Fine, all thank you for your confidence.

In the mean while I did some further study on Wikipedia and it's policies, and I think the page as it was copied from the Redo Wiki would not be up for long. It does not confom to the 'encyclopedia' style they are aiming at and it would be in danger of being removed. Their words: we do not provide free hosting.
I already received complaints about the user name I had chosen: AntoniaPolygon, which too much was like the 'product' on my test upload. Too bad.

Looking at the page content, we have:

• a single line about what Antonia is
• a pointer to ODF's download site
• a FAQ sub-page with a question on UV relative scale and a question on the different mappings. Wikipedia pages do not have sub pages, so this info will have to go in the main text.
• a pointer to the mega-thread here at Rendo
• a pointer to the free site
• a change log. IMHO this is obsolete because few people will be interested in the changes in version 0.9.123. Anything before version 1.0 and 1.2 would have to go I think.
• pointers to supporting content, some of which are broken or not accepted by Wikipedia for some reason. This shows the vulnerabiliy of such pages in that they get out of date quickly. It may be easier to keep one songle registry of supporting content on the free site.

What we do not have documented:

• The reason why she was developed.
• Objective info over Antonia, particulars about her rigging, technical description, techiques that were implemented, differences between versions.
• compatibility data

in short: we miss those things one would expect to see in an 'encyclopedia' reference article about Antonia. If we want it to stay, it must be developed. It is not a big thing. I can make a simple start lemma in the fashion that Wikipedia wants, so it can then Wikipedia style be extended by whoever is willing to do so.