Suggestion for duplicities

Whenever you say something like “This radical is the same as the kanji” (= no further explanation), could you add a link to that kanji? A lot of the time, I don’t remember the mnemonic that was used with the kanji and would like to refresh my memory

I know there is a search function, but I must have searched for those kanji a thousand times and I’m sure there are many people like that… that’s a lot of wasted time collectively.

One example because it just popped up, radical Chapter 章


I second this. Maybe have it go both ways if it wouldn’t be too hard!

1 Like

Duplicities = acts of bad faith
Duplicates = two copies of the same item


It is an act of bad faith. Those crooked WK staff messing with your SRS by adding an additional radical which is the exact same item! :wink:

1 Like

Hey, I’m here to learn Japanese, not English :wink:


There is a link. You must go one tab back where the composition of the vocab in terms of kanjis is given. If you click on the kanji icons it will bring you to the kanji page.

It is the same for radicals. When you learn a kanji, you go to the tab where the kanji composition in terms of radicals is given. A click on the radical icon will bring you to the radical page.

This also works in reviews. If you expand the info with the eye button you can click on the kanjis and radicals icons to go to their pages.


No, they’re talking about the radicals having a link to the identical kanji, not the kanji being linked to the radicals. It doesn’t exist if you learn the radical after the kanji.

Oh. I missed that. Sorry.

dude… I am talking about radicals. there is no composition tab. radicals are the composition

But the title is misleading/confusing

Note that duplicity also carries the meaning of being twofold or double. So while the act of bad faith is probably the most common use of duplicity you will encounter, it can also mean something non-pejorative and closer to duplicate, which the OP seems to be indicating in the title.

I am well aware that the two words have an etymological link, but I am also aware of their common usage, which is what I was addressing, in the hopes that OP would edit the title for clarification; that has not happened.

1 Like

I see where you are coming from, however, OP not using the common usage is not wrong in and of itself. It’s just a different way of saying the same thing. I do get that you are trying for OP to change it in hopes that maybe it would clear up those who wish to help that may not be aware of the uncommon usage. So here’s to hoping OP will edit for clarification.

1 Like

OP is no regular, though! @RadekC, I can ddit the title for you, if you want?

1 Like

Anybody can edit the title of their own post, though.


Oh, I didn’t realize.

This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.