a list of commercial software, but here we mostly have groups of coders who have come together to work on single projects. The "first publication" year I feel to have historical relevance - surely a list of emulation software in the order that they appeared is of interest?

Regarding "not a directory", the primary purpose of this kind of list is for navigation - we would not have a list of all emulators that ever existed. Rather than any of the 8 points, it's the lead sentence that makes the point. It's also based on two other policies: verifiability WP:V and due weight WP:DUE. By cutting away most of the minor emulators, I think I've done my best to represent those that have made some impact outside of their communities: it's no longer a directory.

I'm still mulling over separate tables vs. unified table, I can see the merits in both. Some platforms only have one emulator now. If we go back, it might be better to write in prose rather than list form. We have the room now to go into a bit more detail. I'll read through the rest of your notes later. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

With regard to 'first publication' year, I would question the relevance of such a column, as the so-called 'historical relevance' might not be particularly meaningful (and could, in fact, be misleading). For example, if our list of 'selected' emulators included only, say, four of the most significant emulators for a given system (which seems reasonable), but happens not to include (for whatever reason) the very first emulator for that system (which might perhaps have been buggy, unpopular, and/or abandoned long ago, warranting its exclusion), then the inclusion of a 'first publication' date becomes rather less meaningful. As you yourself noted, Wikipedia is not a directory.

While I am not certain what you mean, precisely, by "the primary purpose of this kind of list is for navigation", I take no issue with reducing the content to exclude the less significant emulator entries, per se. I do take issue with the reformatting of the article when it involves merging the info into a single table. If 'navigation' is a 'primary purpose', I fail to see how the article has become more 'navigable'. Anyhow, I do look forward to your additonal thoughts when you have had a chance to finish reviewing my notes. -Grammaticus Repairo (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Time available for WP is limited at the moment. I find it more navigable because, say, if I just want to look at Sega Saturn emulators, it's easy enough to find: the platform column is already in alphabetical order. If I just want to look at all significant emulators released in a certain time period, I can sort the table that way. Publication date for things that have been published seems to be really basic, to me. I won't get all excited if you want to put it back into platform specific sections in the meantime. Marasmusine (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate the response. First off, I would like to note that although I would agree that 'publication date' (assuming you are referring to first publication date) would be an obvious, relevant field to include were the article discussing normal published works, the article, in fact, concerns what are essentially 'living' projects that are, for the most part, constantly evolving and being updated. As such, I would deem the date of first publication to be pretty irrelevant, and believe it to be largely outside the purview of the article, given the 'general overview' sort of nature of the article.

Continuing on, I would argue that if one did indeed want to look at, say, Sega Saturn emulators, such a 'topic' would be much easier to locate if it had its own large-type heading, seperated spatially from sections containing other emulator tables, as opposed to having to scan through a single alphebetically-sorted list. I would make the analogy of, say, the table of contents of a book versus the index. IMO, the table of contents is more user-friendly, even if it might be slightly less technically efficient. I should also note that it was rather convenient that you happened to choose the Saturn as a reference point for sorting the list by 'System'. Had you chosen, say, the Sega Master System and sorted by 'System', you would have found that the DSMasterPlus (the first of the three emulators listed for that console is not listed consecutively with the other two (KEGA Fusion and MEKA). In fact, the DSMasterPlus is actually seven entries away from the other two.

And, again, though sorting capability is nice, I seriously doubt many, if any, users would ever find themselves frustrated by their inability to "look at all significant emulators released in a certain time period". Frankly, that seems, ultimately, about as useful (and arbitrary) as being able to sort by actual emulator names--the feature just isn't all that useful. How much space does the installed emulator require on the disk? Maybe some of us want to be able to sort by filesize--does this warrant adding such a field so that it can be sortable? Certainly not. I would argue that just because it is conceivable that somebody, somewhere might have a desire to sort by some obscure criteria, this does not mean we should give the idea of altering the table to enable that specific capability a high priority/importance, particularly when it significantly impacts readability.

I do realize that this is just my opinion, and that yours, while different, is equally valid. As far as the style of the article goes (when considering 'single table' versus 'seperate table for each console'), I would suggest putting it to a vote here on the discussion page, as it would appear that there are at least a few users (such as "I'm confused" at the bottom of the page) who appear to have a preference. That said, it would appear that it might take a fair amount of time to get a statistically valid number of opinions, given the rather low amount of traffic 'round these parts. Just a thought. -Grammaticus Repairo (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Not only is the new list terrible, it breaks old wikilinks like "List of Sega Genesis emulators". Please return the section names to keep it clean.--SexyKick 22:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I concede, I seem to be alone with regards the unified list :) I think we have a consensus for removing the "alive" and "version" columns, though? And for the sake of compromise, perhaps you'll humour me with a "first publication/release" column. With regards the software being updated over a period of time, compare with lists of television series (from any publication, including WP): the primary bits of information given are the start (and end, if it's finished) years and country of origin. I'm not asking for an obscure bit of data (like film stock, aspect ratio or colour lab), but something that seems, to me, to be a fundamental piece of information. Anyway! Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think the latest release column is sufficient enough to overwrite alive, as well as version columns.--SexyKick 03:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I see removing the "alive" column, but I think the "actual version" column should be renamed to "latest version". I can also see the addition of a "first release date" column. 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢  11:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that the information provided by an 'actual/latest version' column is largely irrelevant. In the context of console emulators as a group, the particular version number assigned a given emulator by its developers is completely arbitrary. Whether they called the most recent release 0.139 or 2.5 or 14, the information being conveyed is not really meaningful to anyone that isn't already somehow involved in the emulator's community (as either a developer or an end-user). Who really cares that Nesticle version 7 is available if the emulator hasn't been updated since the last millenium? Anyone who is interested enough in a particular emulator to want to find out more about its history can easily follow the external link to that project's website.

With regard to 'first release date', I stand by my assertion that, with respect to the subject matter at hand (video game console emulators), the date of first release is essentially an obscure historical tidbit of interest only to a very small niche audience (whom, I might add, can also easily follow the external link to the emulator's website). That said, if it is to be included, care should be taken so that the 'first-' and 'current-' release date columns are not easily confusable by readers, given that the vast majority of users viewing the article in search of a release date are probably, in fact, looking for 'current' rather than 'first'.

Personally, I think the best course of action, thinking about Wikipedia as a whole, would be to keep the formatting-style of the tables consistent with List of computer system emulators, since the subject of this article is arguably a subset of the subject of that one. Note that that article does include version numbers, but does not include 'alive' or (more notably) 'first release date' columns. I would also reiterate my position that, ideally, changes to the formatting of one article should be mirrored in the other, and, as such, formatting changes should only be implemented after reaching a consensus with editors from both articles. Barring that, however, I feel the most important overall thing for this article is that separate tables for each system are maintained, rather than the single, unified table. All other considerations are fairly minor in comparison. -Grammaticus Repairo (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Cyber Vandalism?

Someone deleted many non commercial emulators of PC-Engine/TurboGrafx16 except Magic Engine. Emulators like Ootake ,Turbo Engine 16 and PCEjin are not longer listed and I see no reason why someone would do something like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoKaiser (talk • contribs) 05:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You'll find the answer directly above your comment. Marasmusine (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Mac OS and Mac OS X

Please don't confuse Mac OS and Mac OS X. They are fundamentally different operating systems with only a few common APIs (mainly so some Mac OS programs could be forward compatible). Please double-check the emulator articles to see if the program in question was released on Mac OS Classic (version 1-9) or Mac OS X (10 and up). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check that as I go through them. Marasmusine (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Safe?

I take it that all the emulators listed here are safe, and don't have viruses? Specifically asking about the JPCSP one at the moment, by the way. TheManyLies (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

We would not intentionally endanger your computer, but I would still be careful watching what you download to your computer. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused

I just found this article. But somehow it seems like there are two articles on the same page depending on where you come from. Now that doesn't make any sense right? So go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nintendo_Entertainment_System_emulators and you will find a page with tables for different systems, very cool. Now scroll to the top and click on "Article" which should do nothing but reload that same page without scrolling somewhere, and what do you get? The same title, but only one table with some basic information and no way to go back to that page you came from. What is happening there? --89.251.132.66 (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What the hell? Now that link gives me that simple table page. I can't find a way to go back to the page with a lot of tables and more infos? --89.251.132.66 (talk) 08:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The old layout with separate tables looked a hell of a lot better than this current system. It's just a huge mess now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.30.248 (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The new unified table is terrible

It's very unwieldy and looks a mess. The old layout was much more useful and provided more information. I don't know why the need was felt to do this but I propose moving it back to the old format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.30.248 (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Would whomever else has an opinion (be it either for or against) regarding the new article layout please comment...? -Grammaticus Repairo (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Old one is the way to go! The new list is just a waste of time. --MetalSnake (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Not only is the new list terrible, it breaks old wikilinks like "List of Sega Genesis emulators". What rough consensus caused this terrible change?--SexyKick 22:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted to old system, since there was no consensus on the "unified" list change. 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢  07:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree, the old (the one that is shown now) is definitely the better and more structured. The unified one was horrible --Sulicadiz (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Where is Atari Jaguar emulation?

I followed a link from the Atari Jaguar article to this one, and there are no Atari Jaguar emulators listed! They exist; a short list would be Project Tempest, Jagulator, and Virtual Jaguar. Is there any reason why Jaguar emulation is being excluded? 66.195.104.66 (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

VBA-M

I would add VBA-M on game boy color/ game boy section. It is more than a port of Visual boy advance, since it is updated regularly (every few weeks) and is one of the "best" (if not the best) GB emulators out there and one of the most important projects in the handheld emulation. Therefore it should be in the table (if you want delete visualboy or instert VBA-M name in something) but definitely this name should be there. Furthermore it is already on GBA emulators, and it emulates game boy and game boy color too Sulicadiz (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is there is Atari Lynx emulator?

Why aren't there any Atari Lynx emulators listed?[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Project64

Where is the info at? I search for Project64 and it sends me to a list of N64 emulators but the list does not include Project64 the most notable N64 emulator. And why do emulators like UltraHLE, Sixtyforce, Mupen64Plus, Corn and 1964 all have there own pages yet the best and most well known N64 emulator lacks one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.12.16 (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The entry was removed by User:Marasmusine supposedly because it violated verifiability. Given that the emulator used to have its own article I agree that it should be readded, though I do not know where sufficiently verifiable sources may be found. Arcorann (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well where are the other N64 emulators verified from? --Richard Rowe (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It turns out that pretty much all the emulators listed there seem to have various levels of questionability with regards to this. At any rate, I may have a magazine that hopefully should suffice as a source for Project64, but I will need to check. Arcorann (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a rather large number of emulators I would like to add for a wide variety of systems. They are working emulators that run more than just demos or a small number of games. Some of the systems I would like to add emulators for include Sega Saturn, Atari 2600, PlayStation, Nintendo 64, Super Nintendo, Virtual Boy, and many more. If I am given permission to add them, I will make sure all the information is true, and I can also provide websites for them. I would also be willing to create several pages for them that would include screenshots and more. Mcdudeman (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 16:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 September 2012

The Playstation 2 emulator PCSX2 information is no longer valid; version 1.0 was released on August 3, 2012, and should be updated. 24.11.2.246 (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

CD-i Emulator?

Would anyone be kind and document any kind of CD-i Emulator on this? Because, we currently have nothing on it and I think that could be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breakin'Benny (talk • contribs) 13:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Playstation 3 Emulator

RPCS3 - http://code.google.com/p/rpcs3/ BennySep (talk) 08:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: You need to provide more information than that. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Project64 Licence

Project64 is now open source with a freeware licence. On going development: http://code.google.com/p/project64/

Could someone please add this to the Project64 link, as well as change the licence to freeware?118.208.183.91 (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I need confirmation whether or not this is just Project64 by name. Where did they receive the source? Was it merely decompiled? Is development ongoing? Is this the 1.6 executable with 1.7 plugins, as was released by Jabo? We need more information for this already barebones citation article. -Miranda (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You can read more information of the source release here [2].118.208.57.40 (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Whew, more drama than information. Also, there is only one developer and the last commit was Sep 12th. "Ongoing development" is very questionable. -Miranda (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Due to the fact that there have been no commits for months from the sole user in charge of the code, not long after that thread died, I'm switching the 'Active' status back to a negative and removing the Google Code reference.

Besides, this page needs to be cleaned up before we continue adding any information. -Miranda (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Pj64 is still in development. 2.0 is currently in private beta, as evident for everybody who bothers to visit the website. I added references to back the fact up. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

...Holy crap. It's... alive? Huh, well colour me surprised.

Carry on. -Miranda (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Link update for Dolphin

Can someone please change the links from http://www.dolphin-emulator.com/ to http://www.dolphin-emu.org which is the new official homepage for Dolphin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrydgard (talk • contribs) 22:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Done -Miranda (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The "System" column

Why do we need this column? The vast majority of the emulators listed here can only emulate one system. As a result, this column is largely redundant (just look at the NES table, "NES" by itself appears thirteen times). For the emulators that can emulate more than one system, they're already listed multiple times under the different system subheadings. Keeping this column means that whenever an emulator adds support for a new system (to be fair, not such a common occurrence), the "System" column for the emulator would have to be edited multiple times for each row where the emulator shows up. Keeping this column also unnecessarily widens some tables (such as the aforementioned NES table, where bsnes and OpenEMU stretch it) and makes them harder to read, as a result. Thoughts? — SolarStarSpire (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking at Sega as well as the Arcade and Other sections, the column seems quite useful to me. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 11:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding a first release column?

It may seem like arbitrary trivia to some, but I believe adding a "First Release Date" column is a good idea. First release is a halfway good method of determining a project's maturity. A year-old project is on significantly different ground than a five-year-old one in terms of quality and stability, and very likely to be more well-known.

Please pardon my triple post, I was having internet issues. Ronjoe223 (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup?

Regarding edits up to and including http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_video_game_emulators&oldid=547797130 , would it not be possible to attempt to keep this layout and overall organization, while merging in content that other editors appear to be unhappy with removing? I fail to see how certain emulators that came out years ago, were relatively unnoticed, and only released a version or two are relevant for this page anyway.

Lootyhoofer (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Relevant emulators should have their own articles in addition to being in this list. In the past articles of emulators were sometimes deleted with the argument that an entire article is too much and that being in this list is enough coverage.

I wouldn't mind merging short-lived forks into one entry (they usually also have only a single article).

Mere front-ends for existing emulators could probably go as well because they are not emulators on their own. OpenEmu seems to fall into that category with subdirectories like SNES9x[3]. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, personally. I fail to see the point in having a whole article for any emulator, considering it'd just be 'xxx is an emulator for xxx. It was released on xxx. It runs on xxx platforms. It does/does not use a plugin architecture'. While that is somewhat relevant, my main question still remains: Is it worth revoking to the revision I linked to, for the sake of overall organization and cleanliness? Any emulators that were removed that other editors are unhappy with removing could always be readded, after all. Lootyhoofer (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

This list is actively maintained. It's not some article that laid dormant forever. Personally, I even agree with its intentions but such reconstructions in actively maintained articles should be discussed first. The source code is also not gone. It's still in the history. Let's give it another week or so. If by then nobody objects, I'll even help to restore some of the modifications (excluding the removals of legit emlators). --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem I see is that it's neither all-encompassing (which is implied that it is, considering the unwillingness to remove emulators), nor is it an article for notable emulators. If you wanted to have every single emulator that ever existed on here, then fine, but it would make the article as a whole huge. At the moment, though, it's a bit disjointed: There's some obscure emulators, some console-based emulators (e.g. FCEU GX for Wii), and then the notable emulators, such as Nestopia, Project64, UltraHLE, VBA. What sort of direction is this article going for, exactly, with such a rag-tag selection of emulators shown? Lootyhoofer (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you even mention FCEU GX after I explicitly wrote that I'm in favor of merging multiple branches of the same emulator (FCEUX in this case) into one item. And I repeat once again: The original "cleanup" removed entries like iNES and by no sane standard is iNES worthy of being removed. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

FCEUGX was just an example; there are a few other console-based emulators on it, too, including Daedalus and Goomba. As for iNES, that I agree with keeping. I'm not trying to remove anything note-worthy, here, just to keep it to either entirely note-worthy or all-encompassing (which would mean adding a lot more information rather than removing it), all while using the general layout changes introduced in that revision. Lootyhoofer (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It's been quite a while since the last discussion here. Is this still a possibility? Lootyhoofer (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

RetroArch - we don't want to be on here

Our previous Wikipedia page was deleted out of what I can only assume to be a politically motivated decision -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RetroArch

Instead it redirects to here instead. This is an insult to our project - we are not 'merely' a videogame emulator - we are far more than that. And by lumping us together in this category like this, you are giving us a bad name and not allowing us the same rights as any other project of this site to gain a wider audience.

We deserve to have our wiki page reinstated (and in fact, it was not me who originally created it - totally unrelated members did it) - and I demand to see who pulled the plug on it and who made that stupid decision in the first place. If something like zSNES is still deserved its own Wiki page, then RetroArch definitely deserves its own Wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.166.85.169 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 26 June 2013‎

I'm not sure what you're talking about - the redirect was removed and your original article was reinstated. It looks like you took care of that, and so far nobody has undone that.

That said, Wikipedia has a strict policy about notability, and while I haven't read the article on RetroArch yet, these kinds of merges are usually done in response to the subject not meeting policy requirements. These are rarely "politically motivated" actions.

If you believe RetroArch has enough notability and reliable sources to warrant an entire article, then the onus is on you to provide those sources. The person who originally redirected that page appears to have done so without proper discussion, since the page had apparently been more than a stub at the time. But please, assume good faith and get back to editing, instead of accusing members of this project of acting in spite. Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from resorting to Other Stuff Exists, as it rarely holds up in but limited circumstances. Also, as mentioned above, please operate under the presumption of Assume Good Faith. -Miranda (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Multi-system emulators

Quick question: Is this list an appropriate place for multi-system emulators such as MESS and RetroArch? The latter article has been going through a merge discussion and is likely to be redirected to here very soon, but since it covers a wide range of systems, we can't just put it in any one of them. Same thing applies to MESS (I believe that article is properly notable and sourced, but it should still have an entry in this list if it doesn't already). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Higan and Dolphin (and probably others too, I just skimmed the list) each have multiple entries in these tables, but I doubt we want to copypaste anything to half of the lists (Higan already does, but that seems annoying to maintain). MESS has an entry at #Other where it's listed as emulating 'Various', but I doubt that's the best place for it either. I have no idea where they do belong. -81.232.114.228 (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

If we have enough of them, it might make sense to put the multi-system emulators into their own group in the list, with either a short list of the systems they emulate or a brief description of their scope. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Problem with the entire thing is that RetroArch is not a 'multi-system emulator' - if it were, it would be fairly boring, and we would have no Cave Story port, no Prboom port, no Tyrquake port, no Modelviewer, no SceneWalker, no Instancing Viewer, and on and on and on.

But if you still insist on putting a square peg into a round hole, then by all means lump it in under the misnomer 'multi-system emulator' I guess. Nobody goes to Wikipedia for accuracy anyways so knock yourselves out :P84.26.108.111 (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

As long as one of its major functions is emulation, its at least related. Consensus was unanimous (minus yourself, who has a WP:COI) that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standard for having a stand-alone article, so it's this or deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Stay on-topic, please czar · · 19:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder when those non-notable 'Earthworm Jim ports' that were cancelled before release will ever be up for a 'non-notability' vote, or when we start redirecting all of the 'inconsequential videogames/ports' that don't have any real merit beyond being included on a list... since you can't really tell me with a straight face the world needs to know about some cancelled prototype of a 'remake/port' of an old game nobody in their right mind cares about anymore, and even fewer actually know about to this day. So when will it be time for 'it's either redirect or delete' there? Or do you protect your own treasured 'niche stuff' from being 'expunged' and is this all about petty favoritism and 'Wikipedia admin self-masturbation'? (BTW - please don't hit back at me with one of your BS Wikipedia rules like 'Assume Good Faith' - you and I both know you don't give a damn about any of that, so don't even bother pretending like you do).84.26.108.111 (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC) If you've got a problem with my articles, discuss on my talk page, or those article's talk pages. They have nothing to do with emulators, so they don't belong here. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

2013 merge discussion

Per a recent discussion at WPVG about emulator notability, some articles have been proposed for merge discussion. The following were listed at AfD but closed instead for discussion here (since AfD is only for deletion arguments). The following articles were proposed for merge into List of video game emulators:

Higan (emulator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nintendulator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nestopia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ensata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sixtyforce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The following two will stay at AfD until close due to deletion arguments:

NESticle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) AfD

TR64 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) AfD

Please discuss for or against the merge either in total or for individual articles. If any specific article requires a dedicated discussion, break it out into its own section heading. czar · · 20:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support All: I nominated all of these for merging into this list, and as time allows, I'll likely be adding more to the list (or encouraging others to do so). Notes: NESticle and TR64 fall into the same bucket and should also be changed from AfD to merge discussions, and RetroArch is also going through its own merge/notability discussion and should probably be added to this list as well. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Hmm... if we're going to leave NESticle and TR64 in AfD and consider them for actual deletion, then we may want to evaluate each one of the articles proposed for merge to determine if merging or deleting is the correct action. The same arguments could probably be made for most of the emulators in that list. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support merging and redirecting the first six. Separately (in case the first portion passes but the second portion fails) support merging and redirecting the other two. These are not notable by any stretch of the imagination. Yet, if we delete the articles they are likely to be recreated in the future. So merging and redirecting is, in my view, the fairest and most effective solution. The content won't go away and we won't have articles dedicated to non-notable emulators. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I noticed that Ensata specifically had already been deleted/merged in the past, then apparently re-created sometime later (when I nom'd it for AfD, it came up as "2nd nomination"). However, I think the redirect only makes sense if there's actually a place for the item in the List Of article - if we believe it isn't even notable enough for the List, then redirecting to it doesn't seem to be the right approach. Traditional delete in that case would make more sense. (Standard rules would apply then, too - if the content is recreated without addressing the reasons for deleting it in the first place, it can be speedy-deleted.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I think we should also be discussing FCEUX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (currently at AfD) in this thread. Are there any others that were missed? Also, Czar, I'd recommend changing your NaC closing statements at AfD to link to this thread rather than WP:PM because it's a little confusing to track this discussion down. -Thibbs (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Good idea—done. Also I imagine there will be others—this is more or less the first batch czar · · 05:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• After looking at it in a bit more depth, I have to disagree on some of the proposals. Some of these definitely have RSes readily available. The fact that the Wikipedia articles are lacking sources means that they are in big need of love and care, not that the sources don't exist. Two that jump out at me immediately are higan (one of the more popular emulators among elitists in the emulator scene due to its reputation for cycle-perfect accuracy - some immediate significant coverage in the RSes would include ars technica and kotaku) and NESticle (not technically part of this merge discussion until the AfD is over, but anyway a historically important emulator responsible for popularizing the concept in the first place. My arguments against its deletion at the AfD also touch on the merge proposal). Some of the other emulators listed above I am unfamiliar with, but I think we should make a better effort at searching for RSes before we just axe them. As I said in the NESticle AfD, I am all for cutting out small-scale crufty (and especially promotional) emulator projects, but I don't think we should go overboard. Coverage of these topics may not be as plentiful as coverage of legal software topics, and some of the details are probably overly technical for normal journalistic coverage, but emulation is kind of a large topic within the community. If reputation, reception, and/or significance of an emulator is covered across multiple RSes then I think it deserves its own article. Technical details for these guys can probably be sourced through SPS material. -Thibbs (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Note also: I know there's been some commotion and allegations of bias related to the RetroArch article (all the way up through AN/I), but I don't think that should have any bearing on the other emulator articles as it would be a clear violation of WP:OTHERSTUFF. In other words I don't think we should feel any compulsion to delete or merge away articles on emulators just to satisfy the sense of fair play that the RetroArch developers might feel. They clearly have vested interests in removing articles on competitor products and in promoting their own here. So I'd urge others coming to this discussion to consider the merge question strictly on the merits. -Thibbs (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    • There are no competing 'competitor products' since (like I tried to tell you end-users multiple times now, to no avail) RetroArch isn't a 'multi-system emulator' - it is already far more than any of those and I wouldn't want to limit myself to that category anyways. Also, if anything, going by the 'multi-system emulator' misnomer creates a bad stigma around RetroArch that I'd rather we do without when I want to enter app stores since app stores are very disapproving of emulators in general and I'd like to operate on an equal playing field with all other apps - so downplaying the 'emulator' side is a good strategy there and I've tried to downplay it from the word 'go' by creating things like a Quake libretro port, a Doom libretro port, an NXEngine/Cave Story port, and on. So no, there is no 'competition' for RetroArch at all - it exists in a field entirely its own. And there will never be competition for it at this rate unless some *rival project* tries to cater to over 15 or 16 hardware platforms and have all cores working on all those at all times - and that's not even taking into account Javascript. Also, we have bSNES/Higan cores running in RetroArch so none of us really have a 'vested interest' in trying to get other emulators' pages scrubbed - since we aren't writing our own cores and developers are free to make libretro implementations of their own works all they want.84.26.108.111 (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • There was an allegation that Higan's Ars Technica article was written by that emulator's lead developer. If that's the case, then that particular source falls afoul of WP:SPS. That said, I heartily encourage finding and adding sources where appropriate. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Yeah the author of that piece is the lead developer, but I don't see how it falls afoul of SPS. This isn't self-published material because Byuu doesn't operate Ars Technica. It's been published by an RS - presumably with normal editorial selection and oversight. Certainly I'd say it's a primary source, though, so we couldn't base the entire article on it. The same goes for SPSes as well, incidentally. I think we should be able to include SPSes in cases like this if they are helpful because they'd be used as sources on themselves per WP:ABOUTSELF. But again, the entire article can't be based on them. -Thibbs (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. And as of now, with your recent addition of the Retro Gamer source, I'm happy with the notability of that article and would be willing to close it as Keep for this discussion. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • After a little more searching, I can say I'm pretty comfortable supporting Jnes and Ensata (and TR64 for what it's worth) for merge or deletion considering how few sources I can find on them. I'm still up in the air about the other 3. -Thibbs (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Merge/Redirect All - Especially the RetroArch one, which already has a pretty clear cut consensus on its talk page amongst people who don't have a serious COI... Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support All: Normally I'd recommend these articles get some well deserved editing and attention, but I just don't see it happening. There aren't enough proper sources, as most information lies in forums or other wikis. The emulation enthusiast in me is saying to forfeit my time and go crawling the web for questionable sources, and every other part of me is telling me my geekiness is probably breaking WP:NPOV. -Miranda (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support all These lack sources. Don't deserve their own articles. Something like 90% of emulator articles are stubs that don't have enough sources. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Suport all, except Higan and NESticle of course. They lack inline citations and content. Nestopia may deserve its own article once rewritten with sources though... Cainamarques (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Objection to all mergers. Most of them are notable enough to have their own articles. Even a rather obscure Nester (emulator) has enough information in the article to make it worth keeping. Why bother? R0stam (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not so much "not enough info" as much as it's "not enough reliable sources. Also, this discussion started about a half a year ago, so a number of these have already been merged... Sergecross73 msg me 01:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

DaedalusX64 Edit

I updated the information in the DaedalusX64 section. I go by Kreationz on the DaedalusX64 site and I am one of the developers of the app. I updated it with the current information including the latest public release(Revision 1861) and added Windows to the platforms as it was released(or rather re-released with the current base code) last month by one of our developers. 74.114.110.4 (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Request Addition - Sony Playstation Emulator - Xebra

I recommend adding this emulator as an addition to the Playstation emulator list. Why is it notable? It includes near-100% cycle accurate emulation, and noteworthy compatibility levels. The author provides detailed documentation of the Playstation hardware/architecture, and describes his/her development process. The latter case makes it very relevant to this Wikipedia category, let alone the article.

Regrettably, the emulator has poorly translated English documentation, making it difficult to use.

• Current Version - 130815
• Last Release - 2013/08/15
• Active - Yes
• System - Playstation
• Platform - Windows
• License - Freeware
• Link - http://drhell.web.fc2.com/ps1/

MirandaStreeter (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Definitely notable enough for this list, especially if it's cycle-accurate. Added. — SolarStarSpire (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The word "freeware"

Freeware is a very ambiguous term. On the Wiki page for it, it's defined as "software that is available for use at no monetary cost or for an optional fee, but usually (although not necessarily) closed source with one or more restricted usage rights." Note the usage of the word "usually" - there is no real accepted definition of the word freeware, as everyone seems to use it quite differently. Some people, as the page states, even use it to refer to software in the public domain. Back in the 80's, freeware referred to programs released only as executables, but with no source code available. To add to its ambiguity, the word freeware is also very vague and general - even if it had a clear, accepted definition, it doesn't tell us exactly what we may do with the software.

The word "freeware" is used exactly 28 times on this page at the time I'm writing this. Here's what I propose: everywhere we see "freeware", we should replace it with the specific name of the license the emulator author is using. If there's no licensing information available for a particular emulator, we should first attempt to contact the author and ask them directly what its license is. If that isn't an option, then in accordance with U.S. copyright law, it belongs to the author of the emulator, and should therefore rightfully be labeled as proprietary. I understand that the word "proprietary" isn't much more specific than "freeware", but at least it doesn't have an ambiguous meaning - everyone agrees what proprietary software is.

Thoughts on this? — SolarStarSpire (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

RPCS3 shouldn't be here

Let's look deeper into definition of "video game emulator" and what one can be considered a true "video game emulator": "Emulator" is a software that was created to emulate something so the software/devices that is exclusive to it can be played on another machine. By combining "video game" with "emulator", it has special meaning; it will play some game titles on another machine. RPCS3 does not play any PS3 games AT ALL, only homebrew apps. So it isn't exactly a "video game emulator" until it has been proven to boot and run at least one PS3 game. The list should be for working video game emulators, not future console emulators (violates WP:CRYSTAL). Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 06:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything first hand about that particular emulator, but if what you're saying is true, then I agree. Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

What is the point of using the talk page to discuss something if you going to make the changes anyway? Therefore I'm undoing your edit. Your definition of emulator is limited. A "video game emulator" is a software that emulates a video game, that's it. Is it to the point of playing commercial released games? Sometimes, but it is not determinant. In fact, they can be used for developing retro games, accessing otherwise non-available data, hacking ROMs and reverse engineering, all that independently of playing or not released games for the system. You may wanna check the unsourced definition at Video game console emulator. Best regards, Cainamarques (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a word "console" in, giving a whole different meaning from "video game emulator". "video game console" referring to a console itself, while "video game" is more about games, or maybe I'm mistaken... Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 04:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll just go ahead and redo it, and start from there, until the definition of "video game emulator" has been clarified. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 13:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is a list of video game console emulators. Hardware is being emulated, not software, of course. "Video game emulator" is a abridged synonymous expression, although commonly used. In fact, Video game emulator is a redirect to Video game console emulator. I believe the list title should reflect that. Cainamarques (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

What I meant is, "Video game emulator" can mean to emulate a console, then to play a game. While "Video game console emulator" is to emulate anything as a console ("video game console"), including but not limited to: released or unreleased games, homebrew apps, productivity apps, hacking, and so forth on. I'd agree with you that "video game console emulator" and "video game console emulator" are the same thing, as they had to emulate a console before they can do anything. I think that article used "video game console emulator" because it reflects its article better. And I think the purpose of this list is to list emulators that can play commercially released or unreleased game(s), ripped from physical or software copies. I still don't believe RPCS3 is worth mentioning here when it can only play homebrew apps. It got its name for a reason. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 04:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's the thing, it didn't. Its original title was List of video game console emulators but that was changed in this edit with the rationale: (The list covers arcade and portable game systems, not just consoles). So see that it was suppose to be a appendix to the Video game console emulator article and list console emulators. Also, check the first version of this page, it clearly states its purpose. And, again, there is no such thing as "video game emulation" listed here because that implies software emulation and NOT "hardware emulation that can, as a result, emulate its software". I am not saying there is no confusion and this list couldn't list the latter, but your definition is discordant with what this list originally aimed for. I believe the title must be changed. Cainamarques (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there may be a such thing as game emulation, see Virtual Console, as it uses individual emulator per game, though, I'm not REALLY sure about this. If the title was going to change again, what would it be, and what more things will it cover, when RPCS3's article was deleted per Talk:RPCS3. This list should reflect that with RPCS3 and some other emulator projects. I guess this time this list's real purpose is to list good emulators that can boot game(s). Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 06:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is game emulation, I just saying it is not listed here. Initially, I would suggest the page be moved back to its original title (List of video game console emulators), but on second thought, I agree with the rationale exposed above about the list covering "portable game systems" as well. In that case, the article Video game console emulator should have its scope broadened to cover portable emulation and, of course, its title should be also moved so that both page titles are "synchronized". I would suggest:

• Video game system emulator (a redirect btw) and List of video game system emulators or;
• Video game hardware emulator and List of video game hardware emulators

At least it would stop the confusion about the articles scope. And then we can discuss about the "need to boot games" thing. Cainamarques (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the current title is fine as it is! I like the title "video game system emulator", as it implies it still covers more than just consoles, but I feel that it does not care about games, only systems themselves and wouldn't care if they can't boot a game, mooting the definition of "video game". It will only lure users to add attempt emulator projects into the list, potential of breaking WP:NOTEWORTHY and WP:Verifiability. "video game hardware emulator" doesn't sound right, as it sound like it emulate something through hardware. I kind of mean to bring up discussion about should attempt emulator projects, that do not boot games, be added into this list. Yet now this subject has been derailed to "title need to change!" (I'm OK with this though.) Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 06:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the discussion was started in the basis of the current title, over a misinterpretation of the title in that a video game emulator should play games to be consider one. That not true. A literal reading of the expression "video game emulator" may denote that, but that is not what it means or perceived as. What I'm trying to say here is that a RPCS3 mention is supported by both the page title (first argument) and the page purpose (second argument), no question about it. Now, should be the RPCS3 mentioned in the Wikipedia in the first place? If not, there is something wrong with this list. Until that is resolved, and I can't see that happening without a title change, RPCS3 or any other emulator project are going to have its place guaranteed over here. Cainamarques (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Care to elaborate to what will gone wrong when RPCS3 shouldn't be here on Wikipedia in the first place? To my understanding, it does fit best under video game console emulator and "list of video game system emulator", but it does not meet Wikipedia's standard, and therefore it shouldn't be found anywhere on the Wikipedia. If RPCS3 was ever allowed here then it would make sense to change the title to "list of video game system emulator" and it will be full of every emulator projects found all around the internet, some works, others not working, from successful to feeble attempt projects, with those not meeting Wikipedia's standard. It's exactly what will go wrong. To tell whether should one emulator project stay or not, it's better to see if it can at least boot a game or not, for the sake of simplicity. And thus I don't see the need to change the current title. Look like we'll need third editor's opinion about this, because I know RPCS3 shouldn't be here, while you're arguing that it should. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 05:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to say that if RPCS3 does not meet Wikipedia's standard but the list criteria supports its mention, then the list criteria is "wrong". I suppose its exactly what WP:NOTESAL is addressing. And we agree about that. That's why you are suggesting a new criteria. But why shouldn't it be expressed in the title? I mean, you open a list only to find out it has further restrictions stated in the introduction, its not what you were looking or thought it was. Is that common? Shouldn't be list of video game system emulator capable of booting games or something? Cainamarques (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

What will happen if RPCS3 project halted and another PS3 emulator project started & managed to boot commercial games, do you think RPCS3 still deserve in this list despite its poor notability? We don't collect emulator names that don't boot any games at all here, and to those barely booting to some extent. It's too much of works and the list will become too bloated to most of us. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 15:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Change in list from console to company

I'm curious as to when this change occurred, and if there was a discussion about said change on the talk page. It appears to hurt readability, especially when looking for an emulator on a specific console. This is especially visible for Sony and Nintendo, which have both put out an extensive number of devices, and as such have an extensive number of emulators. Charwinger21 (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I can see that this extensive edit was performed on 16 January 2014‎ by Rukario-sama, however I do not see the claimed discussion on the talk page (beyond Rukario-sama's comments about RPCS3). It is my belief that this change has significantly increased the difficulty related to finding information on this page. While I agree with Rukario-sama that this change has shrunken the page's size, I believe that removing the system column and maintaining the old method of separating emulators by console would shrink the page even more. Charwinger21 (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The biggest problem here is that there are emulator names that emulate multiple systems. Back in time when we had system sections, we had to clone emulator names all over the page and it's hard to maintain the versions and other changes between same emulator names, and every time a new multi emulator's name was added into the page, it will get cloned all over the page again. I knew it had to change. The unified table was strongly against upon by the consensus in past discussion. But that would've solve the emulator name duplication problem. That led me thinking why not just merge tables under each companies, as the system names already mentioned in columns. By undertaking a major change, I found sorting sytem to be much more useful than ever before (finding more emulator names with most recent dates for that example). I also kept consoles and handhelds separated under Nintendo to avoid long scrolling. I thought it's perfect as it is now. Although I didn't know you had difficulty at reading the columns...

If we were going to swap system column out for system sections, reader will can't tell if one emulate multiple systems and what are they, unless they look in every system sections to find out. Couldn't see how is that helping. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 15:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

So rather than create a unified table (which you stated "was strongly against upon by the consensus in past discussion") you decided to make a bunch of semi-unified tables without discussing it on the talk page? As for your comment on multiple systems, I can't help but feel that if a user is looking for an emulator, they'll usually be looking for an emulator for the system that they are looking to emulate. The number of systems that an emulator can emulate is a secondary concern. If someone was trying to figure out how many systems a particular emulator could emulate, they could easily use their browser's built in find function. Charwinger21 (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I could see why unified table wasn't a smart move as it seemed to show more cons than just eliminate multi emulators, which was the only pros of it. THIS time the "semi-unified" you mentioned earlier isn't same to unified tables, though, rather than showing multiple cons, it show only one con: system sections are gone. It hasn't been reverted since then...

Multiple system is probably secondary concern yes but not in editor's case. Any changes made to multiple system emulator must propagate to same emulators under different sections, plus it's too much of works trying to copy emulator to various sections (I already attempted to restore system sections but eventually I dropped it recently today because of it...). I'm still thinking of better way to handle multiple emulators and besides that I think it's fine as it is today... for now. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 05:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Sort systems by name or release date?

Just curious. Also sorting by release date will require hidden sorting key based on system's release dates. Currently, most tables do this but do you feel they're out of standard? Might do fallback if that's the case. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 05:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Revision of the merge consensus for Project64

I am currently attempting to revert the merge to list of the emulators. As of today this emulator remains most popular and one of the few actively used emulator for the N64. This article requires more experts in the field and have found a few reliable sources. I have since address the issues of third party sources and found two sources including Take 2 and Digital Trends and was briefly mentioned in Castro, Radford (2004). Let Me Play: Stories of Gaming and Emulation. Hats Office Books. ISBN 1587363496.

Please advise.

Thanks!

I have an updated article on my userspace User:Valoem/Project64. It still needs work, but I have address the original issue with the article. Valoem ^talk 15:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

MEKA emulator

The MEKA emulator emulates the Master System, Sega Game Gear, SG-1000 and ColecoVision. I don't see it listed anywhere here though. 66.18.219.221 (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to add "Sega Arcade Ultimate Handheld" to this list?

I am used to Wikipedia being a one-stop all-inclusive source of information, so I am surprised that this portable console is not mentioned anywhere within the site. Are there any objections to my adding a short paragraph on this system in this section? There is plenty of information on the system, even if it is not being actively sold through many retailers currently:

http://segaretro.org/Arcade_Ultimate http://www.walmart.com/ip/Sega-Arcade-Ultimate-Handheld-with-80-games-Universal/23903723#Item+Description http://www.target.com/p/sega-genesis-ultimate-portable-game-player-sega-handheld/-/A-14987751#prodSlot=medium_1_1&term=sega+arcade+ultimate

Dannywebster889 31 (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing "System" section and adding "Initial release" section

I'd like to remove the "System" column from everywhere but the "Arcade" and "Other" sections. It only provides redundant information in all of the other sections and is wasting space (making the page hard to read on small screens). I would also like to add a "Initial release" column, as I believe that it is important information about the emulators. Does anyone have any objections? Charwinger21 (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

If there are still no objections, I will test out the change in a week or two (after giving people time to review the labeled section transclusion change mentioned below). Charwinger21 (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The "System" column isn't really redundant (especially for multi-system emulators), but I've went ahead and re-purposed it into better column AKA "Notes". We can put more arbitrary information into there. I've removed the redundant console names under their sections with same name. I'm not sure if there should be initial release dates for each emulator. How is it useful at all? In addition, it'd probably be very difficult to determine the first official release dates for each emulator. It's gonna be pretty much WP:OR. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 05:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Notability issues

I'm getting the feeling that this page is just an excessively detailed listing of emulators. WP:INDISCRIMINATE--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought so too. Some failed to meet WP:V (no source given), WP:N (generally for multi-emulator that almost exclusively use cores from another emulator, or there is a better emulator by far), and WP:CRYSTAL (attempted projects; emulators that couldn't boot a commercial game). Those with multiple WP issues and without an article can probably go. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 22:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Does WP:N really apply to a single item in a list? I thought that was for deciding if something requires its own article. Similarly, WP:CRYSTAL is for if something hasn't been released yet (i.e. something like Dxbx wouldn't fail that, despite not having any playable games. The closest to that is probably Citra 3DS, and even then you can still compile from source), and the lack of an article shouldn't be an issue, as multiple pages have been flirting between having an article and being merged into this page (see Project64). You have a better point with WP:V, but even then, what needs to be verified? The fact that it exists? Maybe the build number? There isn't much info on this page. It's a fairly simple list. Also, this article is hardly a fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, they all are emulators. It isn't just random programs. The article definitely needs a clean up, however I don't feel that cutting the number of emulators is the way to go about doing it. Charwinger21 (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I am mistaken. Then we will use them as an example... Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 00:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I added Microsofts Giano project to the xbox 360 table, and this discussion page is pretty big. Hope it isnt an isue? seems you guys talk about just the very thing that makes me wonder if its notable enough. There arent that many forums that talk about this, its still a emulator/simulator that can run very very early xbox executables and its resources has been helping newer emualtors and research CodeAsm (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Solution to the issue of copy and pasting info for multi-system emulators

I found a solution for the issue with tedious edits for multi-system emulators. We can use labeled section transclusion to reference back to the initial entry for each multi-system emulator (thereby making there only be one entry that has to be edited). I tested it out on the List of devices using Mediatek SoCs page and it seems to be working well. I'm going to implement it now. Charwinger21 (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Implementation is finished. Page size dropped from 79,949 bytes to 62,564 bytes with no content loss. Should be much easier to manage now. What does everyone think? Charwinger21 (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to unify the table and my idea is to reduce the duplication of multi-system emulator names, to save our work updating the another instance of emulator name that is outdated. But then I've just realized that it doesn't matter and decided to undo it (it's a large project!). It will give the opportunity for editors to edit something and the copy/paste is basic enough that anyone can do it.Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I remember. Unifying the list made it a nightmare to read, and made it next to impossible to look at all the emulators for any one particular system at the same time. Charwinger21 (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Though it may be harder to read, but it gives us more flexibility to find the most recently updated emulators with the "last release" column sorted down. I missed that.Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 07:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Except people aren't typically looking for the most recent emulator, they're typically looking for the most recent emulators for a specific platform. Having one giant list with no ability to sort by platform doesn't help with that at all (unless we break it out and have one giant list of everything here, and then transclude the data to separate pages for each company's systems). Charwinger21 (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

While the transclusion method is a good solution to ensure the editors to edit a single entry for multiple instances of same emulator name, but when they were going to edit it in the section (edit buttons you find on every article section), they will find themsselves unable to edit it because it is in another section. They will probably have to use the general edit page and search for the emulator name and edit it. It's also making it harder to read in the edit page. I think it's bad to have this implemented for emulator names.Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Right now, they have to edit the first instance of something, and that's it. Before, they had to edit the first instance, and the second instance, and the third instance, etc.. It's a reduction in work. Plain and simple. The only major potential issue I see currently is that the headers don't appear if you edit by section, and that can be fixed my moving the header to a proper template page. Charwinger21 (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

With the transclusions, someone may have to find where its origin in one system's section. It can be in any section and the editors will have to resort to the main edit page to find and edit it. THAT is more cumbersome. If one editor only updated the first instance it find, but hasn't copy/paste to another instance, another editor will gladly do it. Less of a problem. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 07:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

At most that would be an argument for putting them in a template or all in one specific section. Transclusion is specifically included in Wikipedia to avoid duplication of work. Also, that can be fixed by putting the section name in the tag name (thereby directing people to the appropriate section). Please refrain from reverting in the future just because there are kinks that still need to be worked out. These are bugs that we can work on together, not game stoppers. Charwinger21 (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I like your idea to use template system to handle the headers instead of using with transclusion tags. The edit page will look more cleaner with the headers in template. Can it be used in the table? I don't know much about its capabilities. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 07:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it should work fine. It's just transcluding from a separate page instead of the same page. I'll throw one together on the weekend when I have time to do it properly. Charwinger21 (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Also let's not discuss on the page size, see Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance.Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You can talk about article size without the main focus being server performance. Page load size matters for people on slower connections (especially when editing). If anything, this article is approaching a spot where it probably should be broken up into multiple different articles (e.g. break it up into Arcade, Atari, Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Microsoft, and Other, like it kinda already is). That being said, WP:DWAP#Editors still have a role to play specifically says that we should take performance into account for individual articles (within reason of course), and that it is site-wide performance that we don't need to worry about. Charwinger21 (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Rukario-sama, if you're going to revert the edit again and just tell people to see the discussion (24 March), you might want to actually add something to the discussion (last added 16 March, with no response to my posts on 18 March, including the part where I asked you not to revert without reason). Since you like quoting Wikipedia rules, I feel I should point out that reverts are primarily for vandalism, not edits that you don't like. You do not own this article, and do not have the right to veto edits. If you would like to discuss how this proposal can be improved, feel free to join in above. If you feel that the idea is intrinsically bad (the idea, not the specific implementation), please make a case for that. It's kinda hard to incorporate the changes that you're suggesting (different section naming to better direct users to where they need to make the single edit and switching the header to a full-blown template), when you're turning around and reverting the page every chance you get. If you truly believe that the lack of a consensus through discussion between two users on the exact implementation of an idea is sufficient reason to prevent all attempts at finding a consensus through editing of some form of that idea, then please request a third opinion or submit a request for comment. Work with me to improve this article, not against any editor that doesn't share your vision. Charwinger21 (talk) 05:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I know it frustrates us to see our edits (WP:BOLD) getting undoned/reverted. We're trying to improve the Wikipedia articles and I know that (Oddly enough, we're arguing over the way how the edit page should be while having nothing to do with the article). I only find your edits to be somewhat help us not having to copy/paste the updates on the outdated informations by forcing the editors to find and update the first and only instance it find, but it also made it more difficult for them, especially when loading the section edit page and that the original information was outside of the current page they're editing on. Some editors would give up before they even go to another section's edit page they recently discovered through the tag name. It isn't the real solution. I suppose the transclusion method wasn't meant to handle like that, not with the table. This is similiar to what would be the opposite of help:hidden text of which it was for the sake of convenience in the edit page for the other editors. I was going to ask you to establish consensus because then I will know it's probably just me! Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 19:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

NEC PC-98 emulators

Would it be viable to add these? The ones I'm aware of are the ones listed on Touhou Wiki: Anex86, T98-Next, and Neko Project 21 (alternate link to recommended "fmgen" build). There aren't many to choose from as far as I'm aware, but it could help to expand others' emulator knowledge base. PC-98 - Touhou Wiki 24.222.178.254 (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of video game emulators. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111002212008/http://yaupspe.com:80/ to http://yaupspe.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

www.e-emulators.com

Is the 3DS emulator on www.e-emulators.com legit? If legit, is it the best? If not, what is the best? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.94.244.245 (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Problem with the sixtyforce release date

The emulator was updated to 1.0.1 but the author doesn't provide the release dates on his website. On the bottom it says: "copyright © 2000 - 2016 Gerrit Goossen. all rights reserved." so maybe it was released this year. Anyways I will leave the version number unchanged till I manage to find the date so it will stay as 1.0 for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordKaiser00 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Status column

Would anyone be opposed to adding a "status" column to each emulator? Reason I ask, is there are a lot of defunct projects here with things like "unknown" websites. Take Bleem! on the Playstation.. dead and has been dead for years. Karunamon ^✉ 16:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It usually is a problem determining the status of certain emulators. Dubious information like that tends to controversial. I mean, we have already a "last release" column. Cainamarques (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I don't want the active/inactive column back as it's unneeded, if that's what it's being talked about. I even tried to remove it from the Spanish page but that page is overprotected.--LordKaiser00 (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

About Version Release

Please only update a emulator version number and release date if the emulator is released to the general public and it's on their official website or at least documented on github etc. Early build released in private for example to donors on Patreon should not count as os not technicaly releadsed. Does anyone disagree? --LordKaiser00 (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of video game emulators. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004214219/http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/thumbs.aloft/wos/world/edge/sparcade.htm to http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/thumbs.aloft/wos/world/edge/sparcade.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130709160922/http://www.ndsretro.com/gbadown.html to http://www.ndsretro.com/gbadown.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140428224553/http://nds4ios.angelxwind.net/builds/iOS-fat/Karen_angelXwind/Version-stable.txt to http://nds4ios.angelxwind.net/builds/iOS-fat/Karen_angelXwind/Version-stable.txt
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chrislam.co.uk/rainbow-atari-8bit-emulator.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jagulator.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://exophase.devzero.co.uk/drastic_readme.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)