レビューし	364471
レビューする	83769

Indeed.

Eijiro:
■結果をレビューする〔～の〕 : review the results of
■国際的に合意された行動の実施状況をレビューする : review implementation of internationally agreed actions
■実施の進展をレビューする〔～の〕 : review progress on the implementation of
■進展状況をレビューする〔～における〕 : review progress in
■全体的な進歩状況をレビューする〔～の〕 : review the overall progress of
■達成された結果について定期的にレビューする〔～において〕 : review periodically the results achieved in
■地域の経済・金融情勢をレビューする : review the economic and financial situation in the region
Reverso:
カットのコンテキスト内で再生およびレビューする   Playing and reviewing in context of the Cut

Looks awfully like [vs,vt] to me.

@@ -12,0 +13,2 @@
+<pos>&vs;</pos>
+<pos>&vt;</pos>

mk gakkoku daij

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

daijr

Splitting on source language.

@@ -16,5 +15,0 @@
-<sense>
-<pos>&n;</pos>
-<pos>&vs;</pos>
-<gloss>revue</gloss>
-</sense>

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>

rK?

若くは is in nikkoku and shinmeikai. Not sure if it needs an [io]
tag. Neither reference explicitly says that it's irregular.

Google N-gram Corpus Counts
 3,045,001	 22.6%	若しくは
    64,532	  0.5%	若くは
10,385,908	 77.0%	もしくは

@@ -6,0 +7,3 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>若くは</keb>

Not needed.

@@ -14 +13,0 @@
-<pos>&exp;</pos>

exp?

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>

[vi]: shinmeikai, meikyo, etc.

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

gg5, prog, daij

Added sense.
I don't think the x-ref is necessary.

@@ -17 +16,0 @@
-<pos>&adj-na;</pos>
@@ -20 +19 @@
-<xref type="ant" seq="1526860">満足・2</xref>
+<pos>&adj-na;</pos>
@@ -21,0 +21 @@
+<gloss>deficiency</gloss>
@@ -23 +22,0 @@
-<gloss>deficiency</gloss>
@@ -25 +24,9 @@
-<gloss>dearth</gloss>
+<gloss>scarcity</gloss>
+<gloss>deficit</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<pos>&adj-na;</pos>
+<gloss>dissatisfaction</gloss>
+<gloss>discontent</gloss>
+<gloss>complaint</gloss>

I'd call this an "ant".

@@ -20,2 +20,2 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="1526860">満足・2</xref>
-<xref type="see" seq="1526860">満足・2</xref>
+<xref type="ant" seq="1526860">満足・2</xref>
+<xref type="ant" seq="1526860">満足・2</xref>

gg5, daij

Also an adjective.
I don't think the x-refs are needed.

@@ -16,2 +16 @@
-<xref type="ant" seq="1526860">満足・1</xref>
-<xref type="see" seq="1494970">不満</xref>
+<pos>&adj-na;</pos>
@@ -18,0 +18 @@
+<gloss>discontent</gloss>
@@ -20 +19,0 @@
-<gloss>discontent</gloss>

@@ -16,1 +16,1 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="1526860">満足・1</xref>
+<xref type="ant" seq="1526860">満足・1</xref>

link to complement and short form

@@ -16,0 +16,3 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="1526860">満足・1</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="1494970">不満</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="1494970">不満</xref>

gg5, prog, daij

Added maths sense.
I don't think the x-refs are necessary.

@@ -20,0 +21 @@
+<pos>&n;</pos>
@@ -22 +22,0 @@
-<pos>&n;</pos>
@@ -24,3 +23,0 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="1494970">不満</xref>
-<xref type="see" seq="1494980">不満足</xref>
-<xref type="see" seq="1494980">不満足</xref>
@@ -29 +26 @@
-<gloss>complacency</gloss>
+<gloss>gratification</gloss>
@@ -34,2 +30,0 @@
-<xref type="ant" seq="1493700">不足</xref>
-<xref type="ant" seq="1493700">不足・1</xref>
@@ -36,0 +32 @@
+<gloss>satisfactory</gloss>
@@ -39,0 +36,7 @@
+<gloss>decent</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<pos>&vs;</pos>
+<field>&math;</field>
+<gloss>satisfying (an equation)</gloss>

gg5, prog, nc

additional glosses probably help. also it should not be implied that sense 2 is limited to math (although that could make a technical sense 3)

@@ -27,0 +27,2 @@
+<gloss>contentment</gloss>
+<gloss>complacency</gloss>
@@ -31,1 +33,0 @@
-<pos>&vs;</pos>
@@ -33,2 +34,4 @@
-<field>&math;</field>
-<gloss>sufficiency</gloss>
+<gloss>sufficient</gloss>
+<gloss>enough</gloss>
+<gloss>adequate</gloss>
+<gloss>proper</gloss>

Hi, this is another "vs" entry where all definitions are nouns and the verbal meaning and transitivity is consequently unclear. For example, in this case it is not clear if 満足する means "to satisfy", "to be satisfied", or both.

@@ -13,0 +14 @@
+<pos>&adj-no;</pos>

not grg

@@ -6,1 +6,1 @@
-<ke_pri>gai1</ke_pri>
+<ke_pri>spec1</ke_pri>
@@ -10,1 +10,1 @@
-<re_pri>gai1</re_pri>
+<re_pri>spec1</re_pri>

gg5

@@ -16 +16,2 @@
-<gloss>(in the) earth</gloss>
+<gloss>in the earth</gloss>
+<gloss>in the ground</gloss>

Turns out there are sentences indexed to this term. Esp. with ~2,000 in the n-grams I'd like to revive it.

I agree.

cf

よいスタートを	5832
良いスタートを	19826
良いレースを	4516

Actually let's maybe delete it. よい旅を should be enough

良い旅行を	1383
よい旅行を	914
良い旅を　	14412
よい旅を　	11038

Not very common (probably not needed)

@@ -15,2 +15,3 @@
-<gloss>"Bon voyage!"</gloss>
-<gloss>"Have a nice trip!"</gloss>
+<xref type="see" seq="1638630">良い旅を</xref>
+<gloss>bon voyage!</gloss>
+<gloss>have a nice trip!</gloss>

[vi]: sankoku, smk, iwakoku, obunsha

〈朝／あさ／アサ〉〈帰（り）／がえり／ガエリ〉の

Google N-gram Corpus Counts
╭─ーーーーーー─┬─────────┬───────╮
│ 朝帰り　　　 │ 118,102 │ 98.3% │
│ 朝帰　　　　 │     831 │  0.7% │
│ 朝がえり　　 │     664 │  0.6% │ - add, sK
│ あさ帰り　　 │      34 │  0.0% │
│ あさがえり　 │     447 │  0.4% │
│ アサガエリ　 │      50 │  0.0% │
├─ーーーーーー─┼─────────┼───────┤
│ 朝帰りし　　 │  12,450 │ 99.8% │
│ 朝がえりし　 │      23 │  0.2% │
├─ーーーーーー─┼─────────┼───────┤
│ 朝帰りの　　 │  11,320 │ 99.8% │
│ 朝がえりの　 │      27 │  0.2% │
╰─ーーーーーー─┴─────────┴───────╯

@@ -7,0 +8,4 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>朝がえり</keb>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
@@ -16,0 +21 @@
+<pos>&vi;</pos>

@@ -17 +17 @@
-<gloss>staying out all night and coming home in the morning</gloss>
+<gloss>coming home in the morning (after staying out all night)</gloss>

gg5, daijr

@@ -12 +12,2 @@
-<gloss>drinking vessel</gloss>
+<gloss>utensil used for serving or drinking sake</gloss>
+<gloss>sake drinking set</gloss>

Reinstating the deleted い辛っぽい. Its removal broke the indexing in the examples. 蘞 is not a JIS208 kanji so I can't index with it.

@@ -3,0 +4,3 @@
+<k_ele>
+<keb>い辛っぽい</keb>
+</k_ele>
@@ -11,0 +15 @@
+<re_restr>蘞辛っぽい</re_restr>

daij gg5
ngrams
No initial match for 蘞辛っぽい (never saw this result before)
いがらっぽい	8057
えがらっぽい	221

え辛っぽい	No matches
い辛っぽい	117

chujiten: 一服やったらたちまちのどがいがらっぽくなった. My throat felt rough [harsh, irritated] the moment I had a puff at my 
cigarette.

seems the subject is always the throat so I think it should be irritated rather than irritating

@@ -5,4 +5 @@
-<keb>え辛っぽい</keb>
-</k_ele>
-<k_ele>
-<keb>い辛っぽい</keb>
+<keb>蘞辛っぽい</keb>
@@ -11,2 +8 @@
-<reb>えがらっぽい</reb>
-<re_restr>え辛っぽい</re_restr>
+<reb>いがらっぽい</reb>
@@ -15,2 +11 @@
-<reb>いがらっぽい</reb>
-<re_restr>い辛っぽい</re_restr>
+<reb>えがらっぽい</reb>
@@ -21,3 +16,2 @@
-<gloss>acrid</gloss>
-<gloss>pungent</gloss>
-<gloss>irritating</gloss>
+<gloss>feeling rough (of the throat)</gloss>
+<gloss>irritated</gloss>

Entry created

Google N-gram Corpus Counts
╭─ーーーーーーー─┬───────┬───────╮
│ 水をあけられる │ 1,246 │ 67.9% │
│ 水を開けられる │   327 │ 17.8% │
│ 水を空けられる │   263 │ 14.3% │ sankoku
╰─ーーーーーーー─┴───────┴───────╯

@@ -5,0 +6,7 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>水を空ける</keb>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>水を開ける</keb>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
@@ -12,0 +20 @@
+<misc>&id;</misc>

daijr, gg5

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<gloss>to open up a big lead (over one's opponent)</gloss>
+<gloss>to open up a lead (over one's opponent)</gloss>

Added additional PoS via batch update.Added additional PoS via batch update.
-*- via bulkupd.py -*-

@@ -12,0 +12,1 @@
+<pos>&v1;</pos>

Entry created

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>

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

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

@@ -12,0 +12,1 @@
+<gloss>eicosapentaenoic acid</gloss>
@@ -13,1 +14,0 @@
-<gloss>eicosapentaenoic acid</gloss>

wiki

@@ -12,0 +12,1 @@
+<gloss>EPA</gloss>

Entry created

I think examples are helpful here. It's mostly music, as far as I can tell.

@@ -19 +19 @@
-<gloss>self-production</gloss>
+<gloss>self-production (of an album, film, etc.)</gloss>

https://realsound.jp/movie/2020/06/post-565213_2.html
記念碑的作品『モンスター』～偶像破壊のセルフプロデュースへ〜
...
ここから続くセロンによる「セルフプロデュース」という意味でも記念碑となる作品だが、同軸で女性監督をプッシュしたことに、彼女のポリティカルな意志を
そこに見出せる。
https://cinepu.com/product/t9vwWF8qDm_/
若手監督・プロデューサー向けセルフプロデュース近道講座
https://www.barks.jp/news/?id=1000190379
Ms.OOJA、セルフプロデュースによるMV「Woman “Wの悲劇”より」公開
"ミュージックビデオは、Ms.OOJAが自身の表現したい世界観をスタッフに伝え、共に構築したというセルフプロデュース作品となっている。"

@@ -19 +19 @@
-<gloss>self-production (of a song or album)</gloss>
+<gloss>self-production</gloss>

https://kotobank.jp/word/セルフ・プロデュース-813413

@@ -5,0 +6,3 @@
+</r_ele>
+<r_ele>
+<reb>セルフ・プロデュース</reb>
@@ -16 +19 @@
-<gloss>self-production</gloss>
+<gloss>self-production (of a song or album)</gloss>

https://natalie.mu/music/news/69692

@@ -12,0 +13,4 @@
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<gloss>self-production</gloss>

11 Tanaka sentences, heaps of GG5 examples, etc.

Robin was right to add the で - I'd missed that the 中辞典, RP, etc. entries included it. I think it's common and useful enough to have as an entry (I could always add it to the glossing file, but I think it's better to be a regular entry.)
I'll index the sentences to it.

@@ -13,0 +14 @@
+<gloss>in that regard</gloss>

その点で	382401
この点で	161354

I agree with Robin, it feels a little too compositional.

gg5 examples

Without で/について/において, etc., this just means "that point". I'm not sure this needs to be an entry.

@@ -5 +5 @@
-<keb>その点</keb>
+<keb>その点で</keb>
@@ -8 +8 @@
-<reb>そのてん</reb>
+<reb>そのてんで</reb>

中辞典, RP

@@ -11 +11 @@
-<pos>&n;</pos>
+<pos>&exp;</pos>
@@ -13 +13 @@
-<gloss>that point</gloss>
+<gloss>on that point</gloss>

https://ejje.weblio.jp/content/その点

I think these are better examples.

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>low (e.g. position, degree, value)</gloss>
+<gloss>low (level, value, price, etc.)</gloss>

研究社ビジネス英和辞典 (uses it to gloss "lo-")

meikyo; wisdom

@@ -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

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?

(maybe better to play it safe- first few hits 
on google seemed to be about collections too, 
but I didn't look that far into it)

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>former owner (of a collection)</gloss>
+<gloss>former owner (e.g. of a collection)</gloss>

旧蔵者	1738
http://www.kaikou.city.yokohama.jp/document/pe
rsonal/don.html
"（７）個人コレクション　「ドン・ブラウン・コレクショ
ン」
【旧蔵者】旧蔵者ドン・ブラウン(Donald Beckman Brown 
1905-1980)は、アメリカのオハイオ州に生まれ..."

Not super common but not super straightforward 
either.

逆さ言葉
https://labola.jp/blog/user/70186/6763724
https://ja.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/隠語
芸能界　では、逆読み、逆さ読みをする倒語を使うことがあ
る。「ジャーマネ（マネージャー）、「シーメ（めし）」「ナ
オン（女）」「テルホ（ホテル）」など単語を逆さにする隠語
がある。

大パニック	70227

a+b, but there's not THAT many common 大
+gairaigo collocations

Aligning.

@@ -19 +19 @@
-<gloss>self-production</gloss>
+<gloss>self-production (of an album, film, etc.)</gloss>

reverso examples

@@ -16,0 +17,6 @@
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<xref type="see" seq="2830853">セルフプロデュース・2</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="2830853">セルフプロデュース・2</xref>
+<gloss>self-production</gloss>
+</sense>

Not vs.

@@ -12 +11,0 @@
-<pos>&vs;</pos>
@@ -14 +13,2 @@
-<gloss>synonym to</gloss>
+<gloss>emphasizing one's good qualities</gloss>
+<gloss>presenting oneself in a favorable light</gloss>

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/レヴュー_(演芸)

Split on source language (from 1145760).

gg5, daijr/s
イコサペンタエン酸	        1533
エイコサペンタエン酸	14905

Reformat initialsms
-*- via bulkupd.py -*-

@@ -7,0 +8,3 @@
+<reb>アイ・ピー・エー</reb>
+</r_ele>
+<r_ele>
@@ -8,0 +12 @@
+<re_inf>&sk;</re_inf>

daijr

Charming.

daijs, jwiki, eij
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_lethal_dose

I haven't encountered many male given names ending with 美.

My friend's name

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<misc>&male;</misc>

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.