👍

Thanks for the explanation. I don't have any objections to using
the field tags to mean specific terminology or jargon rather than
categorization, but until now I had no idea that was the
intent. (I finally understand why タンク isn't [mil]).

We typically only use field tags for terminology (i.e. technical or special terms). So 積分 gets a math tag but 数学者 does not. It has been suggested in the past that we expand the use of field tags to include all field-related terms but I'm not sure there's much enthusiasm for that idea. I'm quite happy with the current policy, which mirrors that of the JEs and English dictionaries.
Deciding what counts as "terminology" isn't an exact science, but simple A+B terms like 麻雀クラブ or 麻雀打ち wouldn't usually be tagged.

I thought the purpose of field tags was at least partially to
serve as metadata. For example, you can search "#mahj" on
jisho.org to bring up a list of all mahjong vocabulary.

If we're going to remove tags because they look redundant, should
we also remove the tag from 麻雀牌 ("mahjong tile"), 雀荘 ("mahjong
parlour; mahjong parlor"), 雀卓 ("mahjong table"), etc?

We're actually kind of inconsistent about this right now. In
addition to 麻雀, similar entries like 麻雀打ち and 麻雀クラブ
also don't have the tag.

Absolutely. The field tags should be dropped from 花札 and 相撲.

@@ -28 +27,0 @@
-<field>&mahj;</field>