Cantr II Discussion Forum

A long time ago, and 3 times after that, the English wikipedia article for Cantr II was deleted. This has been recreated on Junesun's wikipedia profile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Junesun/Cantr_II

It would be much appreciated if you could provide suggestions or edits to this page. It's at the point now where I'm asking if we can repost the article.

Edit: I just made the 77777th post on the General Discussion Thread!

Good on you for trying. I'm certainly not volunteering, but this needs some serious editing to meet Wikipedia's standards.

Even so, I suspect it would eventually get culled as an unneeded page. Is that why it was culled originally? Was there a reason given?

Yes, the reason given was A7

Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7:
An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

Much of the current article talks about why Cantr II is significant.

Well Cantr is the first of its "class" and there are several others that attempt to "replicate" or even straight up copy the idea so that in itself should hold Cantr's validity.

When something is the beginning of a genre or era... I mean, right?

Wow. I've been wondering for a few years why it keeps getting deleted.

Dudel wrote:Well Cantr is the first of its "class" and there are several others that attempt to "replicate" or even straight up copy the idea so that in itself should hold Cantr's validity.

When something is the beginning of a genre or era... I mean, right?

That's pretty much my take on it.

Exactly Doug...

Heck just starting the Wiki page with "Being the first of its kind" or "First in the now more popular type"... etc etc etc

You can't say "Cantr ain't relevant" and then discuss its predecessors!

I see the problem though is Cantr is too "niche" and not enough "main-stream" to have itself a Wiki... that's the only valid argument I would "accept".

starting the Wiki page with "Being the first of its kind" or "First in the now more popular type"... etc etc etc

Is that a claim we can make? If so, that's a good idea.

Also, the wiki page could use some sources and citations for the information in the article, if that's possible.

I've never seen anything like it, but I'm new to the genre. You'd have to ask some old MUDders their take on it. My sense is that Cantr is the descendant of MUDs that crawled up on shore and breathed it's first gulp of air.

Finding anything to cite that wasn't either written by a fanboy or isn't published on a cantr.net domain will be very difficult. Perhaps you could "interview" Lumin and Chase to get their perspectives as the creators of the "progeny" games.

Who are Lumin and Chase?

Reading through that article just briefly gives me the idea that it is more of an advertisement than a Wikipedia article.

That's something we should work on. I noticed that in particular the features list seems like an advertisement...

Joshuamonkey wrote:Who are Lumin and Chase?

The creators of Faery Tale Online, and Reveri.es respectively. Both denizens of this form, either currently or in the past.

Geniuses, both of them. In fact, why don't FTO and Reveri.es have wiki pages? I mean, Reveri.es isn't even in beta, but chase could put her ideas on the wiki page.

Although FTO is an example of how not to implement birth, because I made an account on July 1 and still see this:
Pregnant Mothers: 3
Your position in the birth queue is: 62