Talk:Hollow Knight

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is about a video game and not "web content" as described in WP:WEB, specifically: "Any content accessed via the internet and engaged with primarily through a web browser is considered web content for the purposes of this guideline.", and the footnote to that statement: "Content distributed primarily through the web which does not fall under this definition should be considered a product, for which see Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)". Clearly a video game is a product for the purposes of WP:WEB. --carelesshx talk 16:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right, but that wasn't always so. I know, because I was involved in the changing of the definition :). Also, as it runs on the user's machine, it isn't web content; it's a computer program. Adam9007 (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion Part II
I have removed the proposed deletion tag added by. I believe the game satisfies the requirements for notability described in WP:NSOFT, although I'm not convinced those guidelines are suitable for video games but that's another matter. The game is available on Steam and GOG.com and has roughly 30,000 sales on Steam at time of writing. It has been reviewed on PCGamer and Rock Paper Shotgun, respected PC gaming websites. Its upcoming Switch release has been covered on multiple websites and it has an entry on the Nintendo e-shop. Coverage of the PC release has been small, probably because it is an indie game that has come out of kickstarter; it is likely that the game will get more coverage once the Switch version approaches release. In any case, per WP:NSOFT, non-notability is not considered sufficient sole grounds for deletion. I would suggest that the proposer actually present a case for deletion before proposing deletion of this article for a third time. I will try and improve this article at some point but not right now as I have to go out. carelesshx talk 18:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image caption
When it's very obvious from context, we don't need to write it - of course the logo is for Hollow Knight (what else would a logo in the Hollow Knight article's infobox be for?), and unless there is a reason to believe it might be unofficial, the word "official" does not add anything.--IDVtalk 08:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, the image doesn't need a caption at all, so I've removed it. FWIW I think it was valid to label it as official, since the image was at one point replaced with an unofficial fanart version of the logo, but I take your larger point. carelesshx talk 09:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I often see logos without a caption at all, so yeah, I'm fine with that too.--IDVtalk 09:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Date format
I have corrected some edits that have added dates in MDY format, and reverted a couple of edits where dates in DMY format have been changed to MDY format. Let me explain my reasons for doing so, and why I don't believe the date format in the article should be changed to MDY format. While either date format is acceptable according to MOS:DATEFORMAT, there are reasons to prefer one format over another. MOS:DATEUNIFY states that date formats should be consistent within an article, which is why I have corrected inconsistencies. MOS:DATERET states that if an article has evolved to use a particular format, that format should bne retained. Additionally, "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page". The article was created with DMY dates and includes Template:Use_dmy_dates, indicating that DMY dates should continue to be used. Finally, MOS:DATETIES states that the date format used should respect national ties. Hollow Knight is made by an Australian development studio, and Australia uses DD-MM-YYYY as its date format. Finally finally, although it's not (or is no longer) explicitly stated in the MOS, users should not make large edits to an article where changing date formats is the only contribution of that edit. carelesshx talk 00:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The article didn't technically have a consistent format, there were bad date formats in there that I fixed in my most recent revision. But fair enough, if you think it's better this way, we can keep the DMY format. CurlyWi (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Prep-posing Removal of Issues
As of September 9th 2018 I have edited the plot section of this page and would like to suggest the removal of the issues summary may be too long or excessively detailed and contains original research. I do not see fit to remove them myself as they were my own edits and bias may inaccurately reflect my decision to remove them. Regardless, I believe the edits at the very less aide in these issues presented and would like the communities input and opinion before taking action. Precomplete (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Maintenance tags
You might want to resolve the outstanding maintenance tags before nominating the article for GA.  Anarchyte ( talk  &#124;  work )  08:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Those were added some time after I nominated it. I am not sure why they were added, as they don't seem to be needed.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

2 other expansions
I'd like to know that there are two other expansions that this article hasn't mentioned: Hidden Dreams and Lifeblood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minemaster1337 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Charms
The charms in this game make exploring and trying the new charms you find exiting. Just exploring the open world and seeing all the things you could collect makes it feel, beautiful, in a way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.249.48 (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * so true 2605:59C8:1C3:A210:74CB:80DB:4A6:EC7 (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Shade
I feel like it would be good to mention that if you die when your shade is still not defeated you will be unable to get the geo back that was held by your shade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broken Bakk (talk • contribs) 15:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Too Hasty With GAN?
I had a quick scan of the article, and some of the prose seems to be sorely lacking, especially in the Plot section. I think the GA reviewer was a bit too hasty with passing the article, and I think the following need to be addressed or else a GAR may be needed :


 * Citations are needed in some of the plot section for verification


 * Reliance needs to be reduced on "The Making of Hollow Knight" for development details. Perhaps another technology site?


 * Gameplay expansions and plot need to be separated and listed in separate sections.

This is just from a quick scan. I will take a closer look later. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * User:Levi_OP and User:Tunakanski, can you take a look at that if you're not busy? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of these things are really actionable. We don't cite plot sections, a site about the creation of a game seems like a superb source, and the sections for plot are already in different sections, are they not? The article currently meets how our MOS works. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point on the plot section. I was just thinking that since the plot is so implicative that some resources would be needed. I guess it meets MOS though. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC) Checked WP:VG/PLOT and sources are indeed needed for interpretational plots. I will deposit some of them in the article. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Potential New Infobox Image
The current image in the infobox (File:Hollow Knight cover.jpg) is a relatively small file that doesn't seem to be used anywhere besides this Wikipedia page. I believe there are numerous other images that could be used, like the one on the steam page that are better quality and fall under fair use. However, before changing it, I'd like some input from other editors. Thanks. ― TUNA × 13:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Tunakanski: The reason the current image is so small and only used in this article is to comply with Non-free content. I see no need to change the image. Dexxor (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Soulslike
Soulslike should be removed from the gameplay section in the page. "Hollow Knight is a 2D side-scrolling Metroidvania game..." reads a lot better without the use of another piece of added jargon.

In this article: https://gamingbolt.com/hollow-knight-developers-reveal-their-inspirations-for-the-game/amp, Team Cherry explains that they were not influenced by Dark Souls at all. Contention as to whether Hollow Knight is really a soulslike also exists. For the soulslike page, Hollow Knight is not included in the released list of notable soulslikes but instead stated as having similar death mechanics. TheMaskedChairman (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. Soulslike is way too niche of a piece of jargon for the general public, especially since there is evidence against using the term. Metroidvania kind of stretches it, but it has been so widely publicized that it's worth keeping in. OutlawRun (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Metroidvanias like Castlevania were mentioned as heavily inspiring the Hollow Knight development. Additionally, for soulslike, read the Gameplay section in the article. All of the elements it mentions are key parts of the game. ― TUNA × 22:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * as it stands, it seems the article ended in "the critics say it, but the devs don't mention it"
 * i think it being mentioned in the reception is cool and good, but don't think it warrants the category
 * should i remove it? cogsan  •  (give me attention)  •  (see my deeds)  20:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hollow Knight characters listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with Hollow Knight characters redirects and has thus listed them for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Randi Moth (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Make Hornet her own article?
she deserves it 163.53.144.33 (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:BEBOLD. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Main characters name.
The introduction states that the player characters name is the Knight, which is not confirmed. The main character doesn't have a confirmed name, most characters in the game refere to it as "Little shadow" or "Vessel" or something in line of that. I suggest to changing the text from "The player controls the Knight, an insectoid..." to "The unnamed main character controled by the player, is an insectoid..." sorry for any mistakes Kamnse (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)