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