Talk:Interchange (road)

A bit confusing sentence

@User:Jim.henderson Thank you for your great correction to my (maybe too bold) edit. However I propose to make the second sentence more readable.

Look at these:

• "An interchange has two levels so traffic going through does not meet."
• "An interchange has two levels and ramps to connect them."

The sentences above are grammatically correct, but the one below is a bit unclear:

• "An interchange has two levels so traffic going through does not meet, and ramps to connect them'."

The last part (in blue) looks like artificially added. This is because the brown part is a full sentence which separates the blue part from the beginning of the sentence. So my proposal is to place the blue part in a separate sentence:

• "An interchange has two levels so traffic going through does not meet. Different levels are connected by ramps.'"

85.193.252.19 (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Please go ahead and do it. That's how Wikipedia works. When we make an improvement, it's not a final decision; it's a proposal in which we have some confidence. When it's a big change or for some other reason we are not so confident, we propose it here in Talk Page. When we really think someone's change is bad, we undo it and start a discussion here. You think there's a simple way to improve the article. Nobody needs to approve it in advance, so the way to do it is simply to do it. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Your support is important to me because, as a a non-native speaker, I suffer from impostor syndrome. On the other hand, unlike most native speakers, I do not acquire English mindlessly, which sometimes is helpful. Language changes constantly and is influenced by our choices of words and phrases. So, instead of accepting everything what we hear, let's make good choices to make English better. Otherwise we will have more and more incorrect constructions like "oftentimes", "the reason is because", or "didn't used to be". English, like any other natural language, is inconsistent and illogical, which applies also to grammar. But whenever we have a choice, we should choose the best option. Not only for us but also for future generations because Wikipedia is frequently used by young people. I hope you share my views on this :-) 85.193.252.19 (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure. English is a crazy language like others, but with a somewhat crazier spelling. However, there's no final version in Wikipedia. Every article is open for improvement. Sometimes I find a good idea poorly written, so I adjust it. Someone sees it, and adjusts mine. Slowly, by adjustments the article gradually improves. Rarely there's a real disagreement, which we must discuss here on Talk Page. Sometimes I find a stupid idea, beautifully expressed. It's a sad thing, but I must delete it or adjust not merely the prose style but the idea. More often, someone says something intelligent, but uses street slang or some other kind of prose that is good in some places but not in an encyclopedia. Easy to repair. Anything we write might survive for centuries in old versions of Wikipedia, but the current version is merely today's version. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Exactly :-) 85.193.252.19 (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)