Brian, in response to your comments about adj-no: 

Over the past few years, there has been quite a bit of discussion about adj-no and how it should be used. To explain why adj-no is on so many entries where it doesn't seem necessary, here's a (slightly amended) comment I wrote a couple of years ago.

"In the past, adj-no was often added if the (Japanese) word had a corresponding 〜の entry in Eijiro. The problem with this is that Eijiro is a database of English->Japanese translations, meaning that those 〜の entries are actually inverted English->Japanese entries. If you look up 肖像の in Eijiro, you'll see "肖像の:【形】effigial" but the original entry is "effigial:【形】肖像の". Eijiro uses [noun]+の constructions to gloss thousands upon thousands of (often obscure) English adjectives that are derived from nouns. In many cases, a [noun]+の gloss is simply a way of explaining the meaning of an English adjective rather than an indication that the Japanese word is used with の to form an adjective."

In other words, English adjectives were used to determine whether or not Japanese nouns were adj-no. It was also observed that our definition of adj-no ("nouns which may take the genitive case particle 'no'") is so broad that it arguably describes every noun in Japanese, rendering the tag useless.

We tentatively agreed that adj-no should no longer be used in cases where a [noun]+の construction simply means "of [noun]" or "relating to [noun]" (e.g. 数学, as in 数学の問題). The idea was to reserve adj-no for nouns that more closely resemble 形容動詞 when used with の (e.g. 衝撃, as in 衝撃の告白). This distinction is by no means clear-cut. Indeed, a Japanese linguist probably wouldn't recognise a difference between these two uses of の. Nor is it a hard and fast rule. We often ignore it when it's convenient to do so. For example, if a noun is mostly 〜の or prenominal with an "of or relating to" meaning, we'll typically tag it as adj-no and gloss it as an adjective rather than give it an awkward and/or unhelpful noun gloss.

In summary, adj-no is messy and problematic. But even with the ambiguity and inconsistency in this new approach, it seems to be a significant improvement on what we had before. We've so far dropped hundreds of unhelpful adj-no tags and there are still plenty more to work through. Feel free to contribute to the adj-no cleanup, preferably while amending the entries for some other reason. We don't want the pending edits queue clogged up with adj-no removals.

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="1460200">南極圏</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="1460180">南極・2</xref>

https://www.wordreference.com/jaen/南極地方
the Antarctic n	(South Pole region)	南極地方

https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=南極地方
南極地方
Antarctic area
south polar regions
南極地方の
形
antarctic/Antarctic

Not as dramatic as the north pole:
南極圏	5109
南極地方	1114

See comments at 北極地方

Removing [adj-no] just so it is reviewed.  Should be consistent with　南極圏, I think.

Note：eijiro *does* mark 南極圏の as an adjective, in exactly the same way:
https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=南極圏
南極圏の
形
antarctic〔Antarcticとも表記される。◆【対】arctic〕

It seems the only thing that makes a "place" into an adjective, is whether we have a dedicated adjective for it in English... ("fetus"/"fetal" is the word where I brought this up, and expected it to drive more discussion...)

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
+<xref type="see" seq="1460200">南極圏</xref>
@@ -13,0 +14 @@
+<gloss>the Antarctic</gloss>

Entry created