I do not regard this submission as meeting the standards expected for this project.

>Daggers and spears are not blades; they *have* blades.

Daggers are not blades? Preposterous.
You are, however, correct when it comes to spears
Besides: "bladed weapon" is quite simply a far better phrasing, either way. I'm grateful to see that improvement.

>Given that in the narrow (and most commonly understood) sense, 日本刀 refers specifically to swords

Even the most narrow sense/use, still includes knives
…and, I'd argue, also naginata.
Just because you assume that they don't, due to thinking of 日本刀 as "Japanese sword" in your own mind, doesn't mean that the Japanese speaker/writer who is using the term, means/thinks of it in that way, when they use it.

>(which includes 短刀/short swords)

短刀, in terms of Japanese weaponry, typically (though not quite exclusively) refers to knives/daggers.
To claim otherwise, is simply ridiculous.

@@ -21 +20,0 @@
-<gloss>Japanese sword (usu. single-edged and curved)</gloss>

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>