Talk:Sonic Jump

Why is this specific game getting a page to itself while no other mobile phone games are? --Ragey 23:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This page reads like an advertisement. Take the "Play as Sonic and save the Earth from Dr. Eggman’s newest evil plan!" sentence as an example. --Tails92 (non-registered) 16:16, 13 September 2006 (GMT+2)

Deleation?
This article is about an insignificant cellphone game. Other Sonic cellphone games do not have an article (and might I add, they shoudn't get one). This also offers nothing to limited information. This qualifies for speedy deleation. Please discuss. (NOTE: I don't no how to nominate for deleation. So, bear with me.). UnDeRsCoRe 00:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this should either be merged with a new article about all the Sonic cell phone games or turned into one by use of the move option. SNS 02:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I turned into a re-direct. Read my edit summary to find out why UnDeRsCoRe 23:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

T-Mobile Confusion
I know for a fact that Sonic Jump (and its sequel, which isn't mentioned here) was not exclusive to T-Mobile. I had it on an LG phone from Verizon. Furthermore, I doubt that it was developed specifically for that platform. Regardless, the Joystiq article that was cited didn't actually say what phones did and did not support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.211.144 (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you find any references for this stuff? I'd gladly work it into the article if there are some reliable sources that back it up. Sergecross73   msg me   18:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, here's a link to a forum post from 2006 of people discussing it candidly: http://forums.sega.com/showthread.php?65428-Sonic-Jump-%28Mobile%29 I realize this isn't exactly something that can be cited, but what is cited is equally flawed. The cited Joystiq article itself does NOT cite where it got its information on what phones Sonic Jump was originally for. In fact, to counter that article, here's a review from IGN circa 2006 that reviewed the game on an LG VX8000: http://www.ign.com/articles/2006/08/24/sonic-jump Plus, not to sound like a jerk, but if you go back far enough into this Wikipedia entry, you'll find no such mention of it being T-Mobile exclusive. Instead, you'll find the game is simply listed as "mobile phone" game. Here's the archived Sega Mobile site that listed the game, but unfortunately it doesn't list exactly what carriers and phones were supported: http://web.archive.org/web/20080705041655/http://www.segamobile.com/Sonic_Jump Here's a Wiki article on Sonic Retro for the first game: http://info.sonicretro.org/Sonic_Jump And the second: http://info.sonicretro.org/Sonic_Jump_2 Regardless, if you Google "sonic jump verizon -android -iphone" you'll get quite a few hits from people simply reviewing the game, and in many cases simply assuming it's a Verizon exclusive. Ironic, since we're arguing here for whether or not it was even offered from Verizon in the first place. This is all silly anyway; I don't think it's necessary in the first place to even mention what phones it was and wasn't compatible with. Simply saying "older mobile phones" would suffice. The point is to avoid listing brands and phone models that most certainly did not have the game exclusively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.211.144 (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clear, even now, it doesn't state that it was released exclusively anywhere, its merely that Verizon is the only one mentioned by name. Just listing one doesn't mean it's exclusive necessarily, it's just the only one anyone has bothered to verify with a source. If you prefer, we could reword it to say something more like "Phone such as the Verizon...etc", but I don't think removing it outright is the right approach. Rather than going with a generic label of "mobile phones", I feel like we should just list which ones are supported. (On a general level, like how we list out iOS, not every variation of an iPhone.) Verizon is verified by the Joystiq source, and Joystiq doesn't need to give their source because they are the source, so it shouldn't be removed. Feel free to add reliable sources for other phone platforms supported. Sergecross73   msg me   13:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Release date
Thus it seems like: 1. quarter 2005 (Japan) and April 2007 (USA&Europe). Could more precisely be 21 Feb 2005 in Japan, but source isn't good enough for that. -80.133.116.249 (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * IGN: Sonic Jump [2007] - US&UK: April 2007
 * Sonic Wikia: 21 Feb 2005 (Japan) - 2006 (USA&Europe)
 * Sonic Retro: 21 Feb 2005 (Japan), April 2007 (USA&Europe)
 * Eurogamer: "18th October with Sonic Jump, which appears to be a reboot of a 2006 iOS game of the same name" - so also says, that the original game was released for iOS. Accourding to iOS iOS was released in 2007, so the game can't be released in 2006 for iOS. Thus, seems questionable why it's used as a source in the article here.
 * Kotaku: in Japan in 2005 - linking to Sonic Wikia
 * Joystiq: 2007
 * Old webside: http://www.sonicteam.com/cafe/sonicjump/index.html (down) - web.archive.org has crawled it in March 2005, Sonic Jump official page in web.archive.org. It also reads "対応機種： 505・506・foma900・901シリーズ" which might be mobile phone things (see topic above).
 * Yeah, I was having trouble sorting through this when I created the article. The problem is, the Wikia or any source using it as the source, cannot be used. Wikias in general cannot be used be used, because anyone can edit them at any time. Someone could easily go in and change it to 2008 or 1995 for all we know. It fails WP:SPS and WP:VG/S has consensus against using them as sources. Sergecross73   msg me   12:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, as if I don't know that - and as if it's different in wikipedia -. If I'd had used those wikis as sources - I didn't! -, then I'd clearly write "21 Feb(ruar) 2005" and not just "1. quarter 2005". Yeah, right... The link writes "Sonic Jump, which appears to be a reboot of a 2006 iOS game of the same name.", so doesn't back up that claim, is wrong (see above) and is guessing ("appears"). IGN clearly writes that it was released in April 2007 in USA&UK. As the game was released elsewhere, in Japan (cf. official Japanese Sonic Jump page), that doesn't back up the claim. Thus "released in 2007" was original research (well, it wasn't, as there was no research) resp. unsourced/unprooved. Yeah, it was, but if sources where such contradicting, it was the more correct one, instead of claiming a wrong or maybe wrong date as right. And? It's information, it's sourced, and maybe it could be the date for Australia or English-speaking Oceania or Oceania too. But well, the date wasn't exact and it was likely that it could have been 18 October 2012 too (maybe back then, when it still was 17 October in USA).
 * [Wikia things]
 * "The game is a remake of a 2007 Sonic game of the same name. {ref: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-10-17-sonic-leaps-onto-ios-this-week-with-sonic-jump }"
 * "released in 2007" etc.
 * Official Japanese Sonic Cafe page in web.archive (archived from May 2005) writes: "『ソニックジャンプ』 (2/21) NEW" (Sonic Janpu resp. Sonic Jump (21 Feb)). As the game wasn't present in the last version of 2004 (from December), the game is from 2005 and the date is mentioned, too.
 * "but putting "or" like that is awkward"
 * "We don't usually list minor regions like NZ in infoboxes"
 * Now better refs and more dates added (see article). -80.133.100.39 (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC), edit: 20:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm mostly fine with how it is now. I thought it was only wikias and deadlinks support the 2005 date, and I just wanted to pick one year because to say "2005 or 2006 or 2007" is nonsensical. You could use "and", but not "or" - a game only be released the first time in a single year. And NZ isn't listed due to WP:VG/DATE.  Sergecross73   msg me   20:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)