Talk:1964 (emulator)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do: edit  Peer review: Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games, Crash of the Titans, Xbox Live Arcade, Myst III: Exile Cleanup: List of characters from The King of Fighters, Hellgate: London, LeChuck Featured article candidates: Crackdown, Halo (series), List of Sega 32X games, Alleyway Good article nominations: Ayu Tsukimiya, Music of the Final Fantasy Tactics series, Super Smash Bros., Music of Final Fantasy XI Article status review: GA Review – None; FA Review – The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, 3D Monster Maze; FT Review – None Articles for Deletion: Participate in video game related deletion discussions. Images: Add box-art and screenshots to articles. Make sure to include a valid non-free use rationale. Monitor the following related changes pages: changes to WP:VG and changes to this to-do list. Announce your new articles Sign up for the new VG Newsletter.

I'm glad somebody finally did a page on the best Nintendo 64 emulator available (in my opinion). 1964's core is faster but less stable than the PJ64 core.

Better screenshot, anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.210.148.194 (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] list of games

shouldn't we add this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blinxthecat (talk • contribs) 13:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced allegations of GPL violation

I've removed some uncited information recently added by Nmn, alleging that the 0.9.9 release of this emulator violates the GPL (and, tangentially, criticizing the stability of the Kaillera library). This is because I was unable to verify the information from any reliable source, leading me to suspect that it may constitute original research as defined by Wikipedia policy. As the allegations may be controversial or (if unfounded) even potentially libellous, this is a case where the policy needs to be enforced strictly. Since some users may not be aware of the full extent of this policy, I'll summarize it bluntly to forestall needless confusion: Unless an independent reliable source for these allegations can be found, under current Wikipedia policy they are not eligible for inclusion — however true (or false) they might be. The standard here, as describe on the policy pages linked to above, is "verifiability, not truth". However, if (and when) a reliable source is found that does discuss this alleged license violation, then, and only then, it certainly should be noted in the article. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)