Bulk update: Adjusting POS details
-*- via bulkupd.py -*-

@@ -9,0 +10 @@
+<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
@@ -11 +11,0 @@
-<pos>&adj-no;</pos>

@@ -12,0 +13 @@
+<gloss>zigzag</gloss>

@@ -10 +10 @@
-<lsource xml:lang="fre"/>
+<lsource xml:lang="fre">franc (monnaie)</lsource>

simplifying

@@ -11 +11 @@
-<gloss>franc (Swiss, former French, etc. currency)</gloss>
+<gloss>franc (currency)</gloss>

jwiki
daijs

@@ -11 +11 @@
-<gloss>franc</gloss>
+<gloss>franc (Swiss, former French, etc. currency)</gloss>

Splitting on source word.

@@ -12,18 +11,0 @@
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<pos>&n;</pos>
-<field>&food;</field>
-<gloss>flan</gloss>
-<gloss g_type="expl">open pastry containing custard (or fruit, cheese, etc.)</gloss>
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<pos>&n;</pos>
-<field>&food;</field>
-<gloss>flan</gloss>
-<gloss>crème caramel</gloss>
-<gloss>caramel custard</gloss>
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<pos>&n;</pos>
-<field>&chem;</field>
-<gloss>furan</gloss>

GG5

@@ -25,0 +26,5 @@
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<field>&chem;</field>
+<gloss>furan</gloss>
+</sense>

simplifying

@@ -11 +11 @@
-<gloss>franc (Swiss, former French, etc. currency)</gloss>
+<gloss>franc (currency)</gloss>

Good catch

daij

Not a football header.

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<gloss>header</gloss>
+<gloss>header (on a document, email, etc.)</gloss>

jwiki

@@ -19,0 +20,5 @@
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<lsource xml:lang="bul"/>
+<gloss>lev (Bulgarian currency)</gloss>
+</sense>

koj, daij

@@ -10,0 +10,1 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="1145870">レフレックスカメラ</xref>
@@ -13,0 +14,6 @@
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<xref type="see" seq="1145860">レフレクター</xref>
+<misc>&abbr;</misc>
+<gloss>reflector</gloss>
+</sense>

Aligning with 上期.

@@ -15 +14,0 @@
-<pos>&n-adv;</pos>
@@ -17 +16,2 @@
-<gloss>second half of the fiscal year</gloss>
+<xref type="see" seq="1775000">上期</xref>
+<gloss>second half of the (fiscal) year</gloss>

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

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

gg5

@@ -12,0 +13,3 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="1355360">乗船</xref>
+<gloss>disembarkation</gloss>
+<gloss>getting off a ship</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>

Google N-gram Corpus Counts
╭─ーーー─┬─────────┬───────╮
│ 飢えて │ 179,919 │ 91.1% │
│ 餓えて │  17,659 │  8.9% │
│ 饑えて │      21 │  0.0% │
╰─ーーー─┴─────────┴───────╯

@@ -14,0 +15 @@
+<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>

gg5, daij
daijr: "古くは，水がなくて渇く意にも用いた"

Added sense.
I don't think it ever refers to thirst (in the literal sense) nowadays.

@@ -31 +31 @@
-<gloss>to thirst</gloss>
+<gloss>to be famished</gloss>
@@ -33,0 +34,7 @@
+<sense>
+<pos>&v1;</pos>
+<pos>&vi;</pos>
+<gloss>to be starved of (e.g. love)</gloss>
+<gloss>to be thirsty for (e.g. knowledge)</gloss>
+<gloss>to be hungry for</gloss>
+</sense>

gg5, prog

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

乗船	558601
上船	3271

@@ -10,0 +11 @@
+<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>

meikyo

@@ -19,0 +20 @@
+<pos>&vi;</pos>

daij, koj

Added sense. Struggling to come up with a good gloss.

@@ -20 +20,3 @@
-<gloss>embarking</gloss>
+<xref type="see" seq="1185660">下船</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="1185660">下船</xref>
+<gloss>embarking (a ship)</gloss>
@@ -23,0 +26,5 @@
+<sense>
+<stagk>乗船</stagk>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<gloss>ship (carrying someone)</gloss>
+</sense>

Tanaka sentences.

@@ -41 +41 @@
-<gloss>system</gloss>
+<gloss>system (e.g. railroad, transport, party, etc.)</gloss>

daijr, daijs, gg5

Added senses. Not in the JEs.
I don't think the "system" sense should be stuck on the end like that. Could possibly be merged with sense 2.

@@ -28,0 +29 @@
+<gloss>formation</gloss>
@@ -34,0 +36,2 @@
+<gloss>setup</gloss>
+<gloss>constitution</gloss>
@@ -38 +41,4 @@
-<pos>&vs;</pos>
+<gloss>system</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
@@ -43,0 +50,6 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="2833661">石理</xref>
+<field>&geol;</field>
+<gloss>texture (of a rock)</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
@@ -45 +57 @@
-<gloss>system</gloss>
+<gloss>weave (of a fabric)</gloss>

disambiguate

@@ -38,0 +39 @@
+<field>&biol;</field>

Adding 組職 as Rene proposed.

@@ -9,0 +9,4 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>組職</keb>
+<ke_inf>&iK;</ke_inf>

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>

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>

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>

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="1577430">外界</xref>

Aligning with 二者択一.

@@ -14,2 +14,2 @@
-<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 -*-

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

gg5 二者択一, us

copying glosses from 二者択一

@@ -13,2 +13,2 @@
-<gloss>a choice between two alternatives</gloss>
-<gloss>to choose between two alternatives</gloss>
+<gloss>two alternatives</gloss>
+<gloss>selecting an option (from two alternatives)</gloss>

@@ -12,1 +12,3 @@
-<gloss>alternative</gloss>
+<xref type="see" seq="1461960">二者択一</xref>
+<gloss>a choice between two alternatives</gloss>
+<gloss>to choose between two alternatives</gloss>

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>

closing for now.  i agree that "highlights" doesn't really fit.  seems like it is more likely to mean "charm of the region", etc. with "highlights" being a translation of convenience

I will try to supply solid examples when I have time. I 
have seen it used and the word encompasses several of the 
senses of the words in the existing definitions (eg, 
regional highlights, to include both specific locations as 
well as intangible things that are not 'attractions' in 
their own sense)

Please provide actual examples.

I really can't see it being used that way. I think translating it as "highlights" is an example of loose translation rather than an actual meaning of the word.

If you search for の魅力 highlights then you see the word 
being translated quite naturally into 'highlights' - the 
best features of a place/location.

@@ -23,0 +24 @@
+<gloss>highlights</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>

偏屈	137794	99.9%
偏窟	168	0.1% koj daijs

@@ -8,0 +9 @@
+<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>

daij, 中辞典
偏屈	137794
偏屈な	41965
偏屈を	378
偏屈が	611
-----
変屈	55

Reordering glosses.
I don't think we need a separate noun sense. Noun usage is really uncommon (there are no examples in the JEs or kokugos). Also, "crank" is not correct; there's no "その人" meaning in the kokugos. That Tanaka sentence is not a direct translation.
変屈 is so obscure I think we can drop it.

@@ -10,4 +9,0 @@
-<k_ele>
-<keb>変屈</keb>
-<ke_inf>&iK;</ke_inf>
-</k_ele>
@@ -19,2 +15 @@
-<gloss>eccentric</gloss>
-<gloss>warped</gloss>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
@@ -22 +16,0 @@
-<gloss>perverse</gloss>
@@ -24,0 +19,3 @@
+<gloss>perverse</gloss>
+<gloss>unreasonable</gloss>
+<gloss>warped</gloss>
@@ -26,7 +23 @@
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<pos>&n;</pos>
-<gloss>eccentricity</gloss>
-<gloss>obstinacy</gloss>
-<gloss>stubbornness</gloss>
-<gloss>(a) crank</gloss>
+<gloss>eccentric</gloss>

I approved the change proposed by Robin, but I note that GG5 leads with noun glosses and of the two Tanaka sentences using the term, one uses the noun:
彼のような偏屈を理解するには一生かかるよ。 It will take you a whole lifetime to understand a crank like him.
Also Eijiro has one gloss.
This may be an occasion where we have both.

@@ -19 +18,0 @@
-<pos>&n;</pos>
@@ -27,0 +27,7 @@
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<gloss>eccentricity</gloss>
+<gloss>obstinacy</gloss>
+<gloss>stubbornness</gloss>
+<gloss>(a) crank</gloss>
+</sense>

gg5

Typically used to describe someone's appearance.

@@ -22,0 +23 @@
+<gloss>young-looking</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>

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>

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

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

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

daijs jwiki

@@ -10 +10 @@
-<gloss>forint</gloss>
+<gloss>forint (Hungarian currency)</gloss>

Entry created

ドラクマ	4483
ドラクメ	210
ダラクマ	219
UniDic

Better have this one too.

@@ -8,0 +9,3 @@
+</r_ele>
+<r_ele>
+<reb>ドラクメ</reb>

gg5 koj daijs wiki jwkiki

both the modern pre-EU and various ancient currencies

@@ -12 +12,2 @@
-<gloss>drachma</gloss>
+<lsource xml:lang="gre"/>
+<gloss>drachma (former Greek currency)</gloss>

Entry created

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<gloss>markka</gloss>
+<gloss>markka (former Finnish currency)</gloss>

@@ -12,1 +12,2 @@
-<gloss>markka (fin:)</gloss>
+<lsource xml:lang="fin"/>
+<gloss>markka</gloss>

Entry created

I suspect I intended it not to be permanent.

A+B
obvious
not in gg5 koj daijs
note that we only have 34 現代～ compounds

Testing

nikk
ズオティ	61

@@ -8,0 +9,4 @@
+</r_ele>
+<r_ele>
+<reb>ズオティ</reb>
+<re_inf>&sk;</re_inf>

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<re_inf>&sk;</re_inf>
@@ -14,0 +16 @@
+<re_inf>&sk;</re_inf>

@@ -18,3 +18,2 @@
-<lsource xml:lang="pol"/>
-<gloss>złoty (Polish currency)</gloss>
-<gloss>zloty</gloss>
+<lsource xml:lang="pol">złoty</lsource>
+<gloss>zloty (Polish currency)</gloss>

ズウォティ	1271	42.4%
ズロチ	1727	57.6%
ズウォチ	0	0.0%
ズロティ	0	0.0%

HiddenForm ズウォチ ズロティ

https://kotobank.jp/word/ズロティ-2054141

@@ -11,0 +12,3 @@
+</r_ele>
+<r_ele>
+<reb>ズロティ</reb>

yes, cleaner that way

Proposing moving the currency unit senses to the エーレ entry (2833652).

@@ -15,12 +14,0 @@
-<sense>
-<stagr>オーレ</stagr>
-<pos>&n;</pos>
-<gloss>øre</gloss>
-<gloss g_type="expl">Danish or Norwegian monetary unit equal to one hundredth of a krone</gloss>
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<stagr>オーレ</stagr>
-<pos>&n;</pos>
-<gloss>öre</gloss>
-<gloss g_type="expl">Swedish monetary unit equal to one hundredth of a krona</gloss>
-</sense>

Hope the non-ASCII works.

@@ -19,1 +19,1 @@
-<gloss g_type="expl">Danish/Norwegian monetary unit equal to one hundreth of a krone</gloss>
+<gloss g_type="expl">Danish or Norwegian monetary unit equal to one hundredth of a krone</gloss>
@@ -25,1 +25,1 @@
-<gloss g_type="expl">Swedish monetary unit equal to one hundreth of a krona</gloss>
+<gloss g_type="expl">Swedish monetary unit equal to one hundredth of a krona</gloss>

Maybe int rather than n?

@@ -11,1 +11,1 @@
-<pos>&n;</pos>
+<pos>&int;</pos>

@@ -19,1 +19,1 @@
-<gloss g_type="expl">Danish/Norwegian monetary unit equal to one hundreth of a krona</gloss>
+<gloss g_type="expl">Danish/Norwegian monetary unit equal to one hundreth of a krone</gloss>

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, daijr

gg5, daij, koj

@@ -8,0 +9,2 @@
+<lsource xml:lang="cze"/>
+<lsource xml:lang="slo"/>

wiki
jwiki
daijs

Slovakia switched to the Euro in 2008

jwiki daijs

@@ -11 +11 @@
-<gloss>leu (Rumanian or Moldovan currency)</gloss>
+<gloss>leu (currency of Rumania and Moldova)</gloss>

jwiki(ルーマニア・レウ)
jwiki(モルドバ・レウ)
daijs

Readers+

I'd just say "structure". Ref points to 石目 .

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="2833663">石目</xref>
@@ -14 +15 @@
-<gloss>microstructure</gloss>
+<gloss>structure</gloss>

daijs, koj
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texture_(geology)

Not sure on the translation.

gg5, daijs

GG5

@@ -8 +8 @@
-<misc>&unclass;</misc>
+<misc>&surname;</misc>