Bulk addition of vi and vt from Meikyo
-*- via bulkupd.py -*-

@@ -13,0 +14,2 @@
+<pos>&vi;</pos>
+<pos>&vt;</pos>

GG5, 中辞典, etc.

I think this is clearer.

@@ -14 +14,3 @@
-<gloss>speed up</gloss>
+<xref type="see" seq="1072350">スピードダウン</xref>
+<gloss>speeding up</gloss>
+<gloss>speed-up</gloss>

Added additional dotted reading(s) via batch update.Added additional dotted reading(s) via batch update.
-*- via bulkupd.py -*-

@@ -7,0 +7,3 @@
+</r_ele>
+<r_ele>
+<reb>スピード・アップ</reb>

https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slalåm

@@ -10 +10 @@
-<lsource xml:lang="nor"/>
+<lsource xml:lang="nor">slalåm</lsource>

2児放置容疑で夫婦書類送検＝1歳死亡、スロット遊び中に―愛
知県警
https://news.yahoo.co.jp/pickup/6257632

@@ -11,0 +12,6 @@
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<xref type="see" seq="2071360">スロットマシン</xref>
+<misc>&abbr;</misc>
+<gloss>slot machine</gloss>
+</sense>

Meikyo vt and vi additions to n,vs entries
-*- via bulkupd.py -*-

@@ -21,0 +22 @@
+<pos>&vi;</pos>

@@ -20,0 +21 @@
+<pos>&vs;</pos>

gg5, prog, daij

"questioning and answering" is just a literal translation of the characters - the word isn't used in that way.

@@ -8,0 +9,3 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>押問答</keb>
@@ -18,2 +21,3 @@
-<gloss>dispute</gloss>
-<gloss>heated questioning and answering</gloss>
+<gloss>arguing back and forth</gloss>
+<gloss>bandying words</gloss>
+<gloss>verbal tug-of-war</gloss>

@@ -20 +19,0 @@
-<misc>&uk;</misc>

億劫	334156
おっくう	115499

The n-grams tell a different story (both Google and KM). The not-very-useful counts from Google's WWW search are similar.
OTOH both GG5 and 中辞典 use kana in examples. This may be because 劫 is non-常用漢字.

斎藤和英大辞典, 研究社新英和中辞典
プログレッシブ和英中辞典: https://kotobank.jp/jeword/億劫

but daijs suggest otherwise: 「ものを言うのも億劫だ」 https://kotobank.jp/word/億劫-451702

@@ -19,0 +20 @@
+<misc>&uk;</misc>

gg5, daij

@@ -12,0 +13,4 @@
+<r_ele>
+<reb>おっこう</reb>
+<re_inf>&ok;</re_inf>
+</r_ele>
@@ -16,0 +21,2 @@
+<gloss>bothersome</gloss>
+<gloss>tiresome</gloss>

@@ -31 +31 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="1184840">下見板・したみいた</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="1184840">下見板</xref>

meikyo

@@ -18,0 +19 @@
+<pos>&vt;</pos>
@@ -24,0 +26 @@
+<pos>&vt;</pos>

gg5, daij

I don't think "preview" and "rehearsal" fit here.

@@ -19 +18,0 @@
-<gloss>preview</gloss>
@@ -20,0 +20 @@
+<gloss>having a look in advance</gloss>
@@ -25,3 +25 @@
-<gloss>preparatory reading</gloss>
-<gloss>preparation for a lesson</gloss>
-<gloss>rehearsal</gloss>
+<gloss>preparatory read-through (e.g. of lesson notes)</gloss>

gg5, prog, daij

I don't think a separate [adj-no] sense is necessary.

@@ -18 +18,3 @@
-<gloss>the outside</gloss>
+<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
+<gloss>outside (e.g. of a building)</gloss>
+<gloss>exterior</gloss>
@@ -20,0 +23 @@
+<pos>&n;</pos>
@@ -22 +25,2 @@
-<gloss>external</gloss>
+<gloss>outside (of a group, company, etc.)</gloss>
+<gloss>outside world</gloss>

Alan, you're right, I should have simply said 
"apologies for misrepresenting/ 
misunderstanding you" instead. I am however 
going to reject your edit because I feel it's 
not likely to lead us anywhere productive. I 
don't know how to say this without risking 
aggrevating you further, but please take a 
step back and consider that this aggressive 
style of arguing you're using is very out of 
place here (even if it might be commonplace on 
Wikipedia, where I understand you're a 
contributor). Feel free to submit another edit 
suggestion that focuses more closely on the 
particular issue with "Latin name" as a 
translation for 科学名 (that is to say, NOT 
inthe problem of editors using vague language, 
etc.).

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement-en.svg

Please keep to the upper four levels.

>Apologies if you feel I misrepresented you

"apologies if you feel that…"?
A classic example of a non-apology.
Quite condensing and arrogant.
…and you complain about MY tone?

>but I don't think my interpretation of what you said was particularly unreasonable

How could it possibly be reasonable, or even possible, in any way?
…and it was hardly the only, completely unfounded/groundless, misrepresentation.

>Alan, this tone isn't at all appropriate on a collaborative project made up of volunteers.

People in glass houses…
Furthermore, writing in a manner that is difficult (if at all possible) to understand, is not appropriate on a collaborative project made up of volunteers. It is a serious problem, which no one should neglect to point out.
Scolding people for pointing it out, however, shows an attitude that is very harmful to any effort towards collaboration.

>I said "such logic", in reference to your argument for it being incorrect.

It would appear that I got so lost in your sentence, that I managed to miss the "such". The fact the "such" was in a separate line, didn't help.
Thank you for you for the clarification. That makes it a lot more clear.

BTW, as I missed mentioning:
The "such logic" that you were referring to, was the supposed argument, that no one has made(!), that because the first part of a scientific name might not be derived from Latin, it shouldn't be called a Latin name.
First of all, why do you specify the first part? Or any specific part? Either part, or both (or all three, in case of a sub-species), may be non-Latin in origin. (did you think that, in my examples, only the "Lupus" in "Canis lupus", is from Latin? …because "Canis" is absolutely Latin)
…and, more importantly:
Who said anything about it being wrong to call it the Latin name, due to its origins?
No one.

If you are going to argue against an argument, you must first know what the argument is. If you can't be bothered to do so, then you have no business making a counter-argument.
Even more generally, you have to read a comments, before you reply to it. (or listen to a statement, before you speak in reply to it)

An animal's/plant's "[name of language] name", is its common name, in that language.
The English name of the jackdaw is "jackdaw".
The Japanese name is kokumarugarasu.
The Latin name is graculus.
The scientific name is either Coloeus monedula or Coloeus dauuricus, depending on the specific species.
(Western or Daurian jackdaw, respectively. Or in Japanese, ニシコクマルガラス or コクマルガラス, respectively)

Coloeus comes from Greek, but if you go with Corvus (which some argue that they are in, rather than Coloeus), that is from Latin, as is monedula and dauuricus …but none of that is, in any way, relevant.

>Language has a logic, of course, but logical arguments trying to prove that clearly established language use is somehow "wrong" has little to do with this.

That is a self-contradictory statement.
…and you are the one who is saying that the well established language use, that an animal's/plant's "[name of language] name", is its common name, in that language, is wrong.

>The question "is Alan really correct when he says the Latin name formally only refers to the species name?", is deeply wrong, as I 
have never said anything like that.

Apologies if you feel I misrepresented you, but I don't think my interpretation of what you said was particularly unreasonable :

>A animal's/plant's "Latin name", is the common name it has, in Latin.
>Take wolves, for example:
>English name: Wolf.
>Japanese name: 狼.
>Latin name: Lupus.
>Scientific name: Canis lupus. (whilst this example includes the Latin name, that is not always the case)"

>It took me quite a while, to decipher what that was intended to mean. I've never quite learned how to properly use commas, and 
really need to, but I'm not nearly as bad as you.

Alan, this tone isn't at all appropriate on a collaborative project made up of volunteers. If you think something I posted seemed 
odd, feel free to ask for a clarification. 

>How is perfectly correct language use, not logical?

I said "such logic", in reference to your argument for it being incorrect. Language has a logic, of course, but logical arguments 
trying to prove that clearly established language use is somehow "wrong" has little to do with this. 

(I'm approving this to shorten the queue, but I expect the argument will continue)

@@ -18 +18 @@
-<gloss>(what is often wrongly called) Latin name</gloss>
+<gloss>Latin name</gloss>

The question "is Alan really correct when he says the Latin name formally only refers to the species name?", is deeply wrong, as I have never said anything like that.
Quite the opposite.

The only formal terms are scientific name and binomial name. (scientific name is broader, as it isn't limited to just the name of species. It can refer to various clades, like Carnivora [which contains, e.g., cats, dogs, and bears], or sub-species, like Canis lupus familiaris, which has three parts, rather than two)

Also, scientific names being either Latin or, quite often, Latinized, is explanation for why people call it Latin name, but not a justification or validation of it.
A species' English name, is the common name in English.
A species' Japanese name, is the common name in Japanese.
…and on the same note, its Latin name is its common name in Latin.
The scientific name, however, is a completely different matter.

Also, "Latin name" is not formal. Though I wouldn't call it informal, exactly. (it is, but…)
Colloquial is more accurate.
Also, and primarily, it is clearly wrong.

"logic and perfectly correct language use tend to have very little in common, in my experience."

It took me quite a while, to decipher what that was intended to mean. I've never quite learned how to properly use commas, and really need to, but I'm not nearly as bad as you.
And even after I deciphered what it is saying, it still makes no sense.
How is perfectly correct language use, not logical?

…and "/…/by means of two Latin names/…/", is describing that the names used to form the binomial nomenclature, are in Latin.
That is very different from the notion, of referring to the binomial name, as the species' "Latin name".

Though I do agree, when you say "I don't think it's very clear what "informal" here means, 
and it could be misinterpreted as if it applied to 学名 itself."
That is quite true.

@@ -18 +18 @@
-<gloss>Latin name (informal)</gloss>
+<gloss>(what is often wrongly called) Latin name</gloss>

I think this has gone on long enough, and I'm quite happy to leave the entry in its present state, so I'm rejecting the current thread. The comments will still be visible, but only via the rejected thread.

Yes, the irony of that comment has struck me as well - I regret making it, but perhaps for other reasons than you think.
I really don't see this is as a fruitful use of either of our time, so I will disengage entirely from this conversation so that the 
entry at hand can be discussed. I will not respond further.

Also, it's rather ironic to be called out for being rude, by the same person who dismissed/excused another editors rudeness towards me, by say "that's just his persona as an editor I think", as if that could possibly be an excuse or justification…

Oh, and one thing I neglected to clarify:
When I said "First consider misunderstanding (from either or both sides), ignorance (including ones own), stupidity…", it should be noted that one shouldn't assume those either (at least not stupidity), without cause, either. Also I should perhaps have included "disagreement", before "misunderstanding".

First of all, I'd like to just note an error I made, when referring to Graham's hierarchy of disagreement:
I should have stated that you should keep to the upper three levels. Not four. The forth level is merely contradicting, without any argument or evidence to back it up, and hence no reason why you'd be right or the other party is wrong …which is quite bad, if at least better than the lower levels.

>you're right, I should have simply said "apologies for misrepresenting/misunderstanding you" instead.

You acknowledge that you made a mistake in saying what you did.
That much is good, and more than I would have expected, given your behaviour. (also, most people tend to stubbornly refuse any admission of fault, so seeing one is always a pleasant surprise)
However, I note that you say this as if it were a mere error in phrasing, rather than a clear acknowledgement that you tried to avoid admitting your own error, whilst also shifting the blame on me.

I'm not expecting or demanding that you act as I would (as I have far lower standards for others, than I have of myself), by immediately admitting any and all errors when they are demonstrated, immediately thanking the one who pointed it out for the correction/education, and (if it involves me having have wronged someone) apologise to any/all I have wronged.
…but I cannot let things slide, without at least acknowledgement and (proper) apology.
Of the specific wrongs done, mind you. Not just some vague statement.

>I am however going to reject your edit because I feel it's not likely to lead us anywhere productive.

No, you refuse to engage. Because you don't want to …and never made any honest/genuine attempt at engaging, from the start, anyway.
Right from the start, you disregarded and dismissed, and didn't bother to listen. (not agreeing is fine, but not even listening…)
You are the only one who stopping it from being productive.

>I don't know how to say this without risking aggrevating you further

You could try being civil and respectful, but more importantly
Bother to make some attempt at understanding what you reply to, before replying, and show at least some modicum of rationality and honesty, in your comments.
Do that, and there'd be no problems.
Hell, I don't, personally, particularly mind some incivility/hostility, even if I do prefer things to be civil. (I may respond to incivility/hostility with incivility/hostility of my own …though never as great as that which I receive. Though, I can be rude, in regards to stupidity/irrationality as well, which I tend to have very little patience with [stupidity is not to be confused with mere ignorance, however, which is fine])

Also, it helps to never _assume_ bad faith, malice, or dishonesty.
First consider misunderstanding (from either or both sides), ignorance (including ones own), stupidity… (in that order. Though I feel I may have forgotten a step or two)
…and only conclude dishonesty/malice, after those possibilities have been considered and rejected, due to the evidence. 

Also:
Note that you are the only one, who has been disrespectful and caused problems.
There were no problems here, until you showed up.

>please take a step back and consider that this aggressive style of arguing you're using

Aggressive?
Aside from my responses to your own rudeness/insults/disrespect… (for which you bear at least partial blame, as well as not really being in any position to criticize, given your own actions)
How so?

>(even if it might be commonplace on Wikipedia, where I understand you're a contributor).

It's been well over a decade, since I was
…and one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, is "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility". (also, there is the policy of "Assume Good Faith", which is simpler version of what I stated above, along those lines)
Though, mind you, I have found that their policies, rules, and guidelines, though quite excellent _on paper_, are largely worthless, as you have admins capriciously breaking them with impunity, with unaccountably. Rules that are not followed, upheld, or enforced, are useless and rules in name only. Wiktionary is even worse, on this account. Hence, the structures that would make the sites reliable, are mostly a fiction.

>/.../as a translation for 科学名

This entry is 学名. Not 科学名.
I searched multiple jp-jp and jp-en dicitonaries, English and Japanese Wiktionary, and Japanese Wikipedia, with not even a hint of a result. 科学的名称, sure. I've also seen 学術名 on Wikipedia, on occasion, but not in any dictionary, so that may simply be an error. No 科学名, however.

>NOT inthe problem of editors using vague language, etc.).

Who ever mentioned _vague_ language? Wrong language, yes, but no mention of vague
…and what do you mean by problems of _editor's_ language use?

>The question "is Alan really correct when he says the Latin name formally only refers to the species name?", is deeply wrong, as I 
have never said anything like that.

Apologies if you feel I misrepresented you, but I don't think my interpretation of what you said was particularly unreasonable :

>A animal's/plant's "Latin name", is the common name it has, in Latin.
>Take wolves, for example:
>English name: Wolf.
>Japanese name: 狼.
>Latin name: Lupus.
>Scientific name: Canis lupus. (whilst this example includes the Latin name, that is not always the case)"

>It took me quite a while, to decipher what that was intended to mean. I've never quite learned how to properly use commas, and 
really need to, but I'm not nearly as bad as you.

Alan, this tone isn't at all appropriate on a collaborative project made up of volunteers. If you think something I posted seemed 
odd, feel free to ask for a clarification. 

>How is perfectly correct language use, not logical?

I said "such logic", in reference to your argument for it being incorrect. Language has a logic, of course, but logical arguments 
trying to prove that clearly established language use is somehow "wrong" has little to do with this. 

(I'm approving this to shorten the queue, but I expect the argument will continue)

@@ -18 +18 @@
-<gloss>(what is often wrongly called) Latin name</gloss>
+<gloss>Latin name</gloss>

While I am not a fan of "Latin name" without any qualification, as Robin pointed out it is used informally. I think it should stay as it was.

@@ -18 +18 @@
-<gloss>(what is often wrongly called) Latin name</gloss>
+<gloss>Latin name</gloss>

Marcus Richert proved himself unwilling to acknowledge or apologise for, what he did wrong.
That is not a person/attitude, that is suitable for any collaboration, or any discussion, of any kind. While it is good that he at least acknowledged that he was unsuited to try to discuss this matter, the refusal to acknowledge or apologise, shows a degree of arrogance and disrespect, that should not be accepted.
Even in a forum that tolerates rudeness/insults. (and much less one that does)

…with that said, none of his actions indicate anything about me, nor have I done anything to warrant leaving.
So…

@@ -18 +18 @@
-<gloss>Latin name</gloss>
+<gloss>(what is often wrongly called) Latin name</gloss>

>The question "is Alan really correct when he says the Latin name formally only refers to the species name?", is deeply wrong, as I 
have never said anything like that.

Apologies if you feel I misrepresented you, but I don't think my interpretation of what you said was particularly unreasonable :

>A animal's/plant's "Latin name", is the common name it has, in Latin.
>Take wolves, for example:
>English name: Wolf.
>Japanese name: 狼.
>Latin name: Lupus.
>Scientific name: Canis lupus. (whilst this example includes the Latin name, that is not always the case)"

>It took me quite a while, to decipher what that was intended to mean. I've never quite learned how to properly use commas, and 
really need to, but I'm not nearly as bad as you.

Alan, this tone isn't at all appropriate on a collaborative project made up of volunteers. If you think something I posted seemed 
odd, feel free to ask for a clarification. 

>How is perfectly correct language use, not logical?

I said "such logic", in reference to your argument for it being incorrect. Language has a logic, of course, but logical arguments 
trying to prove that clearly established language use is somehow "wrong" has little to do with this. 

(I'm approving this to shorten the queue, but I expect the argument will continue)

@@ -18 +18 @@
-<gloss>(what is often wrongly called) Latin name</gloss>
+<gloss>Latin name</gloss>

The question "is Alan really correct when he says the Latin name formally only refers to the species name?", is deeply wrong, as I have never said anything like that.
Quite the opposite.

The only formal terms are scientific name and binomial name. (scientific name is broader, as it isn't limited to just the name of species. It can refer to various clades, like Carnivora [which contains, e.g., cats, dogs, and bears], or sub-species, like Canis lupus familiaris, which has three parts, rather than two)

Also, scientific names being either Latin or, quite often, Latinized, is explanation for why people call it Latin name, but not a justification or validation of it.
A species' English name, is the common name in English.
A species' Japanese name, is the common name in Japanese.
…and on the same note, its Latin name is its common name in Latin.
The scientific name, however, is a completely different matter.

Also, "Latin name" is not formal. Though I wouldn't call it informal, exactly. (it is, but…)
Colloquial is more accurate.
Also, and primarily, it is clearly wrong.

"logic and perfectly correct language use tend to have very little in common, in my experience."

It took me quite a while, to decipher what that was intended to mean. I've never quite learned how to properly use commas, and really need to, but I'm not nearly as bad as you.
And even after I deciphered what it is saying, it still makes no sense.
How is perfectly correct language use, not logical?

…and "/…/by means of two Latin names/…/", is describing that the names used to form the binomial nomenclature, are in Latin.
That is very different from the notion, of referring to the binomial name, as the species' "Latin name".

Though I do agree, when you say "I don't think it's very clear what "informal" here means, 
and it could be misinterpreted as if it applied to 学名 itself."
That is quite true.

@@ -18 +18 @@
-<gloss>Latin name (informal)</gloss>
+<gloss>(what is often wrongly called) Latin name</gloss>

Also, is Alan really correct when he says the Latin name formally only refers to the species name? Enwiki's "Latin name" is just a redirect to 
"Binominal name". (in the text itself, it's stated it's "more informally [...] also called a Latin name.")
I don't agree with the argument that it's "unequivocally wrong" because the first part of the name might not be actually derived from Latin. Such 
logic and perfectly correct language use tend to have very little in common, in my experience.
I really don't think there's any risk for confusion here.


Collins: "binomial nomenclature or binominal nomenclature
n (Biology) a system for naming plants and animals by means of two Latin names ..."

https://www.britannica.com/science/Pelagophycus
"Elk kelp was given the Latin name Laminaria porra in 1822 by French botanist Dominique Sébastien Léman."

(how "informal" is it really if it's used in encyclopedic entries?)

Currently, JMdict does not explain or comment on English usage. We're not going to make an exception for this entry.
The editors consider this matter settled.

My argument has never been that it isn't used. "(what is often wrongly called)", is a clear statement that it IS used.
The fact that it is used, is not an argument against explaining that said usage is wrong. That makes no sense.

While I am not a fan of "Latin name" without any qualification, as Robin pointed out it is used informally. I think it should stay as it was.

@@ -18 +18 @@
-<gloss>(what is often wrongly called) Latin name</gloss>
+<gloss>Latin name</gloss>

Marcus Richert proved himself unwilling to acknowledge or apologise for, what he did wrong.
That is not a person/attitude, that is suitable for any collaboration, or any discussion, of any kind. While it is good that he at least acknowledged that he was unsuited to try to discuss this matter, the refusal to acknowledge or apologise, shows a degree of arrogance and disrespect, that should not be accepted.
Even in a forum that tolerates rudeness/insults. (and much less one that does)

…with that said, none of his actions indicate anything about me, nor have I done anything to warrant leaving.
So…

@@ -18 +18 @@
-<gloss>Latin name</gloss>
+<gloss>(what is often wrongly called) Latin name</gloss>

>The question "is Alan really correct when he says the Latin name formally only refers to the species name?", is deeply wrong, as I 
have never said anything like that.

Apologies if you feel I misrepresented you, but I don't think my interpretation of what you said was particularly unreasonable :

>A animal's/plant's "Latin name", is the common name it has, in Latin.
>Take wolves, for example:
>English name: Wolf.
>Japanese name: 狼.
>Latin name: Lupus.
>Scientific name: Canis lupus. (whilst this example includes the Latin name, that is not always the case)"

>It took me quite a while, to decipher what that was intended to mean. I've never quite learned how to properly use commas, and 
really need to, but I'm not nearly as bad as you.

Alan, this tone isn't at all appropriate on a collaborative project made up of volunteers. If you think something I posted seemed 
odd, feel free to ask for a clarification. 

>How is perfectly correct language use, not logical?

I said "such logic", in reference to your argument for it being incorrect. Language has a logic, of course, but logical arguments 
trying to prove that clearly established language use is somehow "wrong" has little to do with this. 

(I'm approving this to shorten the queue, but I expect the argument will continue)

@@ -18 +18 @@
-<gloss>(what is often wrongly called) Latin name</gloss>
+<gloss>Latin name</gloss>

gg5, prog

Not necessarily plural.

@@ -17,0 +18 @@
+<gloss>valuable article</gloss>
@@ -19 +19,0 @@
-<gloss>treasures</gloss>

gg5, prog

@@ -19,0 +20,3 @@
+<gloss>draft</gloss>
+<gloss>notes</gloss>
+<gloss>contribution</gloss>

gg5

Not suicide, for instance.

@@ -18,0 +19 @@
+<gloss>execution by hanging</gloss>

Meikyo vt and vi additions to n,vs entries
-*- via bulkupd.py -*-

@@ -12,0 +13 @@
+<pos>&vt;</pos>

gg5, daij

Clearer.

@@ -14,2 +14,2 @@
-<gloss>invasion</gloss>
-<gloss>aggression</gloss>
+<gloss>making inroads (into)</gloss>
+<gloss>(slow but steady) invasion</gloss>

daijin, shinjirin, shinmeikai

@@ -19,0 +20,2 @@
+<xref type="ant" seq="1330790">収入</xref>
+<xref type="ant" seq="1330790">収入</xref>

Meikyo vt and vi additions to n,vs entries
-*- via bulkupd.py -*-

@@ -18,0 +19 @@
+<pos>&vt;</pos>

gg5, prog

@@ -19,0 +20 @@
+<gloss>disbursement</gloss>

gg5

The original gloss appears to be a translation of 手中にある.

@@ -13 +13,3 @@
-<gloss>to be in one's hands</gloss>
+<gloss>to get hold of</gloss>
+<gloss>to take possession of</gloss>
+<gloss>to seize</gloss>

@@ -15,0 +16 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="1576980">下半期</xref>

gg5, prog

Appears mostly in business contexts.

@@ -16 +15,0 @@
-<gloss>the first half-year</gloss>
@@ -17,0 +17 @@
+<gloss>first half of the fiscal year</gloss>

daij, shinmeikai

@@ -17 +17,3 @@
-<gloss>eye (for pictures, etc.)</gloss>
+<xref type="see" seq="1164110">一隻眼・1</xref>
+<gloss>discerning eye</gloss>
+<gloss>excellent judgement</gloss>

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>eye (for pictures, etc.)</gloss>
+<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
@@ -14,0 +15,4 @@
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<gloss>eye (for pictures, etc.)</gloss>
+</sense>

gg5

@@ -26,0 +27 @@
+<gloss>to put together</gloss>
@@ -28,0 +30,2 @@
+<gloss>to build</gloss>
+<gloss>to compose (a story, poem, etc.)</gloss>
@@ -34 +37 @@
-<gloss>to form sentences (words, etc.)</gloss>
+<gloss>to form (words, sentences, etc.)</gloss>

GG5

@@ -28,0 +29,6 @@
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&v1;</pos>
+<pos>&vt;</pos>
+<field>&gramm;</field>
+<gloss>to form sentences (words, etc.)</gloss>

Unidic, http://www.edrdg.org/~jwb/compv/

Common enough to record.

@@ -11,0 +12,4 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>組み立る</keb>
+<ke_inf>&io;</ke_inf>

Correct.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/draught

This sense of "draft" cannot be written "draught".

@@ -20 +19,0 @@
-<gloss>draught</gloss>

gg5, daij

I don't think that gloss is right.

@@ -18 +18,2 @@
-<gloss>choosing an alternative</gloss>
+<gloss>choosing one from among several</gloss>
+<gloss>multiple choice</gloss>

daij, prog, 中辞典

Added senses.

@@ -13,0 +14 @@
+<pos>&vt;</pos>
@@ -15,2 +16,4 @@
-<gloss>to suspend (something from something)</gloss>
-<gloss>to be hanged (by the neck)</gloss>
+<gloss>to suspend</gloss>
+<gloss>to sling</gloss>
+<gloss>to wear (e.g. a sword)</gloss>
+<gloss>to put up (e.g. a shelf)</gloss>
@@ -19,0 +23,8 @@
+<pos>&vt;</pos>
+<xref type="see" seq="2728840">首を吊る</xref>
+<s_inf>in the form 首を吊る</s_inf>
+<gloss>to hang oneself</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&v5r;</pos>
+<pos>&vt;</pos>
@@ -22,0 +34,14 @@
+<sense>
+<pos>&v5r;</pos>
+<pos>&vi;</pos>
+<misc>&uk;</misc>
+<gloss>to turn upwards (as if being pulled)</gloss>
+<gloss>to be slanted (of eyes)</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&v5r;</pos>
+<pos>&vi;</pos>
+<misc>&uk;</misc>
+<gloss>to pucker (e.g. of a seam)</gloss>
+<gloss>to be pulled tight</gloss>
+</sense>

@@ -20,1 +20,2 @@
-<gloss>to hoist an opponent off of his feet by his loincloth (sumo)</gloss>
+<field>&sumo;</field>
+<gloss>to hoist an opponent off of his feet by his loincloth</gloss>

I'll accept it, but I'd really like a reference.

@@ -19,1 +19,2 @@
-<gloss>to hoist an opponent off of his feet by his loincloth (in sumo wrestling)</gloss>
+<pos>&v5r;</pos>
+<gloss>to hoist an opponent off of his feet by his loincloth (sumo)</gloss>

gg5

I think this conveys the meaning more clearly.

@@ -16 +16,2 @@
-<gloss>in the presence of the enemy</gloss>
+<gloss>in the face of the enemy</gloss>
+<gloss>before the enemy</gloss>

gg5

Doesn't have to involve guns.

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<gloss>desertion in the face of the enemy</gloss>

gg5

Hyphen in the wrong place.

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>steel frame-work</gloss>
+<gloss>steel-frame construction work</gloss>

I discussed this with a Kansai native. I don't think "metropolis" is really right. I've also never heard Tokyo referred to as "み
やこ". If you google "東京はみやこ" the top hits are things like "東京はみやこじゃない", "しかし東京は「みやこ」のような気がしない、 い
まだ「京都」がみやこのような気がするが", "東京は「みやこ」ではない 京都は固有名詞上の「みやこ」である". There's also a lot of 
companies/places called "Miyako" something something in Kyoto, 都タクシー、the みやこめっせ conference hall, etc.
I think "Kyoto" could also be a separate sense.

@@ -21,2 +21 @@
-<gloss>capital</gloss>
-<gloss>metropolis</gloss>
+<gloss>capital (esp. Kyoto, Japan's former capital)</gloss>

My understanding is that "Miyako" 
practically always refers to Kyoto.

gg5, daij

Added senses.

@@ -22,0 +23,10 @@
+<gloss>seat of government</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<gloss>capital (of music, fashion, etc.)</gloss>
+<gloss>city (e.g. of light)</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<gloss>location of the Imperial Palace</gloss>

Have 二者選一 as well.

3 pages of Google results - all EDICT.

gg5, prog

I think this is clearer.

@@ -18,2 +18,2 @@
-<gloss>two alternatives</gloss>
-<gloss>selecting an option (from two alternatives)</gloss>
+<gloss>choosing between two things</gloss>
+<gloss>two choices</gloss>

Kanji Haitani list

Adding yoji tagAdding yoji tag
-*- via bulkupd.py -*-

@@ -16,0 +17 @@
+<misc>&yoji;</misc>

[vs] in daijr/s, but not in shinmeikai, meikyo, etc.

Google N-gram Corpus Counts
╭─ーーーー─┬─────────┬───────╮
│ 紡績　　 │ 191,222 │ 99.6% │
│ 紡績する │     350 │  0.2% │
│ 紡績して │     412 │  0.2% │
╰─ーーーー─┴─────────┴───────╯

@@ -18 +17,0 @@
-<pos>&vs;</pos>

daij, koj

Added sense.

@@ -19 +19,7 @@
-<gloss>spinning</gloss>
+<gloss>spinning (textiles)</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<xref type="see" seq="1710700">紡績糸</xref>
+<misc>&abbr;</misc>
+<gloss>spun yarn</gloss>

daij, gg5

Splitting.

@@ -19,0 +20,2 @@
+<gloss>non-governmental</gloss>
+<gloss>non-official</gloss>
@@ -21,0 +24,5 @@
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
+<gloss>folk</gloss>
@@ -23,2 +29,0 @@
-<gloss>folk</gloss>
-<gloss>unofficial</gloss>

gg5, prog

@@ -19 +19,2 @@
-<gloss>the last half-year</gloss>
+<xref type="see" seq="1354170">上半期</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="1354170">上半期</xref>
@@ -20,0 +22 @@
+<gloss>second half of the fiscal year</gloss>

I don't understand this gloss. Not in the refs.
I don't think this x-ref is necessary either.

@@ -20 +19,0 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="1204070">外部</xref>
@@ -23 +21,0 @@
-<gloss>the externals</gloss>

also, no ref for げかい from what i can tell (and if real is either buddhist or arch).  i don't find the x-ref to 外部 particularly helpful either

@@ -16,3 +16,0 @@
-<r_ele>
-<reb>げかい</reb>
-</r_ele>
@@ -24,1 +21,2 @@
-<gloss>outside world physical world</gloss>
+<gloss>outside world</gloss>
+<gloss>physical world</gloss>

GG5, Daijirin, 新和英中辞典

I don't see a sense split here.

@@ -22,0 +22,1 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="1457870">内界</xref>
@@ -23,6 +24,1 @@
-<gloss>the outside world</gloss>
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<pos>&n;</pos>
-<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
-<gloss>physical world</gloss>
+<gloss>outside world physical world</gloss>

Only sense 2. I don't think we can squeeze in a single kanji abbreviation like this. BTW it 
would be "ok", not "ik".

@@ -12,4 +11,0 @@
-</k_ele>
-<k_ele>
-<keb>行</keb>
-<ke_inf>&ik;</ke_inf>

Marunouchi Line trains use 行 as an abbreviated form in their information signs. It is read as ゆき, according to the signs themselves.

@@ -11,0 +12,4 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>行</keb>
+<ke_inf>&ik;</ke_inf>

OK. You live there, so I'll take your word for it.

daij

Except for the "bound for" sense I think いき 
is the more common reading (and there's 
already a note on that sense)

@@ -13,0 +14,4 @@
+<reb>いき</reb>
+<re_pri>ichi1</re_pri>
+</r_ele>
+<r_ele>
@@ -19,4 +23,7 @@
-<r_ele>
-<reb>いき</reb>
-<re_pri>ichi1</re_pri>
-</r_ele>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<gloss>the way there</gloss>
+<gloss>outbound leg</gloss>
+<gloss>outbound trip</gloss>
+<gloss>departing leg</gloss>
+</sense>
@@ -31 +38 @@
-<gloss>going (to)</gloss>
+<gloss>outbound ticket</gloss>

daij, gg5

Only the month sense can be read はんつき.
はんげつ should probably go first as it's the only reading all the senses share.
None of the senses are [n-adv]/[n-t].

@@ -10,0 +11,3 @@
+<reb>はんげつ</reb>
+</r_ele>
+<r_ele>
@@ -16,3 +18,0 @@
-<r_ele>
-<reb>はんげつ</reb>
-</r_ele>
@@ -20,2 +20,2 @@
-<pos>&n-adv;</pos>
-<pos>&n-t;</pos>
+<stagr>はんげつ</stagr>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
@@ -26,3 +26,2 @@
-<pos>&n-adv;</pos>
-<pos>&n-t;</pos>
-<gloss>half month</gloss>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<gloss>half a month</gloss>
@@ -31,2 +30,2 @@
-<pos>&n-adv;</pos>
-<pos>&n-t;</pos>
+<stagr>はんげつ</stagr>
+<pos>&n;</pos>

@@ -22,0 +22,1 @@
+<field>&astron;</field>

WWW hits, Twitter hits

Both forms are common, but 下克上 seems to edge it.

@@ -4,3 +3,0 @@
-<k_ele>
-<keb>下剋上</keb>
-</k_ele>
@@ -10,0 +8,3 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>下剋上</keb>
@@ -19,0 +20 @@
+<gloss>inferiors overthrowing their superiors</gloss>

Meikyo vt and vi additions to n,vs entries
-*- via bulkupd.py -*-

@@ -12,0 +13 @@
+<pos>&vi;</pos>

gg5, daij

"looking left and right" is the etymology, not the definition.

@@ -14 +14 @@
-<gloss>looking to the right and left</gloss>
+<gloss>inability to make up one's mind due to worrying about how others will think</gloss>
@@ -15,0 +16,2 @@
+<gloss>wavering</gloss>
+<gloss>vacillation</gloss>

Kanji Haitani list

Adding yoji tagAdding yoji tag
-*- via bulkupd.py -*-

@@ -12,0 +13 @@
+<misc>&yoji;</misc>

www.med.nagoya-cu.ac.jp/legal.dir/lectures/newest/node2.html

"Forensics" is too broad. Not in the refs.

@@ -18 +17,0 @@
-<gloss>forensics</gloss>

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<field>&math;</field>

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<field>&finc;</field>

daijs: "会計年度などで、一年を二期に分けたときの、前半の六か月"

Not used adverbially.
Virtually all examples I can find are business related.

@@ -15 +14,0 @@
-<pos>&n-adv;</pos>
@@ -17 +16,2 @@
-<gloss>first half of the year</gloss>
+<xref type="see" seq="1184680">下期</xref>
+<gloss>first half of the (fiscal) year</gloss>

I agree.

Just 進軍 + 中. Not idiomatic.

Clearer.

@@ -17 +17 @@
-<gloss>paying the entire sum in one instalment</gloss>
+<gloss>paying the entire sum in one transaction</gloss>

gg5

@@ -16,0 +17 @@
+<gloss>paying the entire sum in one instalment</gloss>

I think the old one was wrong.

@@ -11,3 +10,0 @@
-</r_ele>
-<r_ele>
-<reb>いっかつはらい</reb>

https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/edc/16000229801/meaning/m0u/一括払い/ 
https://www.ifinance.ne.jp/glossary/creditcard/cre018.html

@@ -8,0 +9,3 @@
+<r_ele>
+<reb>いっかつばらい</reb>
+</r_ele>

Readers+: ハカピク
googits:
  ハカピック  397
  ハカピク   138

"spiked club" does not seem right, compare www images for "hakapik" and "spiked club"
--
you crush the head of the seal with the hammer and drag away the body with the hook

@@ -6,0 +7,3 @@
+<r_ele>
+<reb>ハカピク</reb>
+</r_ele>
@@ -9,2 +12 @@
-<lsource xml:lang="nor">hakapik</lsource>
-<gloss>spiked club used for killing seals</gloss>
+<lsource xml:lang="nor"/>
@@ -11,0 +14 @@
+<gloss g_type="expl">iron hammer and hook mounted on a long wooden pole used for killing seals</gloss>

Entry created

GG5 (example), Eijiro

Has a whiff of an idiom about it. I suggest keeping it.

@@ -13,0 +14 @@
+<gloss>to be presented with two difficult choices</gloss>

Do we need this? Seems oddly specific.

Entry created

@@ -12,0 +13 @@
+<field>&biol;</field>

Entry created

Progressive JE, Wisdom JE, GG, also 
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/山田養�
%9C%82%E5%A0%B4

@@ -8 +8 @@
-<reb>ようほうば</reb>
+<reb>ようほうじょう</reb>

Entry created

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<field>&math;</field>

Entry created

Splitting on source language.

@@ -10 +9,0 @@
-<lsource xml:lang="ice"/>
@@ -12 +10,0 @@
-<gloss>króna (Icelandic currency)</gloss>

In the vanilla EDICT both will be krona.

wiki

@@ -10 +10,3 @@
-<gloss>krona (currency)</gloss>
+<lsource xml:lang="ice"/>
+<gloss>krona (Swedish currency)</gloss>
+<gloss>króna (Icelandic currency)</gloss>

@@ -10 +10 @@
-<gloss>krona</gloss>
+<gloss>krona (currency)</gloss>

wiki(krone)

historically there have been a few other krone,
e.g. the Austro-Hungarian krone (1892-1918)

@@ -11 +11 @@
-<gloss>krone (currency)</gloss>
+<gloss>krone (Danish or Norwegian currency)</gloss>

@@ -11 +11 @@
-<gloss>krone</gloss>
+<gloss>krone (currency)</gloss>

Entry created

GG5, LSD. 医学英和辞典, ルミナス, etc.

Koj, Daijr

Tempted to include 薔, which has みずたで as a reading and thr right meaning, but I can't find it used for this word.

児手柏 actually gets more WWW hits, but that's because it's the name of a famous samurai sword.

@@ -5,0 +6,3 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>児手柏</keb>

Koj, GG5, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platycladus "Platycladus was often included in Thuja, which is reflected in one of its common names, "oriental thuja". But it is only distantly related to the genus Thuja. "

GG5 calls it "Thuja (Biota) orientalis", but that is now deprecated.

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/仏滅紀元

Might as well have both.

Koj, GG5

Koj, GG5, etc.

GG5, 理化学英和辞典, Wikij

Propose moving to JMdict.

@@ -1,3 +1,2 @@
-<ent_seq>5012145</ent_seq>
-<ent_corp>jmnedict</ent_corp>
+<ent_corp>jmdict</ent_corp>
@@ -8,2 +7,2 @@
-<misc>&unclass;</misc>
-<gloss>Ammonal</gloss>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<gloss>ammonal (explosive)</gloss>

obsc?

Koj, Daijr (「暗渠」に同じ。)

Rare.

Eijiro

Probably worth having.

gg5, daijr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_ischemia

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/法科学 
http://alfs-inc.com/
Readers+

nikk

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<pos>&vi;</pos>

gg5
G n-grams:
億劫がら	        2809	  
億劫がらず	2426

@@ -12,2 +12,5 @@
-<gloss>to show unwillingness to do</gloss>
-<gloss>to be reluctant to do</gloss>
+<s_inf>usu. in the negative</s_inf>
+<gloss>to show unwillingness (to do)</gloss>
+<gloss>to be reluctant (to do)</gloss>
+<gloss>to look annoyed</gloss>
+<gloss>to show signs of finding something bothersome</gloss>

gg5

Helpful to have.

Looks OK.

A glossary I have contains this. It seems to work.

@@ -12 +12,3 @@
-<gloss>???</gloss>
+<xref type="see" seq="2833651">単装・たんそう</xref>
+<gloss>coaxial mounting</gloss>
+<gloss>multiple mounting</gloss>

gg5, daijr, daijs
三連装砲塔　〔戦艦の〕 a three-gun turret
六連装CD チェンジャー　a 6-disk CD changer.

I have no idea what to put for a gloss.

GG5

They should be separate entries anyway. Everyone's happy. :)

@@ -16,6 +15,0 @@
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<pos>&n;</pos>
-<xref type="see" seq="2461030">クローナ</xref>
-<lsource xml:lang="swe"/>
-<gloss>öre (Swedish monetary unit; 1/100 of a krona)</gloss>

Nobly resisted. Of course, you could have voted for the Euro...

Got... to... fight... instinct... to... move... öre... above.... øre...

@@ -15,2 +15 @@
-<gloss>øre</gloss>
-<gloss g_type="expl">Danish or Norwegian monetary unit equal to one hundredth of a krone</gloss>
+<gloss>øre (Danish or Norwegian monetary unit; 1/100 of a krone)</gloss>
@@ -22,2 +21 @@
-<gloss>öre</gloss>
-<gloss g_type="expl">Swedish monetary unit equal to one hundredth of a krona</gloss>
+<gloss>öre (Swedish monetary unit; 1/100 of a krona)</gloss>

This is our style on チョン.

@@ -17 +17 @@
-<gloss>eyrir (Icelandic monetary unit; 1/100 króna)</gloss>
+<gloss>eyrir (Icelandic monetary unit; 1/100 of a króna)</gloss>

@@ -17 +17 @@
-<gloss>eyrir (Icelandic monetary unit equal to 1/100 króna)</gloss>
+<gloss>eyrir (Icelandic monetary unit; 1/100 króna)</gloss>

@@ -17,2 +17 @@
-<gloss>eyrir</gloss>
-<gloss g_type="expl">Icelandic monetary unit equal to 1/100 króna</gloss>
+<gloss>eyrir (Icelandic monetary unit equal to 1/100 króna)</gloss>

@@ -14,0 +15 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="2461030">クローナ</xref>

@@ -16 +16,2 @@
-<gloss>eyrir (currency: 1/100 of a krona)</gloss>
+<gloss>eyrir</gloss>
+<gloss g_type="expl">Icelandic monetary unit equal to 1/100 króna</gloss>

gg5
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/民間機

gg5, daijr

gg5, daij, koj

gg5, daij, koj

Adding spec1
-*- via bulkupd.py -*-

@@ -5,0 +6 @@
+<re_pri>spec1</re_pri>

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/ハリボー

Adding spec1
-*- via bulkupd.py -*-

@@ -8,0 +9 @@
+<re_pri>spec1</re_pri>

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/白鯨伝説