What should be supported is to remove the tick under the words kill, miscellaneous and kiss. Speaking of shame, I have studied Chinese characters for more than 60 years, used Chinese characters for more than 60 years, and been a teacher for nearly 40 years (of course, I don't teach Chinese), but I didn't know (in fact, I never noticed) that the writing methods of "kill", "miscellaneous" and "pro" are still different from the writing methods of a certain, blossoming, chestnut and the second half of the table. If pupils have to remember which ones are hooked and which ones are not, they will lose points in the exam. It's really scary. Uniformity is desirable, in line with the saying that "it tends to be regular and systematic".
It seems that people who make sure that there are two ways to write the upper and lower structures of the following wooden characters are fooling around. Maybe they have their reasons, maybe it's cultural inheritance, but check Shuo Wen Jie Zi and China Dictionary (19 15 edition), and there is no such tick in the lower left corner of Qin (the traditional form of Qin).
As for other plastic surgery, it is hard to say that it is not messing around.
No matter from that point of view, the lower part of Chinese characters should be water characters, so it should be written in the same way as most water characters. Why do you have to change si into dots instead of full belly?
Since Yong still has a hook in the lower right corner, why do you have to remove it?
Originally, there were two si's on the word Xun, but now we want to change one of them into a structure that hardly appears in Hanzhong (the left half of the word "change" is not sealed). What is that?
Generally speaking, tinkering is the mainstream of this plastic surgery, although I support one of its measures.
There are many things related to Chinese characters that need to be done urgently. For example, if you want to look up a word that only knows the shape but doesn't know the sound, you have to use the troublesome radical indexing method, first check the page number of the radical, and then check which page the word is on the first page of the department, so that you can look up the text instead of turning to the page of the dictionary text directly. Just messing around without solving the troubles of such a studious public is worthy of the status and treatment given by others? In this case, I still use a dictionary with four corners arranged in sequence, which is very fast and in one step. It's a pity that this dictionary seems to be out of publication. )