Talk:Project64

message: -I added that PJ64 1.7 should have a memory editor.  Also, the second reference is dead, could someone find a live link for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nairanvac (talk • contribs) 18:17, 20 May 2007
The statement "Project 64 is charging for a new release" is completely wrong. Version 1.7 appears to be development software, and the creators do not seem to want to share it at all. It seems like they have just made it available to donators as an incentive to donate - not a "sell the product" scheme. -psych787 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.200.201 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 19 February 2007
:Yeah, I reworded it to be a little less NPOV and a better description of what it really is (a donation). Mudlord 12:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the part about the previous versions of Project64 and the latest stable release. --Julioenrekei 11:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added the system specifications.. been a while since i've seen this article. 04:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New version

message: removed link to *****.com... reason should be obvious —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.196.3 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 27 April 2006
:blanked out domain, reason should be obvious 124.170.226.210 (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad link

message: Does anyone else think that the screenshot they have there is utterly unnecessary? If it isn't going to be removed entirely, wouldn't the space be better suited for a screen of a game, running on Project 64? I guess I'll do it myself - later though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.42.197 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 15 June 2006
:I think it should be the full interface with some roms in the list, show all options in the menu should be enaled. KingCoder 00:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: added a new screenshot :) --Dabean 03:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Screenshot

message: I added the section about video card compatibility and corrected some grammar stuff Julioenrekei (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Video card compatibility

message: I understand the tagging of the page with needing more sources, but there really aren't any real 3rd party sources. The only 3rd party sources come from emulation sites and forums, nothing notable really. Julioenrekei (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where else are you going to get info about emulation? Best Buy's web site? Obviously not. I'm not sure how firm the policy is for sources, but I don't think you'll run into any reliable information except on actual emulation sites. I know that not all of them are reliable, but someone with a lot of Wikipedia experience on determining reliable sources, fill us in. Shouldn't there be at least some that are reliable? What constitutes a reliable source, and are there multiple issues to factor in? 98.202.38.225 (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  tagging 

message: shouldn't we add a list of games avilable and do the same to the others  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.196.72 (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. There's no complete list of playable games for ANY emulator, and no point in making one. 65.33.206.108 (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with 65.33.206.108 on this matter. Besides in order to make such a list we would have to do original research, since finding a Reliable source on this matter would be very tough. Without reliable sources, it can't be verified Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 17:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  add a list of game 

message: The article saids:
Project64 is currently still under constant development. This upcoming version will possibly include net play, which includes LAN and internet play.
But given the fact that there hasn't been any new version in 4 years and the home page look mostly abandonned i don't think that's true anymore.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.153.118.241 (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  constant development ? 

message: I changed the website link because the other one was invalid. The source of the website is from the "Logo" link.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.211.243 (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just down right now. You changed the link to the old location. The site's no longer hosted there. The URL just redirects to the Emulation64 website now. Dancter (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website change 

message: It was proposed in the Project64k talk page that it be merged into this article, which seems completely reasonable and would protect both that content and Project64 from getting hastily deleted by some rogue mod. There are few differences, and I think that perhaps everything in the other article except for the: SysReqs, some stuff under Issues, and some of the other wordings.... can all be saved.
To keep it out of the way of the original version, I think perhaps this stuff could be placed under the Reception section. If possible, the infobox could be put there with any links, and then just dedicate one section to it all to keep it contained. - usucdik 03:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Rejected 124.170.226.210 (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project64k Merge 

message: I think it's fair to say, after 5 years without a stable release and 4 without a preview release, that Project64 is no longer a "frequently updated" project which needs to use this template. If anyone knows how to remove the LSR template and go back to using the infobox alone, please do it. Avindra talk / contribs 21:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Use of LSR templates 

message: Is an old piece of crap that fails to meet notability standards. I vote for removing this clutter. What say ye? Avindra talk / contribs 03:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done 124.170.226.210 (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  project64k 

message: The "merge" failed to maintain any content from this article, turning a 12,210 byte article into a single line in a table that already existed on the other page. It wasn't a merge, it was a deletion and redirect. 173.34.28.208 (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly why i just refucked the merge and rewrote half the article.124.170.224.232 (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed merge 

message: I beleive that the Project64 page be reverted to having its own page, as it is one of the best and most popular N64 emulators. If other people also feel this way I propose an undo for the merge with the list of emulators. If it was removed because of poor article writing, I would be willing to go and rewrite the page in a more wiki-style format. Mcdudeman (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: propose?, biiiatch please, i'll undo that shit every time some retard pulls it, wiki management are turning into complete information nazi's.124.170.224.232 (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree - Project64 page must be reverted to having its own page. ALLiGaToR144 (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but decisions at articles for deletion are difficult to go against. For this to go back to being a full article you need to address the concerns raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project64 - in other words, you need to find multiple reliable sources that are independent of Project64 itself. The sources can't just be web pages, they need to be things with a reputation for checking facts, like newspaper articles, academic journal articles, or books. If anyone can find a few good sources like that then we can revert this to being a stand-alone article. If the sources don't exist, however, then it should stay as a redirect. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And if someone does find such sources they should write an article based on what those sources say, not the fanwank that existed before. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fanwank"? That's a new word for me... Amazing what things I miss being out of the UK. :P — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Googled it following your reply. Seems to be a real word. Amazing what things I miss being out of the UK. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undo The Merge/Delete? 

message: I am currently attempting to revert the merge to list of the emulators. As of today this emulator remains most popular and only 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. .
Please advise.
Thanks! Valoem talk 15:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sake of honesty and accuracy, it should probably be noted that the discussion you're linking to doesn't have a consensus to recreate the article, but rather some people providing some sources and advice on how to improve the article... Sergecross73 msg me  00:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision of the merge consensus 

message: Is it notable that the Project 64 website has been repeatedly accused of hosting malware? It's currently blocked by chrome, for example, and has been removed from some emulator websites.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.250.79.69 (talk) 10:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malware Claims