Steve Bennett wrote:
Me too. Or (and I expect flames for this :)) if I see a redlink to an
article that actually exists, I generally create the redlink and make
it redirect, rather than simply fixing the link. I figure that no
mistake is original enough that it won't be repeated, possibly with
more serious consequences, like duplicate articles getting created...
Or, in some cases better yet, create the redirect and _then_ fix the link.
It really depends on the type of the mistake. Simple typos and obvious
spelling mistakes I just fix. Arguably _not_ having redirects for these
is better, since that way the red link makes the typo stand out.
For less obvious mistakes, like missing diacritics, capitalization or
pluralization errors, missing or superfluous "the", or wrong regional
spelling of words in official titles, I create the redirect and then
possibly fix the link. This involves deciding whether the redirect is
actually incorrect, or just a reasonable if nonstandard alternative.
Sometimes I even proactively create redirects for variants no-one has
tried yet, but which someone some day might.
The same goes for unusual spellings where it's clear the person making
the link didn't know the correct spelling. One often finds these on new
pages patrol when someone creates a duplicate article because they
either saw the redlink or, perhaps more commonly, tried to search for
the incorrect spelling. (One that sticks to my mind is "Inagodadavida",
which I successfully caught and redirected to [[In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida]].)
--
Ilmari Karonen