Talk:List of video game console emulators/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

New Emulators

Hallo

following New Emulators are at work

Nintendo Switch Yuzu Emulator - https://github.com/yuzu-emu/yuzu

Playstation Vita Vita3K - https://github.com/Vita3K/Vita3K

Playstation 4 Orbital - https://github.com/AlexAltea/orbital

They are real including Source. Not like the fake PS4/Switch Emulators with a broken github link

EmuGamerSep (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you have reliable, third-party published sources covering these articles, such as those listed as reliable at WP:VG/S? To be listed here, emulators should be independently notable. Woodroar (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

RPCS3 is mentioning Vita3K https://rpcs3.net/blog/2018/03/ and Yuzu is mentioned in German Online Magazine: http://www.playnation.de/spiele-news/nintendo-switch/emulator-angekuendigt-erste-versionen-verfuegbar-id73043.html and reddit Discussion of Orbital: https://www.reddit.com/r/EmuDev/comments/7phxj9/development_of_orbital_a_lowlevel_playstation_4/ EmuGamerSep (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like they should be added to this article with those cited as sources, then. Good work finding those sources. I agree with you, EmuGamerSep. Go for it, be bold. If you add that information to the article I will support you and I am sure others who have complained about deleted content from this article will support you to, so nobody will be able to say that there is a consensus against you among the editors. In fact clearly there is not any consensus about anything when it comes to this article given the heated unresolved debate about it on this talk page.

We can hopefully achieve consensus using the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Other people already made quite a BOLD move themselves of removing most of the content from this article, many people would like to revert that senseless butchering of a perfectly good article, and discussions are kind of at an impasse since it seems the 2 sides of this argument just fundamentally disagree. So at this time we are already quite a ways into that cycle and it is not really working very well, in fact I would say it is failing miserably and there is not consensus at all right now. But, we ought to be able to come to some sort of compromise with the people who removed most of the content. Some way to have more content than the sparse, pathetic, sorry excuse for an article it is now, which has ruined MANY redirects and caused a lot of collateral damage across Wikipedia in many other articles that linked to parts of this article, without running afoul of the rules of Wikipedia which seem to have been applied here in an overly harsh way that amounts to total overkill. Yetisyny (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's see if we can get SOME consensus...

OK above I had a bit of an "airing of grievances" about what has happened to this article and my beliefs that it ought to include more emulators, and that deletionists on Wikipedia were removing way too much useful and verifiable information and going against the entire purpose of Wikipedia to expand human knowledge. So since then I have DONE something about it, and edited the old Kega Fusion article and brought it back, new and improved, with a bunch of edits I did in my own userspace before bringing it back, and citations to establish notability, and it is HERE: Kega Fusion. So we ought to AT LEAST have some consensus that Kega Fusion ought to be allowed on Wikipedia, right?

Now, let's see what other emulators that currently don't have articles we can have good articles about and have them listed on this page, too! I don't want to personally have to write EVERY emulator article, it would be nice if some other people helped out too. Point is, we have got to write a bunch of articles about emulators, most emulators currently are redirects to some portion of this page. But only ones notable enough to get Wikipedia articles can get Wikipedia articles. We still have disagreement over whether the ones not notable enough for their own articles should be listed in this list or not. I say yes and so do many other people, but various other people have removed them from this list. Anyway, let's add more articles to Wikipedia about emulators and then add them to this list! I just did one! You can too! Try and think of the most important emulator that doesn't have its own Wikipedia article and isn't on this list. Then write the article, cite sources to prove it is notable to keep the article from being deleted, and link to it from here. Together we can bring not just this list back, but all the other articles on emulators too. Yetisyny (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Responding in this section, but also considering some of what you wrote in other sections above. Discussions here did not cause the deletion of any articles. Except in rare cases of copyright infringement, obvious advertising/promotion, attack pages, etc. the question of whether to delete an article is opened to the community for at least 7 days. Arguments based on policies and guidelines are then assessed and, if there's consensus to delete, only at that time deleted. References to "deletionists" bogeyman generally aren't helpful (WP:AGF). Wikipedia is not trying to be Emulator Zone, and while it's not paper, it is an encyclopedia (see WP:NOT for explanations of various things it is not). Notability is based both on a question of what should be considered significant enough to include (encyclopedias don't include everything -- Wikipedia would just fall into the web generally) and what has received enough coverage in reliable sources to write a decent article. If something hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (this generally rules out most blogs, self-published sources, all primary/promotional/press material, database entries, etc.) then convincing people that we should have an article of it is going to be a challenge not just because that's how we assess significance, but because in order to write an article about it we'd have to rely on poor sources, original research, primary sources like official websites/press releases, etc. -- and nobody wants that kind of article. Not because we're all evil deletionist monsters, but because that's how Wikipedia works. That editors call something useful isn't itself a good reason to keep; they need to show it's significant by pointing to other sources.

Taking Kega Fusion as an example, I note that there's really only one decent source used there, as far as I can see -- PC World. The others either fail WP:RS, don't mention it, or barely mention it (a brief mention can be cited in the article, but it doesn't help notability). Don't get me wrong -- I have no intention of deleting it or proposing it to be deleted or anything. Even if I did intend to do that, I would be obliged to do a search for sources myself, because citations don't need to be in the article to argue that the topic is notable. Regardless, if we have an article on it, go ahead and include it. I'm only talking about Kega Fusion here because I understand being frustrated when work is deleted (it's happened to me, too), and I wouldn't want you to put in a lot of time into creating other articles if there's a good chance it would be deleted. IMO the best strategy would be to collect a bunch of sources first, and then work on a draft in your sandbox. If you want, gather the sources and then ping me (or another editor from this page) for an opinion on whether it seems like a good idea. Up to you, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

"IMO the best strategy would be to collect a bunch of sources first, and then work on a draft in your sandbox." This is exactly what I did with the Kega Fusion article, I thought I got enough sources to verify its being notable. You do not think Digital Trends or Bright Hub establish notability the way PC World does? I thought all 3 were good sources for establishing that but I guess I am biased in favor of articles I either extensively rewrite (like the Kega Fusion one) or write from scratch (like the DeSmuME one).

Anyway I just added another article, DeSmuME, which I completely wrote from scratch and also wrote originally as a draft in my sandbox (I had that idea before you suggested it to me, I guess great minds think alike, that was a compliment BTW). I think that 3 of the sources I cited for DeSmuME are good at establishing notability, namely Digital Trends, PC World, and Lifehacker. I guess you disagree with Digital Trends being legit even though there is a Wikipedia article about it, but you ought to at least agree that PC World and Lifehacker establish notability. Anyway I did not say anything where I was not assuming good faith, when I talk about deletionists I am talking about a certain philosophy that exists among some Wikipedians who, acting in good faith and trying to keep Wikipedia clean from things like spam or articles on things that are not notable, go around deleting articles, thinking, in good faith, that they are helping clean up Wikipedia and keep it as a quality encyclopedia. I just think they go a little overboard sometimes. Maybe I go a little overboard sometimes, perhaps in what I said in the comments here, I apologize if I did that. Anyway actions speak louder than words and with my actions I am trying to do the right thing and add articles with proper sources to document that they are notable. I might not have the same interpretation of what reliable sources for establishing notability are since I count 3 for Kega Fusion whereas you only count 1, but whatever. I am sure I can find more for Kega Fusion. It is mentioned on Lifehacker here: https://lifehacker.com/5835259/how-to-turn-your-computer-into-a-retro-game-arcade. That is not in the Kega Fusion article yet and since it is such a short mention I dunno if I should even bother putting it there since you said things that short don't count. I guess I have to find something better. This is slightly harder than I expected. Only slightly, since I expected it to be challenging.

Anyway, I am sorry about my earlier emotional outburst where I made several edits to this talk page in a row complaining about things. I am now trying to channel all my feelings into doing positive work to improve things here in cooperation with others, and avoid any kind of negativity or conflict. I do hope you did not take offense to anything I said, I did not mean to impugn anyone's motives. If anything I think this is more of a philosophical disagreement... I think that people who behave in a deletionist manner are essentially deontologists (following something akin to a Kantian imperative) whereas I am a consequentialist more concerned with consequences (more specifically, something akin to a utilitarian). So really, everything I do and say is motivated by consequentialism, which, if you are a deontologist, seems wrong, but to a consequentialist like me, deontologists seem wrong. At least that is my interpretation of things, although I may be overthinking things and engaging in a bit of projection, but I think it is a good explanation since deontology is all about following the rules regardless of how bad the outcome and consequentialism is all about achieving the best outcome regardless of how many rules you break. I guess most people aren't really either of those entirely but somewhere in between since you need to have balance between caring about rules and caring about outcomes. I don't even know why I brought philosophy into this. Oh right, it was to try and make the point that I really do believe you and others that I disagree with are acting in genuine good faith but just have honest philosophical disagreements with me regarding the philosophy of what Wikipedia should be and how it should work. Yetisyny (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Just delete it?

People come to Wikipedia as a starting point for their quest for information. When they find this article, they see consoles like the Xbox and Dreamcast are not listed, leading them to believe emulators for those consoles do not exist.

This article does more harm than good in that regard and veterans are preventing this list from becoming anything even remotely useful. Because of that, I intend to propose this article for deletion. Does anyone have any really good argument to make me change my mind? Alexis Jazz (talk) 07:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes: Wikipedia is not a directory. We make lists of notable subjects, with "notability" defined as significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If reliable sources don't care enough about certain emulators to cover them significantly and independently, then Wikipedia shouldn't, either. This isn't simply the opinion of "veteran editors", these are content policies—that is, policies saying what we do and don't write about—based on consensus across the project. Woodroar (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't really answer my question. Alexis Jazz (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Well that's about the most straightforward WP:JDLI XfD nom I've seen in a while. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

And that's about the most straightforward wrong accusation I've seen in a while. We're two for two! Alexis Jazz (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

How about this for a maybe sorta kinda productive step: it's been a while since I've actively used emulators. What's the current end-all be-all best emulator website? Emulator Zone? Emulator Paradise? If we can corroborate it being a solid resource in some secondary source, I'd support adding a link to EL (but it would need to be carefully selected, rather than turn EL into a linkfarm of various sites). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a good idea, though we'd have to be careful about WP:COPYVIOEL. So much would depend on whether or not the site also links to ROMs or other copyrighted content. Woodroar (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Just looking at usefulness, http://emulation.gametechwiki.com/index.php/Main_Page would seem good to me. But I'll guess we're not allowed to link a wiki. This list would be infinitely more useful if two things were added:

• The most accurate emulator available for each system (assuming a working emulator exists, but I think this will often be MAME anyway)
• The most usable emulator available for each system (assuming a working emulator exists)

Regardless of notability requirements. We should be able to verify the emulator actually exists and wasn't made up yadda yadda yadda, but not ask for CNN to report on them. This can't expand the list by more than twice the number of systems that exist. Alexis Jazz (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2018

The Nintendo Entertainment System and Game Boy Advance sections of this page are incomplete. Two unlisted Nintendo Entertainment System emulators are VirtuaNES and iNES. One unlisted Game Boy Advance emulator is VGBA. はるき にゃん (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Per previous consensus, this article only contains subjects with an article on Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2018

Under wii u emulators , add nintendo switch emulators section and add yuzu emulator. Abdulrahman Medhat (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. Only pages with articles may be added to this list. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 01:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Sega Console Emulators

I'm saddened to see that some of the consoles did not survive article merging.
Where are the Sega emulators? Gens is the most common Genesis/Mega Drive emulator. I'm hoping to one day see a Saturn emulator, but someone went and deleted all Sega emulators. What gives - why were they deleted?! Article History doesn't clearly define when/why.

Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

From what I understand this list is only supposed to include links emulators with already existing articles thus the ones that were previously listed, but didn't have an article were deleted (not by me though). The Gens emulator you mentioned doesn't seem to have an existing article thus it can't be listed here. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 21:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Sakura.

That's just what I'm getting at - Gens (emulator) did have it's own Wikipedia article. That's how I chose Gens for my Genesis emulation, but when I couldn't find the article, I found it in a list of deleted articles. It appears the intent was to copy the information in brief to this list and delete the original article..... but since the original article was deleted, Gens no longer appears in this list, catch-22.

Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

There was this article at Gens (Emulator) but it was redirected to Sega Genesis in 2006. Another article at Gens (emulator) also existed at some point before being redirected to this article. Neither passed our notability requirements. This article really only exists to direct readers to our articles about specific video game emulators. It's essentially a category in list form. I hope this helps! Woodroar (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2019

On Nintendo Handhelds, add DeSmuMe ( http://desmume.org/ )

Add a Sega section and to under it add SG-1000, Sega Master System, Sega Game Gear, Sega Mega Drive and Sega Mega-CD and add GenesisPlus ( https://segaretro.org/Genesis_Plus ) to all of them.

Also, there's Mednafen ( https://mednafen.github.io/ ) for: Apple II/II+ Atari Lynx Neo Geo Pocket (Color) WonderSwan GameBoy (Color) GameBoy Advance Nintendo Entertainment System Super Nintendo Entertainment System/Super Famicom Virtual Boy PC Engine/TurboGrafx 16 (CD) SuperGrafx PC-FX Sega Game Gear Sega Genesis/Megadrive Sega Master System Sega Saturn (experimental, x86_64 only) Sony PlayStation

And, mGBA ( https://mgba.io/ ) for GameBoy Advance emulation

There's yuzu ( https://yuzu-emu.org/ ) for nintendo switch emulation ( Doesn't run them perfectly yet )

And finally, there's Orbital ( https://github.com/AlexAltea/orbital ) for PS4 emulation ( Isn't able to boot up games yet, gets stuck in a safe mode prompt due to sending a valid hard disk image ) Magizli04 (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per previous consensus, this article only contains subjects with an article on Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Add melonDS to the list

Since it doesn't appear this article is being deleted, maybe adding melonDS to the list will help, it's a DS emulator for the most part, last version release was 2019 (0.83) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.223.209 (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2020

As of July 2020,there are two PS4 emulators : orbital and GPCS4 . Both are in early development. 103.255.4.53 (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Missing Emulators: Ryujunx (Nintendo Switch), Xenia (Xbox 360), and melonDS (Nintendo DS)

Please add these missing emulators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.161.94 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Per previous consensus, this article only contains subjects with an article on Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:WTAF and why it clearly doesn't apply here

I'll preface this by saying WP:WTAF is an essay, meaning it's not actually a policy or guideline so much as it is a norm. However, we'll take it that WP:WTAF must be adhered to. Per the section 'Red-linking in lists':

"While lists (especially stand-alone list articles) can serve a navigational function, lists are primarily a form of encyclopedic content. Thus, an entry often may simply present encyclopedically relevant facts from the cited reliable sources and not link to a separate article on the narrow subtopic (which by itself might be encyclopedically relevant but fall short of independent notability) of that particular list entry. One of the main distinctions between lists and article categories in that lists may contain non-notable entries (although many lists' inclusion criteria are not so broad)."

It explicitly says that lists can serve as a place to present encyclopedically relevant items which would otherwise fall short of notability criteria for their own article. So long as reliable sources can be found for emulators placed in the article (they can, and they have been), this justification is nonsense and directly contradicts WP:WTAF. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, 'Already has a Wikipedia article' is a very common list inclusion criteria on Wikipedia, probably the most common. If you'd like to articulate some other criteria, though, we can discuss it and perhaps have an RFC about it. MrOllie (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Add new emulators for PS4

Add "GPCS4" and "Orbital" emulators on the Playstation 4 list. These emulators are still in development but its confirmed that they can run some games.

Also, make the "PCSX4 is a scam" message more short and with a smaller font size because is weird how it is now. Reunomi (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

We only link to emulators with articles on Wikipedia, and articles require significant coverage of the subject in reliable, third-party published sources. I looked for coverage of GPCS4 and Orbital and I didn't find anything significant at all. With any luck, they'll get covered one day, someone will write the articles, and then we can link them here. As for the "PCSX4 is a scam" message, it's the same size as all of the other non-header text in the article. Woodroar (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

A suggestion

At a glance the header text

"This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources."

suggests (To me at least) that emulators may be added here, provided one has a source to indicate it is notable enough (Not necessarily notable enough for a full article, but perhaps notable enough to be listed). This is different from what I interpret to be the current consensus on the article, which seems to indicate that only emulators with (English) Wikipedia articles may be added. If this is indeed the case, perhaps it would be prudent to change this header from a template to a custom message to indicate that this is instead a list of emulators with Wikipedia pages? Removing this invitation to add to an essentially completed list might reduce the numbers of well intentioned editors trying to add entries which would simply be reverted. --Mbrickn (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Good idea, and I'm on board with changing it. I do feel like coverage is different than it was a decade ago. It wasn't unusual for a subject to get significant coverage in a single source, enough to justify a mention but not enough to pass GNG. But now it's either all or nothing. I don't know if that's true or just how I see it, of course. Woodroar (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Spine PS4 emulator

There's a PS4 emulator called spine. It's got sourcing from Kotaku but it may be better to wait until more sources pop up since it needs its own page. 2601:204:E700:7D70:24C1:ACD0:D136:2D82 (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2021

Add duckstation to ps1 emulators 72.138.152.162 (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It needs to be notable enough for a wikipedia article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

October 8 edits

User:Bawanio, I have reverted your edits again. Per prior consensus, we only mention emulators that are notable; that is, emulators that have pre-existing articles and meet our general notability guidelines. Your restructuring is also unhelpful to readers, in my opinion. The size difference between, for example, "Nintendo" and "Home consoles" and "Nintendo Entertainment System" is minimal, which makes it difficult to follow the nested headings. If you disagree, that's fine, but you need to build consensus for your version rather than simply editing again.

This revert also includes removing/reverting a link to the Emulation General Wiki. Per WP:ELNO #12, we generally avoid links to open wikis. Woodroar (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey - do we need to keep some obviously notable emulators (ie Xenia & Xemu) off the list, though? I mean there are demonstrable examples of emulators working in action. It's obviously present, and known to thousands of people with dozens of videos showing it in action. That makes it noteworthy, in my opinion. GeneralHamster (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

We had an article on Xenia but it was deleted and a draft for an article on Xemu was created but it hasn't met our requirements to become an actual article. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means we're a summary of what reliable sources say. Unfortunately, reputable sources haven't covered these emulators in much depth, which is a sure sign that it's too soon for us to include them here. Woodroar (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 19 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

List of video game console emulators → List of computer and video game console emulators

I included DOSBox and added this to the lead: "The list also includes hardware/OS virtualization software focusing on game compatibility, for example DOSBox that emulates the MS-DOS operating system, and Fellow, UAE, that emulates the Commodore Amiga PC computer platform."

Retroarch (listed in List_of_video_game_console_emulators#Frontends) supports PC (Amiga, Commodore), and OSes (DOSBox) (see RetroArch#Supported_systems).

Perhaps it's better to use other terms than computer: hypervisor, platform virtualization, virtual machine, etc.

References

--Bawanio (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This list is about video game console emulators. List of computer system emulators is already a thing, and I don't see a good reason to merge the two. I've also reverted the addition of DOSBox to the list. 162 etc. (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  @162 etc.: Shouldn't List_of_video_game_console_emulators#Amiga also be removed then since it's listed in List_of_computer_system_emulators#Amiga? --Bawanio (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  Probably. See List of computer system emulators#Amiga. 162 etc. (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  @162 etc.: Done, thanks. --Bawanio (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  @162 etc.: Retroarch (listed in List_of_video_game_console_emulators#Frontends) supports PC (Amiga, Commodore), and OSes (DOSBox) (see RetroArch#Supported_systems). --Bawanio (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2023

Under the PS4 section, the article states

As of October 2022, there are no PlayStation 4 emulators that can boot into commercial games.

This is objectively false, and has been for about 3 years now. There are no less than four PS4 emulators that are capable of booting into something, several can actually play a limited selection of games, and some such as Spine have news coverage from major video game outlets. An article by Kotaku already provided by another editor further up in the talk page covers Spine, and I'm sure there are more. Other emulators such as Kyty and fpPS4 also have spotty coverage among some of the seedier outlets, but it's likely not enough to justify including them.

My request is to update this part of the section to more accurately reflect the state of PS4 emulation. Spine alone has more than enough press coverage to be included by this article's own standards. At the very least, the "there are no PlayStation 4 emulators that can boot into commercial games" statement should be removed as it's factually not true. There is no room for debate about this. The current citation is from January 2019 and predates the very existence of most current PS4 emulation projects, which largely only started taking off in 2020. 51.37.39.45 (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I've removed the PS4 section for now. We can add it back once a notable emulator appears. Thanks for the update! Woodroar (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

See now Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 6#PCSX4. Sandstein 05:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2023

The Vita3K emulator is able to emulate certain psvita games. Please consider adding it to this page. Here is Vita3K project link: (Redacted) 62.88.128.144 (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There needs to be independent secondary sourcing to demonstrate that this emulator is noteworthy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

"PCSX4" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect PCSX4 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 6 § PCSX4 until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2023

I would like to suggest NanoBoyAdvance Emulator which is a Nintendo Game Boy Advance Emulator for Windows, Mac, and Linux. Bhanu Prataap (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

If the subject meets our notability requirements and an article is created, then we can certainly mention it. Woodroar (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

as is, i did some checking around google, and all i found was the emulation wiki that apparently exists saying that "nba is mid as fr*ck (sorry, my mom doesn't let me say fuck)", and also some reddit posts about how it's possibly one of the emulators that has ever been made

those emulators usually won't ever reach the notability requirements unless something BAD happens to them, like allegations of stolen code or undercover biopunkcoin mining cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 12:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

MS Xbox Emulators

Why are they missing in the list? 79.201.163.253 (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a list of Emulators with corresponding Wikipedia articles. If you are aware of any Wikipedia articles which exist but aren't linked here, feel free to add them. MrOllie (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)