Daggers and spears are not blades; they *have* blades. Given that in the narrow (and most commonly understood) sense, 日本刀 refers specifically to swords (which includes 短刀/short swords) I see no issue with "Japanese sword".

@@ -21 +21,2 @@
-<gloss>Japanese combat blade (often single-edged and curved)</gloss>
+<gloss>Japanese sword (usu. single-edged and curved)</gloss>
+<gloss>Japanese bladed weapon</gloss>

No kokugo, nor any Japanese language encyclopedia, states that 日本刀 refers exclusively to swords.
ALL sources (even most English language ones) agree that traditional Japanese combat knives/daggers, naginata, and traditional Japanese spears (none of which could possibly be called swords), are all forms of 日本刀.

That j-e dictionaries translate it as Japanese sword, is immaterial.
Kokugos and, far more so, encyclopedias, are far more reliable and accurate (and extensive), in terms of establishing what the term means, entails, and includes.

The entries of a dictionary, are supposed to be based on what the terms truly mean. Not strictly on what is written in other dictionaries.
(which is then shortly expressed/summarized/compressed, within the limits of a dictionary entry)
Dictionaries are very useful, certainly, but…
I do not understand this attitude of dictionary entries, being the foremost source, for what a word means.
They clearly aren't.
They are far more limited, than other, more in-depth and extensive, resources.
Often so far as to be oversimplified and somewhat flawed and potentially a bit misleading, due to their limitations.
…not to mention how you can always find some entries, that are just plain wrong even (at least with the Japanese kokugos, and quite frequently in jp-en/en-jp dictionaries) across multiple dictionaries.

@@ -21 +21 @@
-<gloss>Japanese sword (usu. single-edged and curved)</gloss>
+<gloss>Japanese combat blade (often single-edged and curved)</gloss>

daij, meikyo
jwiki: 刀剣類は、日本では古墳時代以前から製作されていたが、一般に日本刀と呼ばれるものは、平安時代末期に出現してそれ以降主流となった反りがあり刀身の片側に刃がある刀剣のことを指す。

I agree.
Probably best to leave out "katana", though.

@@ -15,0 +16,3 @@
+<r_ele>
+<reb>にっぽんとう</reb>
+</r_ele>
@@ -18,2 +21 @@
-<gloss>(traditional) Japanese sword (usu. single-edged and curved)</gloss>
-<gloss>katana</gloss>
+<gloss>Japanese sword (usu. single-edged and curved)</gloss>

I too prefer the entry as it was. It's not wrong to point out that it refers to "traditional" swords, but I'm not really sure what's 
gained. I don't think anybody was likely to misinterpret "Japanese sword".

GG5: a Japanese sword; a katana 
中辞典: a Japanese sword; a katana
ルミナス: Japanese sword
Daijr, Daijs, etc.

I was comfortable with the previous version, which matched the major JEs. We don't want an encyclopedic entry - people can go to other sources for that. I've suggested a bit of contextual information, but I don't think it's necessary.

@@ -18 +18,2 @@
-<gloss>(traditional) Japanese (combat) blade.</gloss>
+<gloss>(traditional) Japanese sword (usu. single-edged and curved)</gloss>
+<gloss>katana</gloss>