# Talk:Archer Maclean's Mercury

The article currently compares Mercury to Marble Madness. Is this really accurate? In Marble Madness, you control the marble directly. In this game, you control the mercury blobs indirectly by tilting the playfield, thus making the gameplay far more similar to the old mechanical "Marble Maze" game. Clayhalliwell (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Over a decade late, but yes, the specific reference to the tilting playfield makes it clear that whichever editor added the Marble Madness mentions had Marble Madness confused with the mechanical marble maze game. Removing. Martin IIIa (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
@Martin IIIa:  the sources directly mention Marble Madness. Maybe not appropriate in the gameplay section. but it still belongs in the development section.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

According to Mobygames.com [1] (a source often cited in Wikipedia), a PS3 version was released "13 Jul 2009". Can anyone confirm this?--217.232.221.204 (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I think they got it wrong: it was released on PSN, but not for PS3. See [2]--217.232.221.204 (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that one of the cited sources has a 404. I crawled around the web archive and found this https://web.archive.org/web/20140715084841/http://archive.news10.net/entertainment/gameguys/article/159423/99/Mercury-Hg-now-available-for-PSN-and-XBLA-DLC-coming is this the missing source?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.78.53.187 (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Archer Maclean's Mercury/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 22:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll take this on. If you haven't heard anything by Sunday, ping me if you can. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


#### Review
Hi, Blue Pumpkin Pie. Here's my initial thoughts.

You say later that Atari published the game in Europe. Does this mean they merely distributed it for Ignition, or were the regional publishers? If the latter, this needs to be included in the lead.
The lead doesn't have anything about the development aside from its designer at the very top of the lead. Maybe include at least a sentence in the second paragraph.
Having the tilt sensor thing as part of gameplay is a little unnecessary as it was a cancelled feature.
You call it a puzzle game in the lead, but this isn't mentioned anywhere in the Gameplay section. It just goes straight into a comparison with another game which, personally, I've never heard of.
"After all secret levels are discovered and themselves have the highest scores, a secret 7th world is unlocked, although this is very difficult to accomplish." - Is the difficulty a necessary part of the gameplay mechanics? This looks more like something that could be paraphrased to look less like a fan wiki description. The lengths players need to go to as outlined by the prose should be indication enough.
Please italicize Super Monkey Ball, Marble Madness and Mercury Meltdown.
Also, Marble Madness is double-linked. You only need to link it in its first instance post-GA edits.
"Atari published the European version and was released in Europe on September 1, 2005" - Link Atari, plus the sentence looks a little disjointed as if there's a word or two missing.
Have you got a better source for the game's North American date? I'm leery about using IGN game pages unless there's truly no other source at all.
I spotted a couple of places where the prose used contractions. These need to be corrected, as Wikipedia prefers contractions to be restricted to quotes.
Reception has way too many quotes and not enough paraphrasing.
In "Sequels", link downloadable content, then put abbreviation in brackets. - " Two downloadable content (DLC) packages..." (also, no need to capitalise packages).
Make sure references use the "last, first" name type, I.E., Tom Bramwell to Bramwell, Tom. Mind you, this is more of an option, so ignore if you like.
Archive references where possible.
That's what sprung out at me on first glance. I'm putting this article on hold until the above points are addressed or explained. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. Allow me to clarify: The way you play the game still involves tilting the stage to move the mercury, but you use the analog stick to tilt the stage instead of a peripheral that senses motion. I'll make some adjustments to the article so there's no confusion. Atari is actually just serving as a distributor, that was my mistake. The subjective comment about unlocking the secret world being difficult was a remnant from the previous version of this article. No excuses though, I should've noticed it.
I will continue to make adjustments. I'm looking for those contractions and changing the wording to avoid them. Will paraphrase the reception section and minimize the quotes. As far as the North American release date, I was having trouble with that. I couldn't find any news info for it. But I will keep looking.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake: I think I made all the necessary adjustments. please let me know if I missed one important to the GA or if I introduced a new problem.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: If you intend to take it further, it needs extra work. But as it stands, it's in more than reasonable condition and I think merits a Pass. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Angeldeb82: Per WP:MOSVG Releases in non-English countries should otherwise not be included in the infobox, but if determined to be necessary to include, can be discussed further in the article's body. The article is on a video game that originates in English-based territories and doesn't really have close ties to Japanese content. I'm also hesitant to keep the Famitsu review scores unless able to provide more content than just the score (as previous experience with GA articles, its looked down upon).Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I have proof of the Japanese release date in the IGN link shown here. Does that count? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the fact that its existence can be verified is the problem. i just don't think the Japanese port is notable enough for a mention.  Maybe we need a third opinion on this.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
You're right that the Japanese release has no place in the infobox, but its inclusion in the body of the text is absolutely fine when there's a good source for it. The Famitsu review itself should certainly stay in; that's simply an independently-published review of the game. Where it came from or what language it's written in is largely irrelevant, it's a relatively well-respected publication. Whether the Japanese release information has much purpose in this article, I'm not sure. If the game sold particularly well in Japan or something like that, then it'd certainly be relevant. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it is important to list Japanese release date even if sources are there. Why should we only include Japanese release date, but not the release dates in other non-English speaking regions? I guess it is ok to include some Japanese reviews or sales information though, but that is not a must as well. OceanHok (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Per MOSVG guidance, we don't generally include release dates from non-English speaking territories but Japanese reviews are encouraged per GLOBAL. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
So you always remove the mention of the Japanese version of the game being released from prose and yet you STILL keep the Famitsu score for that game despite that fact! This proves that you never care if the Japanese version exists or not. I quit editing the articles that mention the Mercury games! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@Angeldeb82: I apologize if this seems like I'm editing in bad faith. I didn't delete the Famitsu score for now because I'm trying to look for the printed review to see if it can be used still. I'm also looking for the OPM review too. I sometimes can get lucky and find it and have someone translate to add it in. And it seems like the third-party opinions seem to think fondly of the reviews. So I'm trying to give it a chance. As for the Japanese release date, there's not much significance to it other than its existence. I searched for "【Hg】ハイドリウム" on all major Japanese news outlets that could give it additional significance and have found nothing. If it's any consolation, there is a Japanese version of the article linked to the article, so it's not like it's impossible to find information. But it doesn't seem notable in Japanese sources.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I generally support putting the Japanese release date in prose, but depending on placement it can violate WP:UNDUE. I feel this is the case with Angeldeb82's practice of adding it to Reception sections, where it is jarringly out-of-place, calling attention to itself. In such cases I nearly always move it from Reception to Release. There is certainly a good argument for not mentioning it at all; few would consider including Japanese release dates in articles on non-Japanese films, novels, TV shows, etc.
Japanese reviews are also fine of themselves; the problem is when the only info we have is the score, which by itself tells the reader nothing. This problem is much harder to overcome in the case of Japanese reviews, since only someone bilingual in Japanese and English can get any info from them. I'm less inclined to remove Famitsu citations which have nothing but a number, because Famitsu is such a prestigious and widely recognized publication, but strictly speaking we shouldn't be listing off any review score unless we have real info on the review to go with it. Martin IIIa (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)