<entry id="2150663" stat="A" corpus="jmdict" type="jmdict">
<ent_corp type="jmdict">jmdict</ent_corp>
<ent_seq>2844129</ent_seq>
<r_ele>
<reb>リベンジマッチ</reb>
</r_ele>
<r_ele>
<reb>リベンジ・マッチ</reb>
</r_ele>
<sense>
<pos>&n;</pos>
<xref type="see" seq="1925300">リベンジ・2</xref>
<field>&sports;</field>
<lsource ls_wasei="y">revenge match</lsource>
<gloss>rematch (after an earlier loss)</gloss>
</sense>
<info>
<audit time="2020-04-13 13:47:53" stat="A" unap="true">
</audit>
<audit time="2020-04-14 02:29:59" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Is this actually used in Japanese? The high n-grams are probably due to it being the Japanese name of the film "Grudge Match". The first 20 Google hits refer to the film.
If no evidence of its use in Japanese is forthcoming, I recommend rejection.</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>None provided
リベンジマッチ	13929</upd_refs>
</audit>
<audit time="2020-04-14 04:36:08" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_detl>You'll get plenty hits not related to the film (which by the way was released in 2013) if you google "リベンジマッチが". 

I totally understand having a preference for well-referenced submissions, but I don't quite understand the hostile attitude 
to the ones that don't. My image of a lexicographer is of somebody who scours various texts looking for undocumented words. 
That part, the scouring bit, seems like it'd be the time-consuming part of the job, while checking the words to see if 
they're actually used and valuable to compile in the dictionary seems like it'd be easier.</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2020-04-20 18:44:38" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>rene</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Rene Malenfant</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Well, there's no reference provided for the meaning, which means that we have to search for a reference that confirms what the user submitted.  Because the submitter presumably has some idea of the meaning (they know where they saw it and how they learned that it has such-and-such meaning), it's simple courtesy for them to provide the reference.

In my opinion, it should be impossible to submit if the reference field is empty and if the reference is invalid, then the submission should be instantly rejected.  You can't submit unreferenced factual claims to Wikipedia and expect others to dig up the reference you used... I don't know why a dictionary would be any different.

To be honest, I'm not even sure the gloss provided makes sense.  A rematch is between (at least) two people.  Presumably only one of the two people "lost the previous time", so this doesn't seem sensible.  Is the parenthesized information intended to distinguish it from the case in which the previous match was a draw?  Is there a reference indicating that it does not apply in this case?</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2020-04-22 09:30:20" stat="A">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Thanks Rene.
I felt like rejecting it on principle, but considering it fits with the 2nd sense of リベンジ I thought I should look into it further. As pointed out, the n-gram count isn't coming from the film. I think it's OK to go in.</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -11,0 +12,2 @@
+&lt;xref type="see" seq="1925300"&gt;リベンジ・2&lt;/xref&gt;
+&lt;field&gt;&amp;sports;&lt;/field&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-10-08 14:31:55" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>Marcus</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Marcus Richert</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Is this maybe better?</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -15 +15 @@
-&lt;gloss&gt;rematch (after having lost the previous time)&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;rematch (against an opponent one lost against previously)&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-10-09 10:34:10" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>robin1354</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Robin Scott</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Or this?</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -15 +15 @@
-&lt;gloss&gt;rematch (against an opponent one lost against previously)&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;rematch (after an earlier loss)&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-10-09 11:20:25" stat="A">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Simpler</upd_detl>
</audit>
</info>
</entry>