✔️ Linting Passed

All linting checks passed. Your pull request is in excellent shape! ☀️

_{Generated for commit: d26e71b. Link to the linter CI: here}

Hi @lamdang2k,

thanks for your contribution!

I cannot say so much on the behaviour of the copy param and if it is reliably like this for all the places where you have linked the new glossary entry.

But what do you think about adding this link implicitly, by linking copy directly to the glossary entry where it's mentioned, instead of adding "See the :term:`Glossary `."? It's leaner and nicer to read. It also gives some kind of a preview on what you will find there, that "see the Glossary" doesn't.

For instance like this: "Make a :term:`copy` of input data."

There are also copy_x and copy_X params in use in other places and maybe the issue with mutual_info* that the author of #28793 had broad up, can be resolved by re-naming (deprecation needed) the param to reflect its usage. Does that make sense?

At the same time, having copy, copy_x and copy_X terms explained in the glossary is a good idea. We could do both.

There are also copy_x and copy_X params in use in other places and maybe the issue with mutual_info* that the author of #28793 had broad up, can be resolved by re-naming (deprecation needed) the param to reflect its usage. Does that make sense?

At the same time, having copy, copy_x and copy_X terms explained in the glossary is a good idea. We could do both.

I think it's better to change copy_x and copy_X to copy and keep one term copy in the Glossary. For me three different terms for the same concept are quite redundant. What do you think @StefanieSenger ?