"

Hi Lulubyrd, would you be so kind as strike out or remove your post for the reasons I explained in the ANI thread? (Reader's digest version: because it's not true, I even gave you a diff, and because I'm bothered you'd say such things). If you would do, then perhaps I owe you an apology for not WP:AGFing and assuming you wouldn't. It's not like our paths will cross very often, if ever, but why not score another friend?

Like you said in the article talk, the sources I cited didn't support ""Sabbatic Witchcraft"", and... hey now, believe it or not, I was aware of that. You are welcome. Polemics make it difficult to communicate effectively.. there was no dispute, and no good options... but if you had renamed the article Sabbatic Craft, no one would have undone it. Better still, if you had suggested deletion and mentioned there was already a writeup in Contemporary witchcraft, I would have been behind that 100%, (even just mentioning the latter, I'd have suggested the former), with redirect 'natch.

""Sabbatic Current"" works ok as a section header, but because it's so obscure, it couldn't be used for the article per the guidelines for WP:TITLE, and while ""Sabbatic Craft"" would have been better in that regard, it's supposed to be proprietary—the kanundrum... In addition to struggling with the guideline, I was trying to find a way to go by what Chumbley said too... and that's consistent with what you thought WP should do, yes?

Do you have any concerns with the redirects for Sabbatic witchcraft and Sabbatic Craft?

It's a sure bet you know way more about Sabbatic Craft than I intend to learn. What did you think of the changes I made to Contemporary witchcraft#Sabbatic Current? Is there a particular section in the Chumbley article that would be good to point the Cultus Sabbati redirect to? (My impression was none in particular, but I only read it once through). Was the link to cunning folk copacetic?—  "