lots of googits for "preventing foreign material in foods"
(that's one use of 異物)

@@ -18,0 +19 @@
+<gloss>foreign material</gloss>

daijr/s, koj

Not in the JEs. Possibly archaic.

@@ -21,0 +22,5 @@
+<gloss>strange object</gloss>
+<gloss>unusual object</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>

koj, daij

yes it does.  the reference was given in the submission.  marked as archaic.

@@ -16,1 +16,0 @@
-<pos>&pref;</pos>
@@ -21,0 +20,7 @@
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<misc>&arch;</misc>
+<gloss>dead body</gloss>
+<gloss>corpse</gloss>
+<gloss>remains</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>

gg5, daij

@@ -12 +12,2 @@
-<gloss>entertainment</gloss>
+<gloss>entertainment (at a party)</gloss>
+<gloss>amusement</gloss>
@@ -14 +15 @@
-<gloss>amusement of the company</gloss>
+<gloss>trick</gloss>

This is in line with the dictionary style. The entry would have been formatted like this if we were trying to indicate they were 2 
different species:
[1][n][uk]
  Japanese tit (Parus minor)
[1][n][uk]
 Oriental tit (Xxx xxx)

Rather looks like it is referring to two different species, covered by the same word, rather than it being an alternative name.

GG5 (obviously a bit dated): 【鳥】 a (Japanese) great tit; Parus major; 〔欧州産の〕 a great titmouse; 〔米国産の〕 a chickadee.

We usually put alternative names after the main one.

@@ -25 +25,2 @@
-<gloss>Japanese tit, also known as Oriental tit (Parus minor)</gloss>
+<gloss>Japanese tit (Parus minor)</gloss>
+<gloss>Oriental tit</gloss>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_tit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_tit
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/シジュウカラ
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229514602_The_great_tit_Parus_major_-_A_misclassified_ring_species
http://www.worldbirdnames.org/bow/waxwings/ (search for "parus major" or "parus minor". It is noted where they are, and Major isn't anywhere near Japan)
http://www.catalogueoflife.org/col/details/species/id/a0aec8cac12ff745bf4a69f56fdfa1cb

http://gogen-allguide.com/si/shijyuukara.html (to establish, if it was needed, that the name is quite old indeed. Also that it is ateji)

The Japanese/Oriental tit (the former seems like it may be more common, though the latter makes more sense. Also known as Eastern Great Tit, which also makes more sense, in at least one source …but as I said. Japanese tit seems to be the more common/established name) was long thought to be a sub-species of the Great tit. (Parus Major Minor)
Hence the definition here, as Great tit, is perfectly understandable.

This has, however, been shown to be wrong, for several years now. More up-to-date sources, correctly list it as a separate and distinct species, Parus Minor.
This old Japanese name, is clearly one that was used to refer to the native birds (i.e. Japanese tits), and not the foreign, if similar, Great tit.

(I've done a quick search, to find a common name for the Great tit, in Japanese, but couldn't find anything. I'll maybe try some more, but maybe it doesn't really have one, yet)

Also, the しじゅう comes from the sound of the birds song, and has nothing to do with 14 (四十), and hence ateji.

@@ -5,0 +6 @@
+<ke_inf>&ateji;</ke_inf>
@@ -24 +25 @@
-<gloss>great tit (Parus major)</gloss>
+<gloss>Japanese tit, also known as Oriental tit (Parus minor)</gloss>

Discussions of the dictionary style are more than welcome, but are better suited for the mailing list than in the comment section of 
an individual entry.

I never questioned that it is in line with the dictionaries style. I clearly accepted that it is.
I do, however, maintain that it does give the impression that it is talking about two separate species, covered by the same term. (thereby meaning that I criticize the JMdict dictionary style, in this aspect)

…and no the example you provide, of how it would look if that were the case, isn't valid, for two reasons:
1. That assumes that one doesn't conclude that the two species are covered _by the same sense_, of the same word. You may argue that this would be wrong, going against how you structure dictionaries, but… that doesn't work, due to:
2. You are assuming that everyone who uses JMdict/EDICT are perfectly familiar with its structure. Or even just the details of general dictionary structure.

Given those issues, there is no reason to think that people wouldn't easily make such a misinterpretation.

This is in line with the dictionary style. The entry would have been formatted like this if we were trying to indicate they were 2 
different species:
[1][n][uk]
  Japanese tit (Parus minor)
[1][n][uk]
 Oriental tit (Xxx xxx)

Rather looks like it is referring to two different species, covered by the same word, rather than it being an alternative name.

GG5 (obviously a bit dated): 【鳥】 a (Japanese) great tit; Parus major; 〔欧州産の〕 a great titmouse; 〔米国産の〕 a chickadee.

We usually put alternative names after the main one.

@@ -25 +25,2 @@
-<gloss>Japanese tit, also known as Oriental tit (Parus minor)</gloss>
+<gloss>Japanese tit (Parus minor)</gloss>
+<gloss>Oriental tit</gloss>

@@ -24 +24 @@
-<gloss>to be too strong (e.g of tea)</gloss>
+<gloss>to be too strong (e.g. of tea)</gloss>

gg5, prog, daij

Splitting into senses.

@@ -22 +22,7 @@
-<gloss>to project or protrude too much</gloss>
+<gloss>to stick out too much</gloss>
+<gloss>to protrude too far</gloss>
+<gloss>to be too strong (e.g of tea)</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&v1;</pos>
+<pos>&vi;</pos>
@@ -24 +30,3 @@
-<gloss>to obtrude</gloss>
+<gloss>to be too assertive</gloss>
+<gloss>to be pushy</gloss>
+<gloss>to be obtrusive</gloss>

less common headword is news2

@@ -5,0 +6 @@
+<ke_pri>spec2</ke_pri>
@@ -15,0 +17 @@
+<re_pri>spec2</re_pri>

Quiet

GG5: くさはら - a grassy plain; a meadow; a green (field).
GG5: そうげん - a 「grassy [grass-covered] plain; grassland(s); 〔熱帯･亜熱帯の〕 a savanna(h); 〔南アフリカの〕 a veld(t); 〔北米の〕 a prairie; 〔南米アマゾン川以南の〕 the pampas; 〔南米アマゾン川以北の〕 a llano 《pl. ～es》; 〔ロシア･中央アジアの〕 a steppe.

Meadow and prairie shouldn't be in the same sense. The kokugos and JEs mostly have distinct そうげん and くさはら entries. We've attempted a merge. I'd leave it the way it is, but if it were to change, it probably should break into two entries rather than just have one sense.

Meikyo, gakkoku only have 1 sense. Maybe we should follow their lead? 2 senses feel overly granular to me.

草原	1132878
そうげん	20852
くさはら	2629
くさわら	64
The "Ichiman" only has 草原/そうげん, also the (rough) Google counts for 草原+そうげん are 10 times more than those for 草原+くさはら.

I haven't found https://furigana.info/ to be reliable on relative frequencies.

https://furigana.info/w/草原
くさはら	79.7%
くさばら	6.3%
そうげん	2.5%

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.

daijs

@@ -15,0 +16 @@
+<pos>&vs;</pos>

daij nikk

箱詰め	167976
箱詰	18888

@@ -17 +17,3 @@
-<gloss>packed in a box (e.g. chocolates)</gloss>
+<gloss>boxing</gloss>
+<gloss>packing into a box</gloss>
+<gloss>something packed into a box</gloss>

Quite correct.

"i.e." means "that is"; it should be used to given an exclusive definition - if hakojume were *only* used to describe chocolates than that would be appropriate.  "e.g." means "for example"; it should be used to give a non-exclusive possible use.  Since "hakojume" can be used for chocolates but also for other things, "e.g." is correct.

@@ -17,1 +17,1 @@
-<gloss>packed in a box (i.e. chocolates)</gloss>
+<gloss>packed in a box (e.g. chocolates)</gloss>

MW orange entry:
"2: any of several trees or fruits resembling the orange"

daijr: み-かん [1] 【蜜柑】
（１）ウンシュウミカン・ナツミカン・ダイダイ・オレンジ・ザボンなどの柑橘類の総称。
（２）特にウンシュウミカンをいい，古くはキシュウミカンをいった。

koj みかん: ②ミカン科のうちの特にミカン亜科ミカン属の樹、またその果実の総称。

@@ -26,0 +27 @@
+<gloss>orange</gloss>

The cases where mikan is translated as orange, are simply cases of mistranslation.
…or cases where the term mikan is used of an orange and it is translated as orange, even though the term is actually used in the the sense of "citrus fruit". (for the sake of convenience/simplicity)

Also, while orange can be used for certain citrus fruits with "orange" in their name (but which aren't true oranges), it is not so ambiguous as to include any citrus fruit …and mikan is never used to mean "orange", but rather "citrus fruit"

@@ -27 +26,0 @@
-<gloss>orange</gloss>

since "satsuma" by itself is a thing. (I agree it doesn't have to lead)

@@ -20,0 +21 @@
+<gloss>satsuma</gloss>

All quiet.

If you argue that the more general sense is more narrow than all of citrus, that's fine, but that should be put in the general sense.
Not the specific one, which refers strictly to Citrus unshiu.

Not sure the change from (Citrinae spp.) to (Citrus spp.) is warranted, but…
It's arguable, and nit-picky.

@@ -19,5 +19,2 @@
-<gloss>mandarin (esp. the satsuma mandarin (Citrus unshiu))</gloss>
-<gloss>mandarin orange</gloss>
-<gloss>tangerine</gloss>
-<gloss>clementine</gloss>
-<gloss>satsuma</gloss>
+<gloss>satsuma (Citrus unshiu))</gloss>
+<gloss>satsuma mandarin</gloss>
@@ -28 +25 @@
-<gloss>citrus (Citrus spp.)</gloss>
+<gloss>citrus (Citrus spp. esp. small thin-skinned ones)</gloss>

sense 1:
native informer
daijs:ウンシュウミカン・キシュウミカンなど多くの品種がある
nikk: 古くから栽培されウンシュウミカン・キシュウミカンなど品種が多い。
eij: clementine クレメンタイン、クレメンティーン◆小さな甘いミカン。
eij: tangerine juice
タンジェリンジュース◆タンジェリンというミカンから作られたジュース。
kenkyu readers: tangerine 1 a 〘植〙 タンジェリン(の木)《米国・アフリカ南部に多く産するミカン》

sense 2: daijr says "柑橘類" (Citrinae) but all the examples listed (ウンシュウミカン・ナツミカン・ダイダイ・オレンジ・ザボン) are in the 
Citrus genus.
koj 1: ミカン科のうちの特にミカン亜科ミカン属の樹、またその果実の総称。 (ミカン属 = Citrus)
nikk: ミカン科ミカン属の植物の総称。
meikyo: ミカン科ミカン属に属する一群の柑橘類の総称。 (meikyo is unusual in stating it doesn't apply to everything in ミカン属)
shinmeikai on the other hand: "〔広義では、柑橘カンキツ類を指す〕〔ミカン科〕" (ミカン科 = Rutaceae)

Several sources do say that みかん refers to either Citrus unshiu or anything in the Citrus genus, but I think it's actually the case 
that it commonly refers to any relatively small thin-skinned orange, including 紀州みかん (有田みかん), tangerines, clementines (and 
occasionally to other somewhat similar fruits such as (thick-skinned) oranges), but basically never to for example lemons or daidai, 
despite these being listed as examples. What I think the kokugos are saying with their "Citrus spp." senses is just "member of ミカン
属", i.e. in a scientific context (though meikyo is the odd one out here). So I think there's a nuance we're missing when we follow 
the kokugo's example of saying "it's either Citrus unshiu or anything in the same genus/tribe".

@@ -19,2 +19,4 @@
-<gloss>satsuma mandarin (Citrus unshiu)</gloss>
-<gloss>satsuma orange</gloss>
+<gloss>mandarin (esp. the satsuma mandarin (Citrus unshiu))</gloss>
+<gloss>mandarin orange</gloss>
+<gloss>tangerine</gloss>
+<gloss>clementine</gloss>
@@ -26 +28 @@
-<gloss>citrus (Citrinae spp.)</gloss>
+<gloss>citrus (Citrus spp.)</gloss>

I'm inclined to agree that on balance we're better off without the "orange" gloss in the second sense.

…
Every single one of the sources that Marcus Richert cited, in his rejection, were definitions stating the senses of 1) satsuma or 2) citrus fruit.
NOT citrus fruits, resembling the orange. (and you will not find any definition of the English "orange", that is any more broad than that …and that definition is very vague and oversimplified, BTW. It is, after all, from a dictionary, with the flaws and limitations inherent in dictionaries)
You cannot possibly claim that, e.g., a lime, lemon, or sudachi, at all resembles an orange.
A blood orange does, certainly …but a kabosu? A citron? (both of which count as mikan, under the second sense) Most certainly not.

@@ -27 +26,0 @@
-<gloss>orange</gloss>

I think the other 5 glosses are quite enough.

In the reddit thread, there's 95 comments and 8 that mention the word "cutie". Very US-specific but I think it should be included.

A little too colloquial.

I don't think that helps much.

@@ -24 +23,0 @@
-<gloss g_type="tm">cutie</gloss>

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cutie
https://www.reddit.com/r/EnglishLearning/comments/rm4t7b/what_do_you_call_these_tangerines_clementines/

@@ -23,0 +24 @@
+<gloss g_type="tm">cutie</gloss>

@@ -21 +21 @@
-<gloss>dividing into groups (after ability, etc.)</gloss>
+<gloss>dividing into groups (e.g. by ability)</gloss>

not sure how common it is, but there are plenty of hits for "生徒を輪切りに" (nothing in the ngrams though)

@@ -17,0 +18,4 @@
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<gloss>dividing into groups (after ability, etc.)</gloss>

GG5: 能力別に生徒を輪切りにする put the students into groups according to their ability.

What do we make of this example in GG5? It doesn't match the glosses in the kokugos or JEs. Eijiro has 輪切りにされた for things in cross-sections - is it an idiomatic use of 輪切りにする?

chujiten daij

@@ -16 +16,2 @@
-<gloss>round slices</gloss>
+<gloss>cutting in round slices</gloss>
+<gloss>round slice</gloss>

GG5, etc.

Ahh, yes.

@@ -26 +26,2 @@
-<gloss>reserving</gloss>
+<gloss>reserving (for exclusive use)</gloss>
+<gloss>(full) booking</gloss>
@@ -28,2 +29 @@
-<gloss>engaging</gloss>
-<gloss>reservation</gloss>
+<gloss>block reservation</gloss>

"Did you get a reservation?" in generally means "did you get us a table?"
while a 貸し切り at a restaurant means you've rented the whole place (so it'd be "closed for private function" for the night)

How does it differ from a reservation?

I think it wasn't a bad suggestion? A 貸し切り 
of a restaurant isn't just a "reservation".

Koj, Daijr/s, GG5, etc.

I don't think that's needed.

@@ -26 +26 @@
-<gloss>reserving (for exclusive use)</gloss>
+<gloss>reserving</gloss>

regarding [rK] - we should probably add to the documentation somewhere that one of the things we look when deciding whether to use it is the ngram percentages and that the threshold is around 2-3% (before we forget it ourselves)

Eijiro

I don't think it is a problem. These 四字熟語 don't usually have literal meanings.

@@ -22,0 +23 @@
+<gloss>hard-bitten</gloss>

The "rich in experience" is not a really accurate translation so I added another one to make it clearer and closer to the meaning and easier to find.

@@ -23,0 +24 @@
+<gloss>very experienced</gloss>

Not quite. I think everything we've tagged as rK so far has been <3%.

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

Google N-gram Corpus Counts
百戦錬磨	61990
百戦練磨	3894
ひゃくせんれんま	160

6% of total usages. meets the threshold for rK?

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

又々	21835	0.4%
又又	8781	0.1%
復々	179	0.0%
復復	93	0.0%
亦々	186	0.0%
亦亦	26	0.0%
またまた	5990500	99.5%

I don't like "again (and again)".

@@ -5,0 +6 @@
+<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>
@@ -8,0 +10 @@
+<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>
@@ -11,0 +14 @@
+<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>
@@ -14,0 +18 @@
+<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>
@@ -17,0 +22 @@
+<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>
@@ -20,0 +26 @@
+<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>
@@ -28 +33,0 @@
-<gloss>again (and again)</gloss>

No response. Closing.

GG5: again; once again. *ex, またまたお手を煩わし恐縮の至りに存じます. I am sorry to put you to repeated troubles.)
中辞典: 	also; yet [once] again (ex. またまた医療ミスで死者が出た. Yet again ┏has someone [someone has] died due to medical malpractice.)
ルミナス: (once) again
Tanaka: またまた彼らはけんかをしているようです。 It looks like they are at it again.

I suspect it's about as good as we can get. Feel free to suggest any more glosses you think help.

@@ -29,0 +30 @@
+<gloss>yet again</gloss>

None of these senses help understanding this, for instance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vJUmBkuzko

gg5, chujiten
長めの	374068
長めな	44027

@@ -13,0 +14 @@
+<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
@@ -15 +15,0 @@
-<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
@@ -19,0 +20,2 @@
+<gloss>somewhat long</gloss>
+<gloss>fairly long</gloss>

daij

matching 短め

@@ -15,0 +16 @@
+<pos>&n;</pos>

gg5, prog, daij

Splitting into senses.

@@ -11,0 +12,5 @@
+<gloss>one-hit wonder</gloss>
+<gloss>flash in the pan</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
@@ -13 +18,6 @@
-<gloss>power hitter (baseball)</gloss>
+<gloss>one-shot speculator</gloss>
+<gloss>someone who puts all one's eggs in one basket</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<field>&baseb;</field>
@@ -15 +25 @@
-<gloss>one hit wonder (e.g. in music)</gloss>
+<gloss>home-run batter</gloss>

OK, I'll reject my suggestion.

GG5: a pancake of light flour with cabbage and other ingredients, cooked on a griddle.
中辞典: 	a soft savory pancake.

I'd call it a pancake too. I much prefer the earlier "savoury pancake with various fillings, thinner than okonomiyaki". (They were common when I was living in 荒川区. Very much 下町 fare.)

Too much, maybe? But a monjayaki isn't a 
pancake

@@ -14 +14 @@
-<gloss g_type="expl">savoury pancake with various fillings, thinner than okonomiyaki</gloss>
+<gloss g_type="expl">pan-fried batter with various fillings, resembling a partially uncooked okonomiyaki</gloss>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monjayaki

@@ -13 +13,2 @@
-<gloss>savoury pancake with various fillings, thinner than okonomiyaki</gloss>
+<gloss>monjayaki</gloss>
+<gloss g_type="expl">savoury pancake with various fillings, thinner than okonomiyaki</gloss>

ホバークラフト	26930
ホーバークラフト	5981
ホヴァークラフト	66

From 1121700.

@@ -5,0 +6,3 @@
+</r_ele>
+<r_ele>
+<reb>ホーバークラフト</reb>

I think it was a company/brand-name. (Now no more, alas. My son took one across the Channel in 1994, but the Eurotunnel killed the business so I'll never have the chance.)

EDR日英対訳辞書
http://sankei.jp.msn.com/wired/news/120904/wir12090413390003-
n1.htm
 5,880 results

@@ -7,0 +7,3 @@
+<r_ele>
+<reb>ホヴァークラフト</reb>
+</r_ele>
@@ -9,1 +12,1 @@
-<gloss>Hovercraft</gloss>
+<gloss>hovercraft</gloss>

Entry created

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="2826488">出来役</xref>
@@ -13 +14 @@
-<gloss>the Ono no Michikaze card and three other 20-point cards (high-scoring meld)</gloss>
+<gloss>the Ono no Michikaze card and three other 20-point cards (scoring combination)</gloss>

@@ -12,2 +12,2 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="1194690">花札</xref>
-<gloss>the Ono no Michikaze card and three other 20-point cards (high-scoring meld in hanafuda)</gloss>
+<field>&hanaf;</field>
+<gloss>the Ono no Michikaze card and three other 20-point cards (high-scoring meld)</gloss>

aligning hanafuda entries

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<gloss>the Ono no Michikaze card and three other brights (high-scoring meld in hanafuda)</gloss>
+<gloss>the Ono no Michikaze card and three other 20-point cards (high-scoring meld in hanafuda)</gloss>

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<gloss>the rain card and three other brights (high-scoring meld in hanafuda)</gloss>
+<gloss>the Ono no Michikaze card and three other brights (high-scoring meld in hanafuda)</gloss>

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

I've moved the question to the むず entry.

Reopening to raise the question of what to do むとす. Daijisen says: "「むず」に同じ。" - can we add it to the むず entry?
BTW, for むとす Koj says "「んとす」とも".

meikyo:〔文〕

I don't think the archaic むとす belongs here.

@@ -10,3 +9,0 @@
-<r_ele>
-<reb>むとす</reb>
-</r_ele>
@@ -16,2 +13,4 @@
-<s_inf>after a -nai stem</s_inf>
-<gloss>to be trying to</gloss>
+<misc>&litf;</misc>
+<s_inf>after nai stem of verb</s_inf>
+<gloss>to try to (do)</gloss>
+<gloss>to want to</gloss>
@@ -22 +21,2 @@
-<gloss>to be just about to</gloss>
+<misc>&litf;</misc>
+<gloss>to be about to (do, happen)</gloss>

@@ -16 +16,2 @@
-<gloss>(after a -nai stem) to be trying to</gloss>
+<s_inf>after a -nai stem</s_inf>
+<gloss>to be trying to</gloss>

I think the issue is that ん comes from the previous verb. We wouldn't usually have something like this as an entry; it's more of a grammar point. However, daijr and meikyo do have んとする, so I suppose a justification can be made for adding this.

@@ -9,0 +10,2 @@
+<misc>&litf;</misc>
+<s_inf>after nai stem of verb</s_inf>

んがため	30887
救わんがために	290
救うために	137593
https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/5396/is-there-a-difference-between-んがため-and-ために

Seems it's a rather archaic construction that's survived. Maybe it's worth keeping.

@@ -9 +9 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="1157150">ために</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="1157150">ために・1</xref>

This entry feels kind of non-standard.

http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1412020229
子供を救わんがために（＝救うために）、命を落とした。
(s)He lost his life in order to rescue the child

|長手|
daijr:  材の寸法の長い方の側。
shinmeikai: （曲尺の）長い方。
https://doboku.ezwords.net/yougo/長手.html
"長方形の長いほう"
---
|stretcher|
Oxford: brick or stone laid with its long side along the face of a wall.
M-W: a: a brick or stone laid with its length parallel to the face of the wall
     b: a timber or rod used especially when horizontal as a tie in framed work
Wiktionary: A piece of timber used in building.

I don't think "stretcher" is correct, despite what GG5 and the terminology dictionaries say. No English dictionary defines "stretcher" as "the long side of ..."

@@ -16,0 +17 @@
+<gloss>fairly long</gloss>
@@ -21,2 +22 @@
-<gloss>stretcher</gloss>
-<gloss g_type="expl">long side of timber (etc.), or a timber placed lengthwise</gloss>
+<gloss>long side (of timber, etc.)</gloss>

jaanus, gg5

@@ -12,0 +12,1 @@
+<pos>&n;</pos>
@@ -18,2 +19,3 @@
-<gloss>longer side</gloss>
-<gloss>stretcher (building)</gloss>
+<field>&archit;</field>
+<gloss>stretcher</gloss>
+<gloss g_type="expl">long side of timber (etc.), or a timber placed lengthwise</gloss>

紙器関係専門用語辞典, 土木用語辞典, daij

is the "stretcher (building)" supposed to mean "A brick laid 
with the longest side exposed (compare header)" ? (wiktionary)

if so maybe it should read "stretcher (brick)" instead

@@ -18,0 +18,1 @@
+<gloss>longer side</gloss>
@@ -20,0 +21,5 @@
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<misc>&arch;</misc>
+<gloss>long road</gloss>
+</sense>

Kojien
1.遠い道。長途。ながち。
2.長めなこと。長い方のもの。

Here's the sentence I came across in an email from a Japanese coworker:
立ち上げ当初に設備輸送した際、高さ・幅がギリギリで、かつ、長手方向に長いものコンテナのまま納入して、引き出すのに非常に苦労した経験があります。
JB: rewrote as in GG5

reverso examples

@@ -13,3 +13,3 @@
-<gloss>to take its toll</gloss>
-<gloss>to be deadly</gloss>
-<gloss>to cost lives</gloss>
+<gloss>to claim lives</gloss>
+<gloss>to cause deaths</gloss>
+<gloss>to result in fatalities</gloss>

https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=死者を出

@@ -14,0 +15 @@
+<gloss>to cost lives</gloss>

Eijiro
GG5 has: 5,000 人以上もの死者を出した.....
1.5M hits.

gg5, daijs, reverso examples
単館	57346
単館系	22006	
単館上映	13081	   
単館映画	3354	 
単館で	3061  
単館が	461
単館を	188

I thought about giving this noun glosses but prenominal usage dominates.

@@ -10,0 +11 @@
+<pos>&adj-f;</pos>
@@ -12,2 +13,3 @@
-<pos>&adj-f;</pos>
-<gloss>art-house (film, etc.)</gloss>
+<gloss>single-theater</gloss>
+<gloss>independent (cinema)</gloss>
+<gloss>art-house (film)</gloss>

GG5
Mainichi: 浅野忠信主演「鮫肌男と桃尻女」は単館でヒットした。

gg5

@@ -19 +19 @@
-<gloss>to leave one's home (behind one)</gloss>
+<gloss>to leave home</gloss>
@@ -22 +22 @@
-<gloss>to be out on one's own</gloss>
+<gloss>to go out on one's own</gloss>

please watch formatting

@@ -19,4 +19,4 @@
-<gloss>leave one's home (behind one)</gloss>
-<gloss>leave one's parental roof</gloss>
-<gloss>leave the nest</gloss>
-<gloss>be out on one's own</gloss>
+<gloss>to leave one's home (behind one)</gloss>
+<gloss>to leave one's parental roof</gloss>
+<gloss>to leave the nest</gloss>
+<gloss>to be out on one's own</gloss>

GG5、広辞苑、新解さん

Same 向田邦子 story.

Without "looking", there's nothing to distinguish this from 不満.

@@ -15,4 +15,2 @@
-<gloss>dissatisfied</gloss>
-<gloss>discontented</gloss>
-<gloss>glum</gloss>
-<gloss>complaining</gloss>
+<gloss>dissatisfied-looking</gloss>
+<gloss>looking discontented</gloss>

GG5, Eijiro

The refs, such as they are, don't really support the "looking".

@@ -15,2 +15,4 @@
-<pos>&n;</pos>
-<gloss>dissatisfied-looking</gloss>
+<gloss>dissatisfied</gloss>
+<gloss>discontented</gloss>
+<gloss>glum</gloss>
+<gloss>complaining</gloss>

GG5「不満」
614,000  不満げ
257,000  不満気

Same essay.
Regular formation, albeit v. common (and used in various compounds), hence seems lexicalized.

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

んー	1212132
んん	875715
んんー	21161

https://hinative.com/ja/questions/6796916
「んー」は "fmm..." や "well..." のように少し考えこむときに言う言葉です。すぐには答えられないときや、どちらかというと賛成ではない時に使うことが
多いと思います。

Discussed this with a native speaker who disagreed んん could mean "hm", only "huh?" (though this usage is in nikk and there's 
examples of it on twitter too.) They didn't like んん for "no" either (also in nikk, also on twitter) but んー was definitely out of 
the picture.

Don't know where I got on-mim from.

@@ -6,0 +7,3 @@
+<r_ele>
+<reb>んー</reb>
+</r_ele>
@@ -9 +11,0 @@
-<misc>&on-mim;</misc>
@@ -14,0 +17,7 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="2139720">ん・2</xref>
+<gloss>huh?</gloss>
+<gloss>what?</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<stagr>んん</stagr>
+<pos>&int;</pos>
@@ -16 +24,0 @@
-<misc>&on-mim;</misc>

@@ -15,2 +15,2 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="2002400">ううん</xref>
-<xref type="see" seq="2002400">ううん</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="2002400">ううん・2</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="2002400">ううん・2</xref>

nikk
plenty of examples on twitter:
https://twitter.com/search?q="んん"&src=typed_query&f=live

The "usu. steel" is a good qualifier, as it signals it's not the sort of thing you carry drinks around on at a party.

I disagree - a "バット" can also be used for presenting food:
食器・調理器具がわかる辞典: "調理の際、下ごしらえや_盛りつけ_まで..." (my emphasis)
see also google image results for バット 料理 for examples of such use
and again google image results for:
1. (shallow tray)
https://www.google.com/search?
q=shallow+tray&sxsrf=ALeKk02ApawaZ6Ez_XmD4afuUBL7xbk9Fw:1603765014245&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi8qeif2tPsAhWRF4gKHVelAKcQ_AUoAXoECAU
QAw&biw=1296&bih=740&dpr=2.25　
&
2. (バット　トレー) 
https://www.google.com/search?q=バット　トレー&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiro8qg2tPsAhUO3JQKHTovDSYQ2-
cCegQIABAA&oq=%E3%83%90%E3%83%83%E3%83%88%E3%80%80%E3%83%88%E3%83%AC%E3%83%BC&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzICCAAyBAgAEBgyBAgAEBgyBAgAEBgyBAgAEBgyBAgAEBgyBAg
AEBgyBggAEAgQHjoFCAAQsQM6BwgAELEDEAQ6BAgAEAQ6CAgAELEDELEDOgYIABAEEBhQ1_kBWPSRAmCylAJoBXAAeACAAYMBiAHUDZIBBDAuMTWYAQCgAQGqAQtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZ8ABAQ&
sclient=img&ei=F4OXX-u7M4640wS63rSwAg&bih=740&biw=1296 
look very similar.

@@ -10 +10 @@
-<gloss>shallow tray</gloss>
+<gloss>shallow tray (usu. steel or plastic)</gloss>

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/tray - "a flat object, usually with raised edges, used for carrying food and drinks"

The problem is that most things described as "shallow tray" in English would not be called a バット in Japanese. If we're going to omit "vat" from the glosses I think we need to provide information on the specific sort of tray to which バット applies.

How's this? Google image results for バット トレ
ー and this seem to match pretty well. I think 
going into detail about ehat it's used for is 
to complicate things unnecessarily (because it 
has more than one use)

@@ -10,2 +10 @@
-<gloss>tray (film developing, etc.)</gloss>
-<gloss>shallow food preparation receptacle</gloss>
+<gloss>shallow tray</gloss>

GG5: 〔容器〕 a vat; 【写真】 a developing tray.
ルミナス: 	vat　★染物などに用いる大型容器.
Googling for "バット" + vat.

"Tray" alone can be a problem, as for me at least the default meaning is a serving tray, which is not a バット.
I agree with dropping "vat" despite what the JEs say.

@@ -10 +10,2 @@
-<gloss>tray</gloss>
+<gloss>tray (film developing, etc.)</gloss>
+<gloss>shallow food preparation receptacle</gloss>

可杯	1151
べくはい	678
べくさかずき	28
べく杯	1408
https://sunchi.jp/sunchilist/kochi/54244
"ご当地お座敷遊び「べく杯」で、高知の宴は二度盛り上がる"

@@ -3,0 +4,3 @@
+<k_ele>
+<keb>べく杯</keb>
+</k_ele>

Trimming.

@@ -15 +15 @@
-<gloss>sake cup shaped so that it cannot be placed down unless it is emptied</gloss>
+<gloss>sake cup shaped so it cannot be put down until emptied</gloss>

koj, daijs, nikk
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/可杯

google hits:
べくはい 15,200
べくさかずき 526

べくはい is not in kokugos, but it appears to be the more popular pronunciation. It might be a regional pronunciation 
from Kochi/Tosa that gained popularity. On the other hand, べくさかずき doesn't seem to see much common use at all.

Still harmless.

overly compositional, not common

何とかという物	25
何とかというもの	467
何とかと言うもの	37
なんとかという物	24
なんとかというもの	649
なんとかと言うもの	24

A bit obvious, and not that common, but I guess it's harmless.

@@ -3,0 +4,6 @@
+<k_ele>
+<keb>何とかというもの</keb>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>何とかと言うもの</keb>
+</k_ele>
@@ -8 +14,4 @@
-<keb>何とかというもの</keb>
+<keb>なんとかと言うもの</keb>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>なんとかという物</keb>
@@ -13,0 +23 @@
+<pos>&exp;</pos>
@@ -14,0 +25 @@
+<misc>&uk;</misc>

wisdom, eijiro

No response. I'm dropping it.

アイドルタレント	11852
アイドル	6517252
タレント	8682464

Do we have an entry? Or do we just let people work it out for themselves? I suspect it's not really needed.

@@ -9 +9,4 @@
-<gloss>another word for アイドル</gloss>
+<xref type="see" seq="1014340">アイドル・1</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="1076460">タレント・1</xref>
+<gloss>entertainer (esp. boy band or girl group member) whose image is manufactured to cultivate a dedicated consumer fan following</gloss>
+<gloss>Japanese idol</gloss>

wikipedia redirects アイドルタレント to アイドル

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。

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.

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

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

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>

Charming.

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

くし切り	13512
櫛切り	2194

(櫛形切り	282  in 和・洋・中・エスニック　世界の料理がわかる辞典 on kotobank)

Oops, that's a little embarrassing. Thanks.

@@ -14 +14 @@
-<reb>らんがためにわれはしんず</reb>
+<reb>しらんがためにわれはしんず</reb>

@@ -8 +8 @@
-<keb>知らんがためにわれ信ず</keb>
+<keb>知らんがためにわれは信ず</keb>

I don't think so. We have "cogito, ergo sum", etc.

daijr brit

知らんがために	82
知らんが為に	41

the "c" in credo doesn't have to be capitalized, does it?

そのほか色々	8010

@@ -9,0 +10,3 @@
+<k_ele>
+<keb>そのほか色々</keb>
+</k_ele>
@@ -14,0 +18,2 @@
+<re_restr>その他いろいろ</re_restr>
+<re_restr>その他色々</re_restr>
@@ -18,0 +24,4 @@
+<gloss>and various other things</gloss>
+<gloss>and many other things</gloss>
+<gloss>and more</gloss>
+<gloss>and what not</gloss>
@@ -20,2 +28,0 @@
-<gloss>and what not</gloss>
-<gloss>and many other things</gloss>

GG5: and various others; and what not; and all that
3 Tanaka sentences.
その他いろいろ	373475
その他色々	142774
そのほかいろいろ	18107
そのたいろいろ	3355

Not that obvious, and quite common.

gg5
G n-grams: 59407

死者が出る	18312
GG5 & Tanaka examples

Yet-another case of が出る. I'll index the sentences.

https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=死者が出
https://ejje.weblio.jp/sentence/content/"死者が出"

RP
チャンネルを合わせる	6961
チャンネルを合わせ	21968

Not obvious use of 合わせる

https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=チャンネル+合わせる
https://ejje.weblio.jp/sentence/content/チャンネルを合わせ

gg5, wisdom
G n-grams: 259376

gg5, daij, koj

防衛食	155
Most hits are for examples of containers in museums.

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

Label on a WWII era rations jar of lard. https://jref.com/threads/ration-jar.188534/

daijs, koj

@@ -3,0 +4,3 @@
+<k_ele>
+<keb>止まりばめ</keb>
+</k_ele>
@@ -8 +11 @@
-<keb>止まりばめ</keb>
+<keb>止り嵌め</keb>

Koj, Daijs, Kagaku

Not common.

@@ -5,0 +6,3 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>止まりばめ</keb>
@@ -13,0 +17,2 @@
+<gloss>sliding fit</gloss>
+<gloss>snug fit</gloss>

https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/止り嵌め/

Already in dictionary as entries "止まりばめ" and "とまりばめ".

@@ -8,2 +8,2 @@
-<misc>&unclass;</misc>
-<gloss>Severn</gloss>
+<misc>&place;</misc>
+<gloss>Severn (River)</gloss>