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>

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

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

Indeed. That sentence has now been revised.  The example sentence for this entry has been changed.

I left a comment on the Tatoeba page for 220021 but just observing that the example sentence here seems
to use the wrong 観賞植物
Shouldn’t: この部屋の隅に鑑賞植物を置きたい。 In this corner of the room I'd like to put a house-plant.
Actually be この部屋の隅に観賞植物を置きたい。 In this corner of the room I'd like to put a house-plant.

daij, gg5

I don't think "aesthetic sense" is correct.

@@ -19,2 +19 @@
-<gloss>appreciation (e.g. of art)</gloss>
-<gloss>aesthetic sense</gloss>
+<gloss>appreciation (of art, music, poetry, etc.)</gloss>

gg5, prog

@@ -16,0 +17 @@
+<gloss>stormy sea</gloss>

daijr
親もと	2749
親元	141594
親許	1204

I don't think we need more than one gloss here. "one's home" and "one's parents" could be misleading.

@@ -4,3 +3,0 @@
-<k_ele>
-<keb>親もと</keb>
-</k_ele>
@@ -13,0 +11,3 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>親もと</keb>
@@ -23,3 +22,0 @@
-<gloss>one's parents' roof</gloss>
-<gloss>one's parents</gloss>
-<gloss>one's home</gloss>

Google:
15.8  mm 親もと
 1.3  mm 親元
  .04 mm 親許

* Add alt 交ぜ書き spelling 親もと – looks much more common, found in (my version of) 向田邦子 story 字のないはがき
* Front “parents’ home” sense – this is emphasized in all the dictionaries
* Add gloss “parents’ roof”

@@ -4,0 +4,3 @@
+<k_ele>
+<keb>親もと</keb>
+</k_ele>
@@ -19,0 +22,2 @@
+<gloss>one's parents' home</gloss>
+<gloss>one's parents' roof</gloss>
@@ -20,1 +25,0 @@
-<gloss>one's parents' home</gloss>

gg5, chujiten

@@ -22 +22 @@
-<gloss>early</gloss>
+<gloss>a little early</gloss>
@@ -30 +30,2 @@
-<gloss>quickly</gloss>
+<gloss>rather quickly</gloss>
+<gloss>a little faster than usual</gloss>

Daijirin, 中辞典, etc. combine 早目 and 速目 into the one extry. We do that with "esp. ..." notes on the senses.
ルミナス: 速めに歩く walk a little quickly

A sense split and notes probably help here.

@@ -20,0 +21 @@
+<s_inf>esp. 早めに</s_inf>
@@ -25,0 +27,5 @@
+<sense>
+<pos>&adv;</pos>
+<s_inf>esp. 速めに</s_inf>
+<gloss>quickly</gloss>
+</sense>

isn't 速め wrong here? it refers to speed, 
not time

gg5, prog

@@ -24,2 +24,4 @@
-<gloss>large quantity</gloss>
-<gloss>large amount</gloss>
+<gloss>large amount of</gloss>
+<gloss>large quantity of</gloss>
+<gloss>a lot</gloss>
+<gloss>much</gloss>

Daijr, GG5 (both have 3 senses).

@@ -19,0 +20,11 @@
+<gloss>a lot</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&adj-i;</pos>
+<gloss>large quantity</gloss>
+<gloss>large amount</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&adj-i;</pos>
+<gloss>frequent</gloss>
+<gloss>common</gloss>

I agree. This came before 多め, and should have been replaced by it.

I don't think we need this given the 多め entry.

Looks like someone confused this with 大きめ. We already have 大目 and 大目に見る so I think this can go.

読書	6467567	99.9%
讀書	3253	0.1%

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<ke_inf>&oK;</ke_inf>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>

@@ -8,0 +9,4 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>讀書</keb>
+<ke_inf>&oK;</ke_inf>

meikyo

@@ -23 +23,2 @@
-<gloss>reading (books)</gloss>
+<pos>&vi;</pos>
+<gloss>reading (a book)</gloss>

daijr: 古くは「とくしょ」

@@ -17,0 +18 @@
+<re_inf>&ok;</re_inf>
@@ -22 +23 @@
-<gloss>reading</gloss>
+<gloss>reading (books)</gloss>

gg5, daij, etc.

Dropping adjective gloss.
I don't see a need for the x-refs. The refs don't point to 不満足 or 満足.

@@ -16,0 +17 @@
+<pos>&n;</pos>
@@ -18,3 +18,0 @@
-<pos>&n;</pos>
-<xref type="see" seq="1494980">不満足</xref>
-<xref type="ant" seq="1526860">満足・1</xref>
@@ -21,0 +20 @@
+<gloss>discontent</gloss>
@@ -23,2 +22 @@
-<gloss>discontent</gloss>
-<gloss>complaints</gloss>
+<gloss>complaint</gloss>
@@ -26 +23,0 @@
-<gloss>disgruntled</gloss>

@@ -21,1 +21,1 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="1526860">満足・1</xref>
+<xref type="ant" seq="1526860">満足・1</xref>

link to full form and to complement

@@ -19,0 +19,2 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="1494980">不満足</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="1526860">満足・1</xref>

https://www.askdifference.com/woolen-vs-woollen/
woolen 330586
woollen 309955

@@ -20 +20,2 @@
-<gloss>woolen/woollen yarn</gloss>
+<gloss>woolen yarn</gloss>
+<gloss>woollen yarn</gloss>

Sorry I guess they do spell it that way.

@@ -20 +20 @@
-<gloss>woolen yarn</gloss>
+<gloss>woolen/woollen yarn</gloss>

I don’t think even the British spell “woolen” as “woollen”.

@@ -20 +20 @@
-<gloss>woollen yarn</gloss>
+<gloss>woolen yarn</gloss>

gg5

prog, ウィズダム和英辞典, E-DIC

@@ -17,0 +18 @@
+<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
@@ -18,0 +20 @@
+<gloss>woollen yarn</gloss>

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

@@ -23,0 +24 @@
+<pos>&vi;</pos>

罹患	170603
り患	4673

@@ -7,0 +8,3 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>り患</keb>

http://www.practical-japanese.com/2010/10/blog-post_3320.html

@@ -8,0 +8,4 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>羅患</keb>
+<ke_inf>&iK;</ke_inf>

Google Ngrams (https://bit.ly/2Tlymj7)
---
運任せの	4813
運任せな	2803
運任せの人生	226
運任せな人生	No matches
運任せのゲーム	171
運任せなゲーム	42

These expressions are more common.

@@ -14,0 +15 @@
+<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
@@ -16,3 +17,2 @@
-<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
-<gloss>leaving up to luck</gloss>
-<gloss>leaving up to fate</gloss>
+<gloss>leaving to chance</gloss>
+<gloss>leaving to fate</gloss>

daij
運任せ	29430
運まかせ	12757

saw as "かなりの震度で出来役ができてしまうため、運任せのゲームになりがち。"
in this sentence, I'd translate it as "luck-based".
not sure whether n or adj glosses are better

@@ -15 +15,4 @@
-<gloss>trusting or resignation to fate</gloss>
+<pos>&adj-na;</pos>
+<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
+<gloss>leaving up to luck</gloss>
+<gloss>leaving up to fate</gloss>

gg5, chujiten, daijr, meikyo
多めの	172388
多めな	58369
多めに	848773

@@ -19,0 +20,2 @@
+<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
+<pos>&adj-na;</pos>
@@ -21,3 +23,4 @@
-<pos>&adj-na;</pos>
-<gloss>somewhat larger quantity</gloss>
-<gloss>larger portion</gloss>
+<gloss>somewhat larger (amount)</gloss>
+<gloss>quite a lot</gloss>
+<gloss>a little more (than usual)</gloss>
+<gloss>a little extra</gloss>

Certainly.

@@ -6,1 +6,1 @@
-<ke_pri>spec2</ke_pri>
+<ke_pri>spec1</ke_pri>
@@ -17,1 +17,1 @@
-<re_pri>spec2</re_pri>
+<re_pri>spec1</re_pri>

daij
34M/13.5M hits (g/b)

Maybe even [spec1]; that's a lot of hits.

@@ -4,0 +4,4 @@
+<k_ele>
+<keb>多め</keb>
+<ke_pri>spec2</ke_pri>
+</k_ele>
@@ -13,0 +17,1 @@
+<re_pri>spec2</re_pri>
@@ -16,0 +21,1 @@
+<pos>&adj-na;</pos>

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>real machine (as opposed to model or simulation)</gloss>
+<gloss>real machine (as opposed to a model or simulation)</gloss>

reverso

Probably clearer as two senses.

@@ -12,0 +13,5 @@
+<gloss>actual machine</gloss>
+<gloss>actual device</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
@@ -13,0 +19 @@
+<gloss>actual aircraft</gloss>

gg5
daijr: "実物の機械や飛行機。「―訓練」"

"existing equipment" looks odd to me.

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<gloss>existing equipment</gloss>
+<gloss>real aeroplane</gloss>

daij, meikyo, chujiten, prog
早めの	909564
早めな	11854

@@ -20,0 +21,2 @@
+<pos>&adj-na;</pos>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
@@ -22,0 +25 @@
+<gloss>a little earlier than usual</gloss>
@@ -26,2 +29,2 @@
-<xref type="ant" seq="2638870">遅め・2</xref>
-<xref type="ant" seq="2638870">遅め・2</xref>
+<pos>&adj-na;</pos>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
@@ -29 +32,2 @@
-<gloss>fast</gloss>
+<gloss>a little faster than usual</gloss>
+<gloss>slightly quicker</gloss>

@@ -21,1 +21,0 @@
-<pos>&n;</pos>
@@ -27,1 +26,0 @@
-<pos>&n;</pos>

GG5, 大辞林（和英）、新解さん

Alt. spelling with 目

@@ -9,0 +9,6 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>早目</keb>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>速目</keb>

gg5, wisdom

@@ -20,3 +20,6 @@
-<s_inf>usu. negative</s_inf>
-<gloss>to be outdone by</gloss>
-<gloss>to compare unfavorably with</gloss>
+<misc>&id;</misc>
+<s_inf>usu. in the negative</s_inf>
+<gloss>to be outdone (by)</gloss>
+<gloss>to be in inferior (to)</gloss>
+<gloss>to compare unfavorably (with)</gloss>
+<gloss>to be behind</gloss>

@@ -18,0 +19,2 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="2847213">引けを取らない</xref>
+<s_inf>usu. negative</s_inf>

引けを取る	2828
引けをとる	1855
ひけを取る	635

@@ -5,0 +6,6 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>引けをとる</keb>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>ひけを取る</keb>

@@ -12,0 +12,1 @@
+<pos>&v5r;</pos>

ハンディスキャナ	1681
ハンディスキャナー	1211

@@ -7,0 +8,3 @@
+<reb>ハンディスキャナー</reb>
+</r_ele>
+<r_ele>
@@ -8,0 +12,3 @@
+</r_ele>
+<r_ele>
+<reb>ハンディ・スキャナー</reb>
@@ -13,0 +20 @@
+<gloss>handheld scanner</gloss>

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

@@ -6,0 +6,3 @@
+</r_ele>
+<r_ele>
+<reb>ハンディ・スキャナ</reb>

Entry created

I agree with Robin.

In those sentences, 長めに refers to the increased length between the hitting end of the bat and the point where one grips the handle. Literally, "Hold the bat long". Not a natural expression in English but fine in Japanese.
I don't think this needs to be worked into the 長め entry. It's not a separate meaning. Example sentences should be used to show this usage (and fortunately we have one).

The entry arose from a discussion of the example in 中辞典: バットを長めに持つ hold the [one's] bat at the knob. There's a similar Tanaka sentence: "バットを長めに持ってください。 Please hold your bat by the end of its handle."
We discussed trying to work this meaning into the 長め entry and in the end agreed a separate entry was best.
Should we revisit geting this naunce of 長め into the other entry?

These glosses aren't correct. But I don't think the entry is even needed.

Entry created

Correction: 目 is not ateji. Not sure why I thought that.

@@ -6 +5,0 @@
-<ke_inf>&ateji;</ke_inf>
@@ -10 +8,0 @@
-<ke_inf>&ateji;</ke_inf>

gg5, daijs

目 is ateji.

@@ -5,0 +6 @@
+<ke_inf>&ateji;</ke_inf>
@@ -8,0 +10 @@
+<ke_inf>&ateji;</ke_inf>
@@ -33,2 +34,0 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="1003450">きつい・1</xref>
-<xref type="see" seq="1003450">きつい・2</xref>
@@ -35,0 +36 @@
+<gloss>a little strong</gloss>

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<re_restr>きつ目</re_restr>
@@ -15,0 +17,4 @@
+</r_ele>
+<r_ele>
+<reb>キツメ</reb>
+<re_nokanji/>

Google N-gram Corpus Counts

きつ目	1199
キツ目	5611
きつめ	98924
キツメ	18176

@@ -6,0 +7,3 @@
+<k_ele>
+<keb>キツ目</keb>
+</k_ele>
@@ -8,0 +12,4 @@
+</r_ele>
+<r_ele>
+<reb>キツめ</reb>
+<re_restr>キツ目</re_restr>

daijr, gg5
遅めの	320705
遅めな	15550

Contrary to what I stated so confidently in 2017, 遅目 is not iK. Although GG5 and daijr only have 遅め, this め comes under 目 in the kokugos.

@@ -9 +8,0 @@
-<ke_inf>&iK;</ke_inf>
@@ -15,0 +15 @@
+<pos>&adj-na;</pos>
@@ -16,0 +17 @@
+<gloss>a little late</gloss>
@@ -17,0 +19 @@
+<gloss>latish</gloss>
@@ -20,0 +23 @@
+<pos>&adj-na;</pos>
@@ -21,0 +25 @@
+<gloss>a little slow</gloss>

Definitely [iK].
And I think it helps to differentiate with 遅い.

@@ -8,0 +9 @@
+<ke_inf>&iK;</ke_inf>
@@ -16 +17 @@
-<gloss>late</gloss>
+<gloss>somewhat late</gloss>
@@ -21 +22 @@
-<gloss>slow</gloss>
+<gloss>somewhat slow</gloss>

A few WWW hits.

http://www.edrdg.org/jmdictdb/cgi-bin/srchres.py?s1=1&y1=2&t1=使用済み

I believe this is just a typo.  There are three other entries beginning "使用済み" on jmdictdb that show the rendaku on 済みー＞ずみ.

@@ -8 +8 @@
-<reb>しようすみねんりょうプール</reb>
+<reb>しようずみねんりょうプール</reb>

eij
1,450,000 results

nicopedia: いわゆるゲイ用語ではなく、比較的最近にネットで生まれ、自然に広まったネットスラングと思われる。

@@ -9,4 +9,2 @@
-<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
-<xref type="see" seq="2653620">がち</xref>
-<xref type="see" seq="1122700">ホモ・1</xref>
-<misc>&sl;</misc>
+<xref type="see" seq="2653620">ガチ</xref>
+<misc>&net-sl;</misc>

"gay person who isn't pretending to be gay" doesn't make sense. Only a non-gay person can pretend to be gay.

@@ -13,3 +13 @@
-<gloss>(definitely) gay</gloss>
-<gloss>gay person who isn't pretending to be gay</gloss>
-<gloss>non-fake gay</gloss>
+<gloss>person who is genuinely gay (i.e. not pretending)</gloss>

I couldn't say. "sl" seems fine.

Not ateji.

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

OK.

gg5, prog, Wisdom
細めに	29405
細目に	8915

That was my first thought as well but the meaning of 細めにあける isn't immediately obvious from the glosses we have on 細め. This could be useful.

@@ -4,0 +5,3 @@
+<keb>細めに</keb>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
@@ -5,0 +9 @@
+<ke_inf>&ateji;</ke_inf>
@@ -12 +16,5 @@
-<gloss>a little</gloss>
+<gloss>(open) a little</gloss>
+<gloss>slightly</gloss>
+<gloss>narrowly</gloss>
+<gloss>(cut) finely</gloss>
+<gloss>thinly</gloss>

細め	569327
細めな	12340
細めの	186784
細めに	29405

I'm not sure this needs spelling out like this. It's traditionally regarded as a な-adjective (although it's more commonly ~の), and hence the adverb form is a common derivation.

https://ejje.weblio.jp/content/細目に

encountered in 'sleeping beauties', where a door is opened "a little"

実用 says 異性

@@ -19,2 +19,3 @@
-<gloss>bedding 100 women</gloss>
-<gloss>having sex with countless women</gloss>
+<misc>&sl;</misc>
+<gloss>bedding 100 people</gloss>
+<gloss>having sex with countless people</gloss>

百人斬り	35749
百人切り	2263

Trimming

@@ -20 +20 @@
-<gloss>having had sexual experiences with countless women</gloss>
+<gloss>having sex with countless women</gloss>

https://www.weblio.jp/content/百人切り
https://eikaiwa.dmm.com/uknow/questions/86323/
http://lewd.sakura.ne.jp/d1/1001.html

「その女とは真剣じゃなかったのか？」
「あたりまえだ、遊びの女などに真剣になってなるものか！目標は卒業までに１００人切りだな」

G n-grams: 111914
https://gendai.ismedia.jp/articles/-/76581
https://news.mynavi.jp/article/20200709-1131012/
https://news.nissyoku.co.jp/news/nss-9782-0011
http://daieikensetsu.com/basic/shunou/shunou02/

A+B but very common, and the meaning might not be immediately obvious to beginners - the 点 here is sense 5 on our 点 entry. I see this a lot in reviews of products. 
A few examples given above.

daijr/s, nikk, shinmeikai
胴親	No matches
筒親	No matches

@@ -20,4 +20,4 @@
-<gloss>not losing out to</gloss>
-<gloss>holding one's own</gloss>
-<gloss>compare favorably (with)</gloss>
-<gloss>be a fair match (for)</gloss>
+<gloss>not losing out (to)</gloss>
+<gloss>holding one's own (against)</gloss>
+<gloss>comparing favorably (with)</gloss>
+<gloss>being a fair match (for)</gloss>

引けを取る	2828
引けをとる	1855
ひけを取る	635
GG5: 引けを取らない compare favorably 《with…》; be favorably compared 《with…》; be a fair match 《for…》; stand up in comparison 《to…》

I did an amendment to this and forgot to press Submit.
I was wondering, given we have the entry 引けを取る (to be outdone by; to compare unfavorably with), whether this entry is needed. OTOH this form is FAR more common than the verb expression, so it's probably best to have both.
FWIW both Tanaka sentences for 引けを取る actually use 引けを取らない.

@@ -20,0 +21,3 @@
+<gloss>holding one's own</gloss>
+<gloss>compare favorably (with)</gloss>
+<gloss>be a fair match (for)</gloss>

@@ -14 +14 @@
-<reb>ひけをよらない</reb>
+<reb>ひけをとらない</reb>

jitsuyo

引けを取らない	61250
引けをとらない	65109
ひけをとらない	33471
ひけを取らない	10569

ヒケを取らない	2212
ヒケをとらない	2187

gloss can be improved

daij, koj, meikyo, shinmeikai
胴取り	311
筒取り	54
胴取	166
筒取	No matches

This has a more restricted meaning according to the kokugos.

@@ -4,0 +5,3 @@
+<keb>胴取り</keb>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
@@ -5,0 +9,3 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>筒取り</keb>
@@ -15,4 +21,3 @@
-<gloss>banker (gambling)</gloss>
-<gloss>bookmaker</gloss>
-<gloss>person who runs a gambling den</gloss>
-<gloss>person who rents out space for gambling and charges commission</gloss>
+<misc>&obsc;</misc>
+<gloss>renting out space for gambling and charging a commission on the proceeds</gloss>
+<gloss>person who rents out space for gambling</gloss>

daijs nikk

(this is also given as a synonym for 親 (dealer) in Uchiyama Rossetsu's "The game of hana-awase" (1892))

GG5

The term itself wouldn't have capitals.

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<gloss>economic partnership agreement</gloss>
@@ -13 +13,0 @@
-<gloss>Economic Partnership Agreement</gloss>

大辞林
https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXMZO65355960T21C20A0MM0000/
日英両政府は23日、都内の飯倉公館で日英経済連携協定（EPA）の署名式を開いた。

Koj, Daijr/s, etc.

This is what the sources are saying.

@@ -12 +12,2 @@
-<gloss>original (and still continuing) business line</gloss>
+<gloss>business started by an ancestor</gloss>
+<gloss>inherited business</gloss>

大辞林
新明解
https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXMZO65411490T21C20A0EA2000/
祖業の造船事業を取り巻く環境も厳しい。

gg5
G n-grams: 2412

Not archaic. We don't use transitivity tags for [n,vs] entries.

@@ -13,2 +13 @@
-<pos>&vi;</pos>
-<misc>&arch;</misc>
+<gloss>taking one's own life</gloss>

大辞林
新明解
https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXMZO65222430Q0A021C2BC8000/
三島由紀夫は1970年11月25日に自裁する約4カ月前、「果たし得ていない約束」と題する文章を新聞に寄せた。

Saw used like 今日は在廊していません on twitter

@@ -12 +12,3 @@
-<gloss>being present in a gallery (esp. artist at own exhibition)</gloss>
+<pos>&vs;</pos>
+<pos>&vi;</pos>
+<gloss>being present in a gallery (esp. of an artist at their own exhibition)</gloss>

在廊	9378

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>being in a gallery (oft. of an author at their own exhibition)</gloss>
+<gloss>being present in a gallery (esp. artist at own exhibition)</gloss>

https://chiebuku
ro.yahoo.co.jp/s
earch?
p=%E5%9C%A8%E5%B
B%8A&type=tag#:~
:text=%E4%BD%9C%
E5%AE%B6%E3%81%8
C%E3%82%AE%E3%83
%A3%E3%83%A9%E3%
83%AA%E3%83%BC%E
3%81%AB%E3%81%84
%E3%82%8B,%E3%81
%8B%E3%82%82%E3%
81%97%E3%82%8C%E
3%81%BE%E3%81%9B
%E3%82%93%E3%81%
AD%E3%80%82
https://detail.c
hiebukuro.yahoo.
co.jp/qa/questio
n_detail/q141516
17009

I feel like the 
part in 
parentheses adds 
important 
information.

I see no reason why it can't go here.

織部焼き	1865
織部焼	5798
GG5, Koj, Daijr  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oribe_ware

Here, or in the names file?

this bit is probably not needed
(and not necessarily correct, 酒 is prob better 
translated as "alcohol" here)

@@ -15 +14,0 @@
-<gloss g_type="lit">seaweed sake</gloss>

わかめ酒	1668
ワカメ酒	1616
若布酒	26
also the name of a alcoholic beverage (being produced by a specific company) according to wiki.


https://www.nikkan-gendai.com/articles/view/lifex/243112
"いまから認知症対策 「女盛り」と「わかめ酒」で脳を刺激"
"「そういえば、『わかめ酒』というのもありましたね」と他のひとりが言う。足を閉じた女の股間に酒を注いで飲むことだ。実にバカげたことだが、男たちは
「オッ、オー」と言いながら大騒ぎをしていた。しかし、何にでも好奇心を持つことは脳を老化させない。"


Google books (Shūkan shinchō, 1996):
"たとえば、新宿で、花柳界遊びからヒントを得た「わかめ酒』の店やら、ヘア解禁ブームの逆手を取った"ヘア剃り嬢』の店などが評判をとれば、一方の池袋で
はこの三月、異国情緒で売る韓国式マッサージなんてのも登場。"

there's also hits that seem to be about an actual drink (not necessarily about the product mentioned on wiki, unsure)

I'm calling it slang as I don't expect it's widely known.

@@ -12 +12,3 @@
-<gloss>drinking alcohol from a geisha's crotch</gloss>
+<misc>&vulg;</misc>
+<misc>&sl;</misc>
+<gloss>drinking alcohol from a woman's crotch</gloss>

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/わかめ酒_(アダルト)

GG5, etc.

Aligning more with the JEs

@@ -10,0 +11 @@
+<pos>&exp;</pos>
@@ -13 +14,2 @@
-<gloss>carefully raised upper class girl</gloss>
+<gloss>closeted maiden</gloss>
+<gloss>carefully-raised girl from a well-to-do family</gloss>

https://www.weblio.jp/content/深窓の令嬢

https://www.waraerujd.com/blank-1151

隠語大辞典:目下の者と性交すること。上淫（又は蒸淫と作る）の対。俗伝に男子は上淫を好み女子は下淫を好むといへり。

下淫	30
some google book hits.
making it "romantically involved" with in accordance with the "jouin" entry

arch is a guess...

@@ -12 +12,2 @@
-<gloss>having sex with someone of lower class (oft. of a woman)</gloss>
+<misc>&arch;</misc>
+<gloss>being romantically involved with someone of lower class (oft. of a woman)</gloss>

https://www.weblio.jp/content/かいん    目下の者と性交すること。

https://hyogen.info/word/8640615

google ngrams
上淫	21
google books:
中国古代国家の形成と史学史 (2003)  p. 146
"上淫とは長上の女と通ずることで、父の武公の妾であった姜姓出身の女性と通じたことを指している。"
日本花街史 (1990) p. 401
".. 著者はこれに「男性上淫渇望論」をっけ加えたい。上淫とは聞きなれない言葉であるが、封建的身分制度下においては、およそ男性たるものは自分より身分
の高い女性を征服したいという願望を持っていたという、その願望のことである。"
歴史読本 2005 p. 116
"秀吉の好みは信長とずいぶん違って、「上淫好み」であり「少女好き」であった。上淫というのは家柄のよい女性を相手にすること。"

arch is a guess...

@@ -12 +12,2 @@
-<gloss>having sex with someone of higher class (oft. of a man)</gloss>
+<misc>&arch;</misc>
+<gloss>being romantically involved with someone of higher class (esp. of a man)</gloss>

https://hyogen.info/word/9066900

I think affected is fine.

is this supposed to be affected or afflicted?

reverso
G n-grams: 10997

@@ -12 +12,2 @@
-<gloss>person affected by disease</gloss>
+<gloss>person affected by a disease</gloss>
+<gloss>sufferer</gloss>

https://www.weblio.jp/content/罹患者
https://biz.trans-suite.jp/40326#i-5

seems to be used in connection with Covid recently

丁半ばくち	527

@@ -5,0 +6,3 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>丁半ばくち</keb>

jwiki: 丁半とはサイコロを使った賭博である。丁半博打ともいう。
G n-grams:
丁半博打	4083
丁半	14829

若め	18350
若目	2098

@@ -5,0 +6,3 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>若目</keb>
@@ -13 +16 @@
-<gloss>young looking</gloss>
+<gloss>young-looking</gloss>

GG5, Unidic

I think it's fine without "amateurish".

@@ -12 +12,2 @@
-<gloss>amateurish performance at a drinking party</gloss>
+<gloss>performance at a drinking party</gloss>
+<gloss>party trick</gloss>

Koj, Daijr, ルミナス
座敷芸	558

daijs
G n-grams: 5798

For some reason, I failed to realise that you'd need separate senses for each reading. Indeed, it doesn't make sense to merge in cases like this.

They can't be when the reading and transliteration differ like that. There'd be a mass of 
restrictions. Consider the mess if we merged all the 平子 entries.
There may be scope for merging, say, the みつの/Mitsuno entries, but I'm not sure it's 
appropriate.

Should this be merged with 充乃/あつの or are name readings always kept separate?

My wife's name and "未来輝く赤ちゃんの名前事典２０１６～２０１７年版" (https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=lwPBDAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA383&ots=ewJaD11Uud&dq="充乃" "みつの"&hl=ja&pg=PA383#v=onepage&q="充乃" "みつの"&f=false)

The JMnedict has this female given name with the reading "あつの" only. I am submitting another name/reading.

https://ejje.weblio.jp/content/幹規
http://name.m3q.jp/list?s=幹規&g=1

https://mnamae.jp/p/b_5e79898f.html?ln=
Also my friend's name