Talk:Project64

New version
-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)


 * I added the part about the previous versions of Project64 and the latest stable release. --Julioenrekei 11:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Added the system specifications.. been a while since i've seen this article. 04:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad link
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)

Screenshot
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)


 * added a new screenshot :) --Dabean 03:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

tagging
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)
 * 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)

add a list of game
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)
 * 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)
 * 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 Testa rossa   Talk Who 17:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability
I've gone and slapped a WP:Notability tag on this here article. This has something to do with that fact that the only sources are from online emulating sites. Which doesn't cut it. Thanks,  Aaron  ►  08:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * and who are you to decide that emulation sites aren't notable. do tell me, how much of wikipedia's information initially started out as unnotable hmmm. Historical information is heavily up for interpretation for example, and perceptive fact is as individual as anyone person.124.170.224.232 (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The notability of those sites aren't in question here. The problem is that basing an article solely on links to the sites that support these emulators' development is first-party information, and unacceptable according to Notability. I'm sure emulators have been in the news at some point, but unless you can find news articles from a variety of third-party (i.e, news) sources, it doesn't deserve it's own article. And remember, notability is not determined by how much you personally like the topic. You may want to read WP:Third-party sources to gauge a source's independence. The "news" site referenced here is emulator-specific, and not internationally known.


 * "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Rhowryn (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

constant development ?
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)

Website change
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)
 * 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)

Project64k Merge
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. - usucd i k 03:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Rejected 124.170.226.210 (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Remove Use of LSR templates
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)

project64k
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)
 * Done 124.170.226.210 (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

complete survey??
back when i downloaded all versions, i was having trouble getting to them because some spam was interupting. if this is the survey thats referenced, i used peerblock & blocked advertising, & downloading them became easy:) if this is the case, by all means add it!
 * i collected 28 balloons on diddy kong racing before it became too hard

Failed merge
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)
 * Exactly why i just refucked the merge and rewrote half the article.124.170.224.232 (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Undo The Merge/Delete?
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)


 * 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)


 * I agree - Project64 page must be reverted to having its own page. ALLiGaToR144 (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * 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 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)

Revision of the merge consensus
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. ISBN 1587363496.

Please advise.

Thanks! Valoem  talk  15:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I restored the article per discussion Valoem   talk  17:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)

First Paragraph
I must protest this reversion of my more accurate opening line to this article, citing Project64 as both emulator and malware delivery mechanism. While this vital piece of information is included below, the aggressive manner in which this malicious software is thrust upon the user combined with the severity of the infection (known to reinstall itself and render machines unbootable) necessitates an equally aggressive approach in categorizing the emulator as a whole.

Project64 surrendered its right to be known as "just" an emulator when it sold out to become an emulator-plus-virus. New users MUST be informed of this hazard in the opening summary. KhazWolf (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reliable source backing your stance of such a reputation. Otherwise, it has no place in the article. Sergecross73   msg me  00:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What would count as a "reliable source" for a self-evident demonstrable fact such as this? One Google of "project 64 malware" will provide an endless source of results saying the same thing.  If anyone is in any doubt they can download it and experience for themselves the "malware distribution".


 * Wait I've got it. The article already says it contains bundled malware.  I humbly propose we have the article cite itself as a source. KhazWolf (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you cannot cite Wikipedia articles as a source, because anyone can alter it at any time. Please look at at WP:VG/S for potential sources to use or avoid. Sergecross73   msg me  02:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay fine I quit. You're asking for a reliable source when the fact is no "reliable source" is going to consider this noteworthy enough to report on because this sort of thing happens every day.  You want a non-sarcastic suggestion?  I cite the .exe file hosted at pj64-emu.com.


 * This isn't a matter of opinion and it's not a matter of credibility. It is a fact that the latest version of this software installs both an emulator and a malicious browser hijacker.  To represent Project64 as exclusively one of these is a judgement call I can only suppose comes from long-standing brand loyalty in the community. KhazWolf (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's not noteworthy enough to report on then it's not noteworthy enough to include in an encyclopedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I could repeat what's already been said but instead I'll just say that what Sergecross73 says is correct, no reliable source, no go.  Я ehevkor ✉  09:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no affiliation with this emulator or it's staff or community. I've never even used it before. The only reason I even noticed this was because the article was left on my watchlist after another editor asked for my assistance in cleaning up the article. Sergecross73   msg me  12:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. Three perfectly garbage replies here but you Sergecross, you make me sick.  I see your last edit, deleting every trace of this useful information as retaliation for my attitude.  Bad enough you have bias on your record, now we have spite?  What good are you?  How the hell did you GET this job in the first place?  That level of childishness shouldn't be tolerated anywhere, much less wikieffingpedia.  There are not enough expletives in my language to express what you are.  Go ahead and try to justify yourself I won't be listening.  Edit whatever lies you want into your stupid pet article, I'm out.


 * I'll never ever donate to Wikipedia again by the way, I had NO IDEA that this is the kind of train wreck I was funding all this time. Thank you for opening my eyes.


 * In before this entire talk thread is deleted just to cover up your indiscretions. KhazWolf (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Before you go, remember the golden rule.. beyond that, goodbye forever.  Я ehevkor  ✉  22:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, I was on my way out but now that other staff have stepped in to privately threaten me I'm not leaving so quietly.


 * I am going to go revert it again and this time remove the citation altogether because ACCORDING TO /wiki/Wikipedia:When_to_cite, AND I QUOTE:


 * "When a source is needed


 * Material that is actually challenged by another editor requires a source or it may be removed; and anything likely to incur a reasonable challenge should be sourced"


 * "When a source may not be needed


 * Subject-specific common knowledge: Material that someone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true."


 * "The right to challenge: Any editor has the right to challenge unsourced material by opening a discussion on the talk page or by tagging it. Material that should be removed without discussion includes unsourced contentious material about a living person, clear examples of original research, and anything that is ludicrous or damaging to the project."


 * I SUBMIT TO YOU THE FOLLOWING:


 * The FACT that Project64 2.1 comes bundled with malware is subject-specific common knowledge among users of this software.


 * This fact is NOT likely to incur a reasonable challenge as any challenge can be immediately resolved by personal examination of the software and confirmed by as many additional witnesses as required to achieve sufficient consensus or to themselves constitute a new "reliable source".


 * If an editor had desired to challenge my unsourced material earlier, they should have proceeded to DISCUSS ON THE TALK PAGE as this material does not meet the above-quoted criteria ie/ it is not regarding a living person, not original research, definitely not ludicrous and, as the creator of Project64 does not profit from or rely on this software in any way, it can also not be considered legally damaging. In this ensuing discussion, the previous paragraph would apply and any doubts would be quickly dispelled.


 * It is for these reasons I insist that a passage remain in this article explicitly and factually stating that the official installer for version 2.1 also contains "malware". It can be phrased in whatever manner necessary to preserve neutrality but it must be stated and it requires no citation.


 * Dictated but not read, KhazWolf (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You keep referring to this talk page in your edit summaries, and I have no idea why. All there is, is three experienced editors against your stance with policy-based arguments. Anything challenged needs a source, plain and simple. Sergecross73   msg me  23:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I challenge the statement. It asserts that the bundled software exists, that the bundled software is malware, that it hijacks the browser, and that it occurs in future versions of the software ("As of version 2.1 [...]"). Some of these claims are claims of opinion (i.e. that the bundled software is malware), and absolutely require a reliable source. You could make an argument for a statement such as "Version 2.1 of Project 64 includes bundled software in the installer.", but others here might not even agree with that. Finally, you must seek consensus before adding the statement back. I can't stress this point enough: do not continue to revert the page without first forming a consensus here. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have written the line back in in a way that it cannot be misconstrued (specifically mentioning the version available on the official website), and cited a proper source displaying the result of several reputable virus scanners with regards to the Project64 2.1 installer. Also of note, the website lists the download location of the file which was scanned and assessed, so there can be no mistake where it came from. I hope that this will suffice to end this dispute. --H Hog (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And I have removed it. the source does not support what you have claimed. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Care to explain how it doesn't? (For reference, here is the source in question: [] ) --H Hog (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "As of 2013," Source makes no mention of 2013. "including Conduit Search Protect." source does not directly mention Conduit. "contains bundled malware" source says "is infected by a worm" not contains bundled anything. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change the fact that the file is infected with harmful software, on the official download website thereof. But hey, if you don't trust me, don't take my word for it, why not download it yourself and try it out firsthand? --H Hog (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Reports generated from both Anubis at ISEC lab and VirusTotal show malicious behavior from the Project 64 2.x installers. Here's a report from VirusTotal showing the Project 64 installer "phoning home" to several URLs to download adware/malware: [] Google also has their download page reported as an unwanted software site. It should be at least noted in the article that the latest versions bundle unwanted software.Ggigabitem (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That source seems reputable to me. Added reference. That's a primary source if I ever saw one. The odds of google's warning page and virus total being incorrect would be highly unlikely. To me this is like wikipedia referencing a case file. Perhaps Project64 is not notable if news of its infection is not on all the websites. I mean this is legal grey area to begin with. There's also the warning at Emulator-zone There's evidence, but it's not a big news report because nobody really talks emulation since well... grey area. Klichka (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Malware Claims
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)

Most of the claims seem to be true. Some people have reported the same things. There's been discussions on Reddit and in several emulation websites. 201.69.195.49 (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)