What happens if I catch Wheatley?

Apart from a typo (fell instead of fall), I'm improving the overall post and I don't see why it rolls back:

  • Added yet, as you can carry him later in the game.
  • Added that early in the game, as he isn't scripted for that later.
  • Added use key, as it is more generic. I have E unbound.
  • Added reasoning behind the scripting decision, one of the first dialogs in the game so no spoil.

Anything in this edit is correct, so why was this rollback necessary?

Looking into this again and purely on the question title, I could of course explain in an own answer what really happens if you drag him. But we shouldn't be disallowing correct improvements to other people their posts where the case is to silly to produce an own answer.

The FAQ explicitly states that the site is collaboratively edited like Wikipedia; thus our edits shouldn't be punished back when they are improving the quality and content of our wiki aspect of the site. This doesn't necessarily need the question to be a Community Wiki, for which there are other reasons...

Other people can edit my stuff?!

Like Wikipedia, this site is collaboratively edited, and all edits are tracked. If you are not comfortable with the idea of your questions and answers being edited by other trusted users, this may not be the site for you.

  • 1
    …how about now?
    – badp
    Commented Apr 19, 2011 at 23:21
  • 1
    @fail badp - you removed a properly used emdash‽ You monster. Commented Apr 19, 2011 at 23:23
  • 1
    @Raven I hope the proper … in the comment above makes up for it (although I used it mainly to get precisely 15 chars :P). Also ― single dash there? Tsk tsk tsk.
    – badp
    Commented Apr 19, 2011 at 23:58
  • 2
    @fail badp Clearly we need to make the interrobang into an even more awesome punctuation mark to compensate for this glaring deficiency. Commented Apr 20, 2011 at 0:32

1 Answer 1


I rolled it back because the sentence you added makes no sense contextually, and I felt that additionally, even if it did, it didn't add anything to the answer. I have played through Portal 2's opening, and the phrase you mention is used once some 10 minutes before you have to "catch" Wheatley.

The grammar and spelling changes are more of a tossup; sure you can "fix" them, but they're not necessarily wrong to begin with. Should I have simply edited out the new sentence instead of rolling back? I could have, but, as said before, the grammar of the "rolled-back-to" answer isn't wrong either.

Short Version: If you hadn't added the second sentence describing your reasoning, I would have not found fault with it. Feel free to re-add it as a comment, however, though I still don't understand what you mean by it.

  • I thought it wasn't reasoning, but logic sense. It does fit in the context as he couldn't pick up the cube because of that. I changed something in every sentence which made it more worth to adjust the answer, if I were to only post that extra sentence it could've indeed fit as a comment. As I like @failbadp's edit, I'll drop it by as a comment; consider this issue resolved! Seems I learned a bit more about when to edit, comment or answer... :) Commented Apr 19, 2011 at 23:36
  • @TomWij - I merely used your words above; "reasoning" is your last bullet point. Commented Apr 19, 2011 at 23:41
  • @TomWij - I fail to see why the subject's hypothetical state of being is related to being able (or not) to catch a falling object. The way the script (plot) plays out in game seems to imply that Wheatley "shoots himself in the foot", as it were, by releasing himself unexpectedly. There's a much simpler Occam's razer: It's funnier if he falls. Commented Apr 19, 2011 at 23:59
  • @RavenDreamer: Yes, but you've turned it into my reasoning behind it but instead I am referring to the reason why it occurs in the game. That reason isn't subjective, as the subject is clearly suffering and is exercised to be revived from his temporary illness... Now, the reason why that sentence fits well into this answer is because it explains why Wheatley can't be caught at that point. That's why I was wondering if it could have been reconsidered, as this doesn't make anything about the edit wrong excluding a small typo... Commented Apr 19, 2011 at 23:59
  • (above two comments are swapped by a late edit) - @RavenDreamer: That's just turning words around. Suddenly you are talking about Wheatley and not about Chell, so what the plot implies about Wheatley releasing himself unexpectedly is irrelevant to what Chell can do. Your Occam's razer about Wheatley is simply a result that is only possible when Chell hasn't been fully revived yet. Physical illness makes you really weak, and thus unable to do some physical tasks... Commented Apr 20, 2011 at 0:05
  • @TomWij - except, there is no indication that there is anything wrong with Chell, which is why your comment is speculative, which is why it should be a comment. Commented Apr 20, 2011 at 0:15
  • @RavenDreamer: Actually there is enough indication. She has survived the explosion we saw in the first Portal. She has slept for a very long time in statis causing her to be very tired and tenacious (as per Page 26 of Lab Rat), you can see this in her eyes. She is given special exercise (look up, down, portrait, bed, ...) for this purpose in the beginning, thus she can't talk and is also unable to catch a heavy object like Wheatley. Commented Apr 20, 2011 at 0:29
  • 1
    @TomWij - except, there is no indication that there is anything wrong with Chell. You can't catch Wheatley because the writers wrote it so you can't catch Wheatley. You're greatly overthinking this. Commented Apr 20, 2011 at 0:30
  • @RavenDreamer: I've listed enough indication, for example see this Lab Rat page I referred. Writers try to keep on with the plot and thus write things with reasoning behind it, or it would turn into a very weird story. Off course I might be over-thinking a single bit of the entire game, it's for the improvement of the quality of our content.. ;) Commented Apr 20, 2011 at 0:34
  • Accepted, edited my comment to be more correct. I no longer want to argue about this... Commented Apr 20, 2011 at 0:49

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .