| Change log entry 74440 | |
|---|---|
| Processed by: | goldyn_chyld (2022-03-25 10:39:27 UTC) |
| Comment: |
<< review queue entry 70127 - submitted by 'richwarm' >> Getting rid of "see also". Generally speaking, I think that the use of "see also" should be avoided in writing definitions. Why? Because, a cross-reference should inform the user how the referenced word is related to the current entry. "see also" doesn't do that. The user should not have to go to the referenced entry to find out how it's related. E.g. - "see also 寶蓋" is rather unhelpful -- the user has to jump to the entry for 寶蓋 to find out how it is related to 宀. - "referred to as 寶蓋" is more helpful -- it tells the user how 寶蓋 is related to 宀 (namely, it's a name for 宀), so s/he doesn't need to go and check the entry for 寶蓋. |
| Diff: |
- 寶蓋 宝盖 [bao3 gai4] /name of "roof" radical in Chinese characters (Kangxi radical 40)/see also 宀[mian2]/ + 寶蓋 宝盖 [bao3 gai4] /name of the "roof" radical 宀[mian2] (Kangxi radical 40)/ - 宀 宀 [mian2] /"roof" radical in Chinese characters (Kangxi radical 40), occurring in 家, 定, 安 etc/see also 寶蓋|宝盖[bao3 gai4]/ + 宀 宀 [mian2] /"roof" radical (Kangxi radical 40), occurring in 家, 定, 安 etc, referred to as 寶蓋|宝盖[bao3 gai4]/ |