Creatures Wiki talk:Undocumented CAOS commands


 * I propose this article for deletion. It's unnecessary with the engine caos guide - people should just add caos commands to the Wiki as they see fit. I'd expect this sort of article to contain only things like MOWS, really. At the very least this should be in a meta namespace. -bd_ 01:29, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Suggest you ask GameFreak about it. I don't see any real harm in having it around, though . . . -- 01:36, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * It's incomplete(!), completely uncategorised, is only even correct to a single engine release and doesn't really serve any useful purpose. If someone *really* wanted to do this, you'd want List of CAOS commands, categorised and organised, and then it'd be obvious what was missing by the red links. - Fuzzie 01:39, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * As a side note, the article should be able to stand on its own; not need its creator to back it up. I think it would be a good precedent to set to avoid calling an article's author in to defend it - an article should stand on its own. Of course, the author may step in to defend it anyway, but their arguments should have no more merit than anyone else's. -bd_ 01:42, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * This isn't Wikipedia. We're not hurting for space. This is GameFreak's project, which he may or may not ever get around to finishing. If you want to move it to his userspace, fine, but I they put some effort into writing it out, so deleting it would be a shame. -- 01:47, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * And if you really want to replace it, make something better first. -- 01:47, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * The category is for categorising, it does it automatically, and is designed to do so, you propose that we manually categorise this lot? You're welcome to.
 * Incomplete? Yeah, this is a wiki, if you can't be arsed to get off your backside to help finish it, don't complain.
 * GameFreak 18:43, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Whoa. Uh.  Let's be nice, ok?  We're leaving it for now, it's in the Meta category, everyone's happy.  Let's not abuse people.  :P ElasticMuffin 19:23, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I just don't like the fact that I did the majority of documenting here so far, I have had some help, but not much, and people are going around saying 'this is wrong with it', 'that is wrong with it', without actually doing anything about it themselves, I have other things to do than fill out this list, or make it into something fancy, like the actual documenting for one thing, which I plan to get back to when I have some spare time soon.
 * GameFreak 21:28, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd be more inclined to believe fuzzie and bd_ on this. Since, they are likely to know a more, GameFreak. --


 * I agree with GreenReaper in that there is no need to delete work whilst there are other options available. We are still grateful for GameFreak's contributions and, if any changes to pages need to be made/suggested/assigned for correctness and/or completeness (or a note or template-inclusion to that effect) or a page has to be moved to a person's userspace (if it is personal to them), then that's a more positive option - Don 12:56, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an old discussion. I still stand by my point that it shouldn't be in the main namespace (but then, it no longer is). The other problem is that some of the articles turned out to be largely incorrect, too. We've been fixing them, but I'm certainly not grateful to anyone for adding articles which haven't had basic fact-checking or even a note stating that they haven't been checked. - Fuzzie 13:05, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that should be the responsibility of the person adding the article - Don 13:53, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

About the checking of articles... the wiki actually has this functionality built in - that's what all the exclamation marks are about on all the edits, and the 'mark this page as patrolled' links on all the pages. It's just that it hasn't been used. - Malkin 21:03, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)