gg5, ウィズダム

@@ -16,0 +17,3 @@
+<gloss>simple</gloss>
+<gloss>easy</gloss>
+<gloss>convenient</gloss>
@@ -18 +20,0 @@
-<gloss>simple and easy</gloss>

mk (single sense)

taking a break from the list
( http://www.edrdg.org/~jwb/files/meikyo_JMD_more.html )

@@ -16,0 +17 @@
+<pos>&vi;</pos>
@@ -22,0 +24 @@
+<pos>&vi;</pos>

gg5, prog, daij

@@ -17 +17,8 @@
-<gloss>lightweight equipment or dress</gloss>
+<gloss>light clothing</gloss>
+<gloss>dressing light</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<pos>&vs;</pos>
+<gloss>light equipment</gloss>
+<gloss>light armaments</gloss>

gg5, prog, daij, meikyo

@@ -9,0 +10,3 @@
+<r_ele>
+<reb>けいびん</reb>
+</r_ele>
@@ -13,2 +16,11 @@
-<gloss>convenience</gloss>
-<gloss>simplicity</gloss>
+<gloss>handy</gloss>
+<gloss>convenient</gloss>
+<gloss>simple</gloss>
+<gloss>portable</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<xref type="see" seq="1831720">軽便鉄道</xref>
+<misc>&abbr;</misc>
+<gloss>narrow-gauge railway</gloss>
+<gloss>light railway</gloss>

Not sure about that. Both 中辞典 and ルミナス have stupid/foolish for that sense.

@@ -53,0 +54 @@
+<gloss>to be foolish</gloss>

Wording was a bit strong here. Not necessarily used as an insult.

@@ -51 +50,0 @@
-<gloss>to be stupid</gloss>

I've looked at this a few times. I think it's really part of sense 1 - I don't think it should go in one of its own.

I understand that アルコールが抜ける or 酒が抜ける means "alcohol leaves the body," i.e. to sober up, no longer have an effect. Just leaving a comment here if you want to fit that in somewhere.

since we landed at calling 胴丸 "torso armor".

@@ -23 +23 @@
-<gloss>armour that opens at the back</gloss>
+<gloss>torso armour that opens at the back</gloss>

I'll close it now. No need to tell readers not to confuse two senses.

@@ -24 +24 @@
-<gloss>haramaki (not to be confused with the stomach covering)</gloss>
+<gloss>haramaki</gloss>

Apparently it needs to be short. Longer and more descriptive than "type of armour" …but only just.

@@ -23 +23 @@
-<gloss>armour that was initially used on foot, but later also from horseback. Opens at the back</gloss>
+<gloss>armour that opens at the back</gloss>

Embarrassing oversight.

@@ -23 +23 @@
-<gloss>armour that was Initially used on foot, but later also from horseback. Opens at the back</gloss>
+<gloss>armour that was initially used on foot, but later also from horseback. Opens at the back</gloss>

@@ -23 +23 @@
-<gloss>armor put on from the front and fastened in the back. Initially made for those on foot, but later came to (along with the dō-maru) replace the heavier and less mobile ō-yoroi on horseback as well</gloss>
+<gloss>armour that was Initially used on foot, but later also from horseback. Opens at the back</gloss>

* https://hinative.com/ja/questions/1479732
* https://lang-8.com/875224/journals/307843799587710754050779161422046596044

cf. our 「笑」 entry.

@@ -27,0 +28,6 @@
+<sense>
+<pos>&exp;</pos>
+<xref type="see" seq="1622070">棒読み・1</xref>
+<misc>&net-sl;</misc>
+<gloss>spoken monotonously</gloss>
+</sense>

That's the context in GG5 and ルミナス. I can't see it in any of Daijirin's 6 senses; 
probably it should merge with sense 1.

@@ -21,3 +20,0 @@
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<pos>&n;</pos>

i assume #2 means conductor's baton in particular? (not police baton?)

GG5, etc.

@@ -21,0 +22,9 @@
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<gloss>baton</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<gloss>line</gloss>
+<gloss>dash</gloss>
+</sense>

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

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

gg5, prog

I think this is clearer with gerund glosses. It's virtually always vs.

@@ -13,3 +13,4 @@
-<gloss>possession (of what is required)</gloss>
-<gloss>fulfilment (of conditions)</gloss>
-<gloss>being equipped with</gloss>
+<gloss>possessing (what is required)</gloss>
+<gloss>having</gloss>
+<gloss>fulfilling (conditions)</gloss>
+<gloss>satisfying (requisites)</gloss>

gg5, daij

The current glosses are confusing, in my view.

@@ -13,4 +13,4 @@
-<gloss>endowment</gloss>
-<gloss>possession</gloss>
-<gloss>qualification</gloss>
-<gloss>equipment</gloss>
+<gloss>possession (of what is required)</gloss>
+<gloss>fulfilment (of conditions)</gloss>
+<gloss>being equipped with</gloss>
+<gloss>being endowed with</gloss>

daijr/s, koj: 尻をののしっていう語

@@ -23,0 +24,10 @@
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<stagr>どんけつ</stagr>
+<stagr>ドンケツ</stagr>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<misc>&derog;</misc>
+<misc>&uk;</misc>
+<gloss>ass</gloss>
+<gloss>arse</gloss>
+<gloss>butt</gloss>

jitsuyo

どん尻	4086
どんじり	8710
どんけつ	2254
どんケツ	210
どんジリ	No matches
ドンジリ	1319
ドンケツ	4277

suggesting merge

@@ -9,0 +10,7 @@
+<r_ele>
+<reb>どんけつ</reb>
+</r_ele>
+<r_ele>
+<reb>ドンケツ</reb>
+<re_nokanji/>
+</r_ele>
@@ -11,0 +19 @@
+<misc>&uk;</misc>

@@ -14,0 +15 @@
+<gloss>dead last</gloss>

@@ -12 +12,2 @@
-<gloss>party rules or regulations</gloss>
+<gloss>party rules</gloss>
+<gloss>party regulations</gloss>

gg5, daij, koj, etc.

The refs only have けいべんてつどう.

@@ -10,3 +9,0 @@
-<r_ele>
-<reb>けいびんてつどう</reb>
-</r_ele>
@@ -15 +12 @@
-<gloss>narrow-gauge railroad</gloss>
+<gloss>narrow-gauge railway</gloss>

@@ -12,2 +12,2 @@
-<gloss>Go home</gloss>
-<gloss>Get out</gloss>
+<gloss>go home</gloss>
+<gloss>get out</gloss>

Certainly not a noun.

not really [int]

@@ -11 +11 @@
-<pos>&n;</pos>
+<pos>&exp;</pos>

I don't think that type of info belongs in a 
note, it should be part of the definition.

@@ -21,2 +21 @@
-<s_inf>esp. refers to Toyotomi Hideyoshi</s_inf>
-<gloss>taikō</gloss>
+<gloss>taikō (esp. Toyotomi Hideyoshi)</gloss>

@@ -22 +22 @@
-<gloss>taiko</gloss>
+<gloss>taikō</gloss>

Koj, Daijr, GG5, 新和英中辞典, ルミナス
Daijr/s: または関白をその子に譲った人の称。

Koj, Daijisen & Daijirin have much the same. I've put the "father of" back, because the 3 JEs have it, and I take the Daijr/s to be saying much the same.
Very messy

@@ -19,4 +19,1 @@
-<gloss>Toyotomi Hideyoshi</gloss>
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<pos>&n;</pos>
+<xref type="see" seq="1216030">関白・かんぱく</xref>
@@ -24,1 +21,3 @@
-<gloss>retired Imperial adviser (advisor)</gloss>
+<s_inf>esp. refers to Toyotomi Hideyoshi</s_inf>
+<gloss>taiko</gloss>
+<gloss g_type="expl">title for a regent, later for the grand chancellor, also for the father of an Imperial adviser (advisor) who passed the role to his son</gloss>

Aligning.

@@ -18,2 +18,3 @@
-<gloss>mock examination</gloss>
-<gloss>trial examination</gloss>
+<gloss>mock exam</gloss>
+<gloss>practice exam</gloss>
+<gloss>practice test</gloss>

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

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

Romanization and common-ish name that appears alongside it in English-language sources.

@@ -11,0 +12,2 @@
+<gloss>chikuzenni</gloss>
+<gloss>simmered chicken and vegetables</gloss>

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

It probably is. I'll do it.

Good idea to have x-refs for all our モテ- entries (モテ期 / モテ男 / モテ度 / モテ髪 / モテファッション) to explain 
that part?

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="2640260">モテる</xref>

Entry created

daijs

@@ -29 +29,2 @@
-<gloss>to show a sign (i.e. an omen)</gloss>
+<gloss>to be a sign of</gloss>
+<gloss>to be an omen for</gloss>

wrong sense was marked archaic

@@ -21 +20,0 @@
-<misc>&arch;</misc>
@@ -28,0 +28 @@
+<misc>&arch;</misc>

Entry created

I've added that to the open issues item.

ナローゲージ	5451
狭軌	        18631

Might be worth adding a "railway" field tag. 160【鉄道】terms in GG5.

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="1237710">狭軌</xref>

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

@@ -6,0 +6,3 @@
+</r_ele>
+<r_ele>
+<reb>ナロー・ゲージ</reb>

Entry created

@@ -15 +15 @@
-<gloss>See you next week</gloss>
+<gloss>see you next week</gloss>

I was satisfied with Marcus's version, so I'm putting it back.
I've left the commentary here rather than reject the proposed edit (which would relegate it into a separate thread), but I may not do that with future edits.
Re the "don't break up URLs into multiple lines", I'm afraid that's an artifact of browsers on some mobile devices, which insert line-break characters at the ends of text boxes.

@@ -16 +16 @@
-<gloss>light armour opening at the right, originally used for infantry combat</gloss>
+<gloss>light torso armour opening at the right, originally used for infantry combat</gloss>

already cited refs.
the previous comments.

>The back-and-forth here reminds me of the quote "perfection is the enemy of good".

How so? All you've done, is to insist that the good is unacceptable, because you insist on the bad.
For no discernable reason, and without particularly bothering to give any.
Certainly not clarity or brevity, and absolutely not accuracy.

If you wish to claim that I am letting the perfect, be the enemy of the good, you must first explain how/why what you propose is good, and not bad, and how/why what I propose is inferior.
Explain not just how maybe an entry has to be less than perfect in one aspect, for the sake of some other aspect (for example: a bit less explanation, or maybe even accuracy, for the sake of brevity …though I should note that JMdict has a policy of brevity, beyond the level of most other dictionaries), but also how that is relevant to what I propose, in contrast to what you propose.
I.e.
Don't just make claims about my positions.
That is no more than baseless nonsense.
Make a case against them! And/or for your own position!
"Put up, or shut up", as the saying goes.
(this is a general problem, that you people have. You seem to like to just say "no you're wrong. X is how it should be", and insist that everyone just blindly obey. Finding actual discussion and argumentation, to be rude and impudent disruption, rather than the cornerstone of any/all collaboration/cooperation, and the foundation of how one can reach the truth or the best decisions/conclusions …as essentially all other dictionaries and all academic/scientific/scholarly endeavours do)

As for the references you have chosen, this time…
First of all, don't break up URLs into multiple lines.
The first source, in showing a doumaru, shows a full suit of armour.
The second source is a kokugo
…and I have thoroughly explained why they are not only clearly inferior sources, but that they are also undeniably wrong and full of errors, in their entry on doumaru.
Hence, citing them is utterly invalid.
As for the third, I do not understand it's inclusion, as it is much briefer than any of the previously cited ones (aside from kokugos) and apparently just some random website mostly just concerned with costumes, and therefore not that bothered with armour.

Looking at the comments, I am pleased to see you finally deciding to actually make some kind of argument, to back up your positions (though certainly not in regards to "perfection is the enemy of good").

The one on "infantry" is quite decent.
I firmly disagree that it doesn't imply low-status footsoldiers, but then you did also, accurately, point out that it was mainly the low class footsoldiers who wore them initially, making that point rather moot.
I still see no reason to insist on "infantry", over "combat on foot".
The latter is not particularly longer, nor is it any less clear.
That said, given your arguments, there is also not much reason to insist on "combat on foot", over "infantry", so…

The second bit, however…
>"but if the kokugos don't make a point of mentioning it, I believe it's not a very important point"

How is that supposed to be an argument?

First of all, that is essentially assuming that the kokugos are infallible, or must be very sensible, on the subject.
This is disproven, not only in how they (as can be shown in all other dictionaries [but probably a lot more in Japanese dictionaries, than in English ones. Certainly a LOT more in jp-en/en-jp ones]) have many examples of errors and obvious examples of a lacking understanding of what they are describing,
but also in that the _kokugos entries on doumaru, specifically,_  clearly contain obvious, and undeniable, errors.
An argument that is clearly and obviously based on a foundation, that has already been thoroughly and undeniably shown to be invalid, cannot be regarded as a serious/honest attempt at an argument.

Secondly, you are not making any kind of argument or explanation/clarification of why it wouldn't be an important point (or why it being an important or unimportant point, should matter in the least), but simply making an Argument from (flimsy) Authority, by saying that "they probably have a reason" without bothering to show, come up with, or even think about, the reason.

You have four options, when it comes to the torso vs full suit issue:
1. Have the entry merely call it an "armour". (what I went with, and prefer, given how brief the entries are)
2. Have a sense with "torso armour", and a separate one with the no less (far more?) common "full suit" sense.
3. Actually bother to make a case, a serious and honest attempt (valid or not …though it must be a genuine attempt at validity) at a case, for why you can call it a torso armour, without the additional full suit sense.
4. Throw any sense of collaboration, logic, civility, or rational discussion out the window, and simply use your authority to ignore and dismiss all dissent (without listening to or addressing any arguments, however sound) and power through your position, without bothering with any kind of justification.

I wouldn't recommend option #4
…though it does seem to be popular here and, by all accounts, quite accepted.

@@ -16 +16 @@
-<gloss>light torso armour opening at the right, originally used for infantry combat</gloss>
+<gloss>light armour opening at the right, originally used for infantry combat</gloss>

https://www.hyogo-c.ed.jp/~rekihaku-
bo/historystation/rekihaku-meet/seminar/bugu-
kacchuu/kc_intro2.html
...中・下級の徒歩（かち）武者の甲冑として発達したもので
す。
there's also this: なお、今日胴丸と呼んでいる甲冑
は、中世には腹巻と呼ばれており、逆に今日の腹巻を中世には
胴丸と呼んでいました。(but let's just not get into 
it)
(daijr: 中世以前はこの形式の鎧を腹巻と呼んでいた。)
https://costume.iz2.or.jp/costume/535.html
胴丸は大鎧に次ぐ一般戦士の使用する軽快な武装であった。

The back-and-forth here reminds me of the 
quote "perfection is the enemy of good".

"used" seems better than "made/designed".
I'm not seeing how "combat on foot" is an 
improvement over Robin's "infantry combat" - 
neither implies low-status footsoldiers, but 
even if they did, those seem to have been the 
original wearers anyway (see sources, plus 
kokugos) so I'm not seeing the issue here.

It might be the case that 胴丸 is used to refer 
to a full suit of armor including the sense 1 
torso armor, but if the kokugos don't make a 
point of mentioning it, I believe it's not a 
very important point and that we don't have to 
either.

@@ -16,7 +16 @@
-<gloss>light torso armour opening at the right, originally used for combat on foot</gloss>
-<gloss>dō-maru</gloss>
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<pos>&n;</pos>
-<misc>&hist;</misc>
-<gloss>suit of armour, using such a torso armour</gloss>
+<gloss>light torso armour opening at the right, originally used for infantry combat</gloss>

"I don't think" isn't and argument or clarification.
You say it isn't an improvement, but don't explain how or why it isn't.
Also, "infantry" is pretty much the same as "foot soldier", including the same problems.

As for "torso armour"… Yes, certainly, it is clearer, though I'd argue that if the term "armour" is used, without mention of what part your talking about, people will tend to assume that it is either torso armour, or a full suit of armour, which would be fine, here.
But okay.
"Torso armour" it is
…but then it needs to explicitly state the second sense.
(this makes this entry, inconsistent with the other armour entries, BTW)

@@ -16 +16,7 @@
-<gloss>light torso armour opening at the right, originally designed for infantry combat</gloss>
+<gloss>light torso armour opening at the right, originally used for combat on foot</gloss>
+<gloss>dō-maru</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<misc>&hist;</misc>
+<gloss>suit of armour, using such a torso armour</gloss>

I don't think those changes improve the gloss.
I'm not yielding on the "torso" point. Dropping it makes the gloss less precise and harder to visualise.

@@ -16 +16 @@
-<gloss>light armour opening at the right, originally made for use on foot</gloss>
+<gloss>light torso armour opening at the right, originally designed for infantry combat</gloss>

I was quite satisfied with the position stated by Robin and Marcus. Please don't keep submitting this edit.

>I was satisfied with Marcus's version

…despite the arguments and evidence against it, and the utter lack of arguments or evidence for it.
What is the basis, for favouring his version?
Neither you, nor Marcus, have presented any.
As such, there is no basis for going with it
…or are you saying that you are choosing to go with alternative 4, in the list of options I listed?

@@ -16 +16 @@
-<gloss>light torso armour opening at the right, originally used for infantry combat</gloss>
+<gloss>light armour opening at the right, originally used for infantry combat</gloss>

I was satisfied with Marcus's version, so I'm putting it back.
I've left the commentary here rather than reject the proposed edit (which would relegate it into a separate thread), but I may not do that with future edits.
Re the "don't break up URLs into multiple lines", I'm afraid that's an artifact of browsers on some mobile devices, which insert line-break characters at the ends of text boxes.

@@ -16 +16 @@
-<gloss>light armour opening at the right, originally used for infantry combat</gloss>
+<gloss>light torso armour opening at the right, originally used for infantry combat</gloss>

already cited refs.
the previous comments.

>The back-and-forth here reminds me of the quote "perfection is the enemy of good".

How so? All you've done, is to insist that the good is unacceptable, because you insist on the bad.
For no discernable reason, and without particularly bothering to give any.
Certainly not clarity or brevity, and absolutely not accuracy.

If you wish to claim that I am letting the perfect, be the enemy of the good, you must first explain how/why what you propose is good, and not bad, and how/why what I propose is inferior.
Explain not just how maybe an entry has to be less than perfect in one aspect, for the sake of some other aspect (for example: a bit less explanation, or maybe even accuracy, for the sake of brevity …though I should note that JMdict has a policy of brevity, beyond the level of most other dictionaries), but also how that is relevant to what I propose, in contrast to what you propose.
I.e.
Don't just make claims about my positions.
That is no more than baseless nonsense.
Make a case against them! And/or for your own position!
"Put up, or shut up", as the saying goes.
(this is a general problem, that you people have. You seem to like to just say "no you're wrong. X is how it should be", and insist that everyone just blindly obey. Finding actual discussion and argumentation, to be rude and impudent disruption, rather than the cornerstone of any/all collaboration/cooperation, and the foundation of how one can reach the truth or the best decisions/conclusions …as essentially all other dictionaries and all academic/scientific/scholarly endeavours do)

As for the references you have chosen, this time…
First of all, don't break up URLs into multiple lines.
The first source, in showing a doumaru, shows a full suit of armour.
The second source is a kokugo
…and I have thoroughly explained why they are not only clearly inferior sources, but that they are also undeniably wrong and full of errors, in their entry on doumaru.
Hence, citing them is utterly invalid.
As for the third, I do not understand it's inclusion, as it is much briefer than any of the previously cited ones (aside from kokugos) and apparently just some random website mostly just concerned with costumes, and therefore not that bothered with armour.

Looking at the comments, I am pleased to see you finally deciding to actually make some kind of argument, to back up your positions (though certainly not in regards to "perfection is the enemy of good").

The one on "infantry" is quite decent.
I firmly disagree that it doesn't imply low-status footsoldiers, but then you did also, accurately, point out that it was mainly the low class footsoldiers who wore them initially, making that point rather moot.
I still see no reason to insist on "infantry", over "combat on foot".
The latter is not particularly longer, nor is it any less clear.
That said, given your arguments, there is also not much reason to insist on "combat on foot", over "infantry", so…

The second bit, however…
>"but if the kokugos don't make a point of mentioning it, I believe it's not a very important point"

How is that supposed to be an argument?

First of all, that is essentially assuming that the kokugos are infallible, or must be very sensible, on the subject.
This is disproven, not only in how they (as can be shown in all other dictionaries [but probably a lot more in Japanese dictionaries, than in English ones. Certainly a LOT more in jp-en/en-jp ones]) have many examples of errors and obvious examples of a lacking understanding of what they are describing,
but also in that the _kokugos entries on doumaru, specifically,_  clearly contain obvious, and undeniable, errors.
An argument that is clearly and obviously based on a foundation, that has already been thoroughly and undeniably shown to be invalid, cannot be regarded as a serious/honest attempt at an argument.

Secondly, you are not making any kind of argument or explanation/clarification of why it wouldn't be an important point (or why it being an important or unimportant point, should matter in the least), but simply making an Argument from (flimsy) Authority, by saying that "they probably have a reason" without bothering to show, come up with, or even think about, the reason.

You have four options, when it comes to the torso vs full suit issue:
1. Have the entry merely call it an "armour". (what I went with, and prefer, given how brief the entries are)
2. Have a sense with "torso armour", and a separate one with the no less (far more?) common "full suit" sense.
3. Actually bother to make a case, a serious and honest attempt (valid or not …though it must be a genuine attempt at validity) at a case, for why you can call it a torso armour, without the additional full suit sense.
4. Throw any sense of collaboration, logic, civility, or rational discussion out the window, and simply use your authority to ignore and dismiss all dissent (without listening to or addressing any arguments, however sound) and power through your position, without bothering with any kind of justification.

I wouldn't recommend option #4
…though it does seem to be popular here and, by all accounts, quite accepted.

@@ -16 +16 @@
-<gloss>light torso armour opening at the right, originally used for infantry combat</gloss>
+<gloss>light armour opening at the right, originally used for infantry combat</gloss>

https://www.hyogo-c.ed.jp/~rekihaku-
bo/historystation/rekihaku-meet/seminar/bugu-
kacchuu/kc_intro2.html
...中・下級の徒歩（かち）武者の甲冑として発達したもので
す。
there's also this: なお、今日胴丸と呼んでいる甲冑
は、中世には腹巻と呼ばれており、逆に今日の腹巻を中世には
胴丸と呼んでいました。(but let's just not get into 
it)
(daijr: 中世以前はこの形式の鎧を腹巻と呼んでいた。)
https://costume.iz2.or.jp/costume/535.html
胴丸は大鎧に次ぐ一般戦士の使用する軽快な武装であった。

The back-and-forth here reminds me of the 
quote "perfection is the enemy of good".

"used" seems better than "made/designed".
I'm not seeing how "combat on foot" is an 
improvement over Robin's "infantry combat" - 
neither implies low-status footsoldiers, but 
even if they did, those seem to have been the 
original wearers anyway (see sources, plus 
kokugos) so I'm not seeing the issue here.

It might be the case that 胴丸 is used to refer 
to a full suit of armor including the sense 1 
torso armor, but if the kokugos don't make a 
point of mentioning it, I believe it's not a 
very important point and that we don't have to 
either.

@@ -16,7 +16 @@
-<gloss>light torso armour opening at the right, originally used for combat on foot</gloss>
-<gloss>dō-maru</gloss>
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<pos>&n;</pos>
-<misc>&hist;</misc>
-<gloss>suit of armour, using such a torso armour</gloss>
+<gloss>light torso armour opening at the right, originally used for infantry combat</gloss>

Yes, it needed the がた inserted; not the 型 removed.
Anyway, it's the sort of uncommon and obvious technical compound you see all the time. Not worth recording.

G n-grams: 
挿入流量計	No matches
挿入型流量計	21

挿入型流量計 is the form on weblio (クロスランゲージ 37分野専門語辞書) but I'm not sure we need this at all.

After trying to look it up, I'm still not sure, but I think the 型 is extraneous here? The reading element completely ignores it.

@@ -5 +5 @@
-<keb>挿入型流量計</keb>
+<keb>挿入流量計</keb>

weblio

as submitted, gets no legitimate japanese google hits

@@ -5,1 +5,1 @@
-<keb>插入型流量計</keb>
+<keb>挿入型流量計</keb>
@@ -11,0 +11,1 @@
+<pos>&n;</pos>

世界大百科事典
【麻雀】より
…最初は3人鼎座の競技であったが，牌の組合せによる点数など得点制度も生まれ，現在の麻雀の姿へと近づいた。次に，花牌（ホアパイ）が加わった花麻雀が1800年こ
ろから太平天国(1851‐64)の時代に盛んに行われ...

以上のほかに8個の花牌(ホワパイ)があるが、現在はほとんど使用していない。


花牌	2660

はなはい	111
はなパイ	No matches
ファパイ	No matches
ホアパイ	No matches

@@ -14,0 +15,6 @@
+</r_ele>
+<r_ele>
+<reb>ホアパイ</reb>
+</r_ele>
+<r_ele>
+<reb>ホワパイ</reb>

https://www.weblio.jp/content/花牌
google results for 花牌　読み
ファパイ doesn't seem that common.

@@ -8,3 +7,0 @@
-<reb>ファパイ</reb>
-</r_ele>
-<r_ele>
@@ -15,0 +13,3 @@
+<r_ele>
+<reb>ファパイ</reb>
+</r_ele>
@@ -19 +19 @@
-<gloss>flower tiles</gloss>
+<gloss>flower tile</gloss>

@@ -18 +18,2 @@
-<gloss>flower tiles (mahjong)</gloss>
+<field>&mahj;</field>
+<gloss>flower tiles</gloss>

Pending approval of the merge with  旧車會.

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/旧車会

Ok, I'll propose a merge. I'm doing it here as this entry has a more relevant set of comments and edits than the 旧車会 entry.

@@ -3,0 +4,3 @@
+<k_ele>
+<keb>旧車会</keb>
+</k_ele>
@@ -10,0 +14 @@
+<stagk>旧車会</stagk>
@@ -11,0 +16,6 @@
+<gloss>classic vehicle club (cars, motorcycles)</gloss>
+<gloss>antique vehicle club</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<s_inf>esp. 旧車會</s_inf>

https://response.jp/article/2020/10/18/339482.html?amp=twitter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7daz8Q_vs5s
daijr:【旧車会】
① 往年の名車とされるオートバイや自動車の所有者が集う愛好会。車両のチューン-ナップや改造，ツーリングなどを楽しむ。〔②と混同されやすいが，①は違法行為はしない〕
② 暴走族 OB によって結成されるグループ。旧車の違法改造や集団暴走などを行う。旧車會。

旧車会 isn't limited to cars. Also, Google images mostly returns results containing "旧車會" when you search "旧車会". I found a couple of examples of 旧車会 where it's not referring to bōsōzoku-like groups. 
Daijr has a single 旧車会 entry but gives 旧車會 as a synonym for the second sense.
There are example online of 旧車会 being used with the sense 2 meaning but 旧車會 dominates.
We could merge them but we'd need [restr=旧車会] on sense 1 and a "esp. 旧車會" note on sense 2. Sense 1 doesn't appear to be very common.

Hm. All the google image results for 旧車会 
shows bikes. I think the two should be merged.
Unless the "car club" sense can be attested 
outside of wikipedia, I don't think it shouls 
be included.

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/旧車会
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/旧車會

We already have a 旧車会 entry. As Scott pointed out, 旧車会 and 旧車會 are different things.

@@ -4,3 +3,0 @@
-<k_ele>
-<keb>旧車会</keb>
-</k_ele>

Reverso

heard used for wine

@@ -12,0 +13 @@
+<gloss>production facility</gloss>

製造工場, RP
A Tanaka sentence.

Maybe a bit obvious, but I don't mind.

https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=製造工場

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

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>authority control</gloss>
+<gloss>authority control (e.g. in library cataloging)</gloss>

https://kotobank.jp/word/典拠コントロール-1703352

Term in library science

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:典拠管理

Not obscure so much as it is jargon. It's used on Wikipedia on a large number of pages covering e.g. books and authors to provide links to centralized databases.

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

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

@@ -13 +13,2 @@
-<gloss>authority control</gloss>
+<misc>&obsc;</misc>
+<gloss>authority control (e.g. in library cataloging)</gloss>

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/典拠管理

典拠コントロール	336
典拠管理	75

osb dictionary on weblio
variety show ちゃちゃ入れ

could be merged with べったこ and/or べべた but I think it just ends up confusing when the readings are this different.

segment on variety show ちゃちゃ入れマンデー　(presented as wakayama-ben)
http://honwakayama.web.fc2.com/namari.html
べく
（マラソンなどで）びり、一番最後。
https://mutekigain.exblog.jp/amp/1204772/
そういえばうちの父親はビリ、どん尻のことを「べく」と言っており、幼少の俺は何の疑問ももたずそれを使っていましたが、突如として誰も「べく」などとは
言ってないことに気づき、ひょっとしたらうちの父親の言語体系はある意味特殊なのかもわからんとあわてて和歌山弁を調べると「べく」はちゃんとありまし
た。ギリギリセーフ。使ってよし。

kyoto/shiga according to variety show ちゃちゃ入れマンデー (based on 街頭インタビュー in various parts of kansai)
osb dic on weblio

べったこ	6763

https://books.google.co.jp/books?
id=hHbwgrnnCekC&dq=%22%E7%94%B0%E8%88%8E%E7%B4%B3%E5%A3%AB%22&pg=PP160#v=onepage&q=%22%E7%94%B0%E8%88%8E%E7%B4%B3%E5%A3%AB%22&f=false
英国自治制度の歴史的考察 (1927)
""第三項　田舎紳士と中農"斯して　　斯くして田舎紳士は十七世紀の終に於て英國の社會の頭であり、心臓であり、凡ての活動の本源であり、且つ凡ての人々の羨望の
的であった。"
https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=xipyVYaKyvgC&pg=PA101&dq="田舎紳士"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwivma68-
oDtAhVjJaYKHc6sC1UQ6AEwAHoECAUQAg#v=onepage&q=%22%E7%94%B0%E8%88%8E%E7%B4%B3%E5%A3%AB%22&f=false
立身出世の社会史: サムライからサラリーマンへ (1995)

actually looking at the google books results, a lot of the usage seems to describe British "country gentlemen" and not in a derogative 
manner from what I can tell. Also 立身出世の社会史 mention it being used for wealthy landowners. So no issues with "squire"

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>unrefined country gentleman</gloss>
+<gloss>country gentleman (esp. one that's slightly unrefined)</gloss>

I don't quite like "(somewhat unrefined)" 
tagged on at the end. Is "squire" really 
right? Does it have a connotation of 
unrefinement? Because I think that's the point 
of this word.

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>country gentleman (somewhat unrefined)</gloss>
+<gloss>unrefined country gentleman</gloss>

Daijr: 紳士を気取っているが，どこか洗練されていないところのある人。田舎の紳士。田紳。

I think "yokel" is a bit strong.  Is 田紳 an abbreviation?

@@ -12,2 +12,2 @@
-<gloss>yokel gentleman</gloss>
-<gloss>yokel trying to appear like a gentleman</gloss>
+<gloss>country gentleman (somewhat unrefined)</gloss>
+<gloss>squire</gloss>

田舎紳士	1405
daijs nikk

dated, maybe.

Added the name used in English language sources about it, to match Robin Scott's quite sensible addition on 胴丸.

@@ -13,0 +14 @@
+<gloss>ō-yoroi</gloss>

Koj, Daijr, Daijs (all have large entries with diagrams)

[Initial approval was a mistake.] Attempting a more descriptive gloss.

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<gloss>a type of heavy armour, typically used from horseback</gloss>
+<gloss>box-shaped heavy armour, esp. used on horseback</gloss>

Editorial Policy extracts: (https://www.edrdg.org/wiki/index.php/Editorial_policy)
- "provide useful explanations where appropriate. "type of card game" is not very useful - in such a case explain briefly what the card game entails", 
- "do not precede the meaning with the articles "a", "an" or "the" unless it is absolutely necessary to make the meaning clear."
大鎧	12220

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ō-yoroi
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/大鎧
http://myarmoury.com/feature_jpn_armour.html

gg5, eij

I think this should be its own entry.

the book "花牌の憲法" (1884) had furigana for "花牌" reading "hanafuda"
also given the furigana "hanafuda" here:
https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=Hr9K-gLZaZIC&dq="花牌を"&pg=PT19#v=onepage&q="花牌を"&f=false
https://books.google.co.jp/books?
id=KqdkzKOlJqwC&dq=%22%E8%8A%B1%E7%89%8C%E3%81%AB%22&pg=PP247#v=onepage&q=%22%E8%8A%B1%E7%89%8C%E3%81%AB%22&f=false
https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=3uQL-
_7YSroC&dq=%22%E8%8A%B1%E7%89%8C%E3%81%A8%22&pg=PP1033#v=onepage&q=%22%E8%8A%B1%E7%89%8C%E3%81%A8%22&f=false

here the reading is given as "はな" (which is a synonym for hanafuda)
https://books.google.co.jp/books?
id=wypBAQAAMAAJ&dq=%22%E8%8A%B1%E7%89%8C%E3%82%92%E5%BC%95%E3%81%8F%22&pg=PP507#v=onepage&q=%22%E8%8A%B1%E7%89%8C%E3%82%92%E5%BC%95%E3%81%8F%22&f=f
alse
https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=IoKudHaLkjoC&dq="花牌を"&pg=PA62#v=onepage&q="花牌を"&f=false
https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=2ve75H-
hTNkC&dq=%22%E8%8A%B1%E7%89%8C%E3%82%92%22&pg=PA170#v=onepage&q=%22%E8%8A%B1%E7%89%8C%E3%82%92%22&f=false
https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=noEH67KQTPAC&dq="花牌を"&pg=PP471#v=onepage&q="花牌"&f=false
https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=_WZD8LS-
2LgC&dq=%22%E8%8A%B1%E7%89%8C%E3%81%AB%22&pg=PA522#v=onepage&q=%22%E8%8A%B1%E7%89%8C%E3%81%AB%22&f=false
https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=xFLp-
vh6wgAC&dq=%22%E8%8A%B1%E7%89%8C%E3%81%AF%22&pg=PP307#v=onepage&q=%22%E8%8A%B1%E7%89%8C%E3%81%AF%22&f=false

かはい (くわはい):
https://books.google.co.jp/books?
id=3XcFRjr_G18C&lpg=PA49&dq=%22%E8%8A%B1%E7%89%8C%E3%82%92%E5%BC%84%22&pg=PA49#v=onepage&q=%22%E8%8A%B1%E7%89%8C%E3%82%92%E5%BC%84%22&f=false
https://books.google.co.jp/books?
id=27um3V_wJiMC&dq=%22%E8%8A%B1%E7%89%8C%E3%81%AB%22&pg=PP874#v=onepage&q=%22%E8%8A%B1%E7%89%8C%E3%81%AB%22&f=false

I feel making this its own entry with the reading かはい makes the most sense, despite it not being all that frequently occurring as furigana?
But we could also add the kanji to the 花札 entry instead, but I don't know.

* daijs: 細かい物が入りまじって、混雑しているさま。 (also has as an example small shops in a side street)
* http://yourei.jp/こちゃこちゃ

こちゃこちゃ	4455
コチャコチャ	1746

I think "scribbling" is only in the context of the gg5 sentence. daijs defines it as the cramming of small 
things, and nikk/koj concur.

@@ -5,0 +6,3 @@
+</r_ele>
+<r_ele>
+<reb>コチャコチャ</reb>
@@ -12 +14,0 @@
-<gloss>scribbling (a lot of tiny characters)</gloss>
@@ -13,0 +16 @@
+<gloss>jumbling together</gloss>

gg5 koj daij G-ngrams

We should probably have Oda, Toyotomi and Tokugawa in the main dictionary?

I don't think "hist" is needed for names.

daij nikk koj etc.

豊太閤	2835
豊太閣	53 

豊太閣 is not all that common, but it's used in the nikk example (from 1735)
and as the name of this 1960-1989 hanafuda deck: 
https://page.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/o437225714

敬称 - pol?
also, hist?

https://dic.pixiv.net/a/吸血姫

n-grams (see also the first 100 matches):
吸血姫	10119
吸血姫美夕	5516

Seems to be popularized in the title of a series Vampire Princess Miyu, but I'm also seeing it used in many 
other manga and light novel contexts.

https://hinative.com/ja/questions/227270

体験入部	16627

Probably.

Better to stick to the passive voice?

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<gloss>would-be crime abandoned before carrying it out</gloss>
+<gloss>would-be crime abandoned before being carried out</gloss>

Oops

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<gloss>would-be crime abandoned carrying it out</gloss>
+<gloss>would-be crime abandoned before carrying it out</gloss>

GG5

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<gloss>voluntary suspension of your own crime prior to completing it</gloss>
+<gloss>would-be crime abandoned carrying it out</gloss>

From a television show on a graduate law school for judges and prosecutors.
1）犯罪が既遂に達する前に自己の意思によりこれを中止すること

https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/中止未遂/#jn-143325
Synonymous with 中止未遂：犯罪の実行に着手した犯人が、自己の意思で実行をやめるか、または結果の発生を防止すること。刑が減軽または免除される。中止犯。
→障害未遂

There could also be new entries for 中止未遂 and 障害未遂.

Not sure whether this should be exp or adv.

リーダーズ+プラス
幸いにも	269194
GG5 examples, 10 Tanaka sentences (out of 48 for 幸い).

Worth having.

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

https://www.weblio.jp/content/幸いにも
https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=幸いにも

typo

@@ -19 +19 @@
-<gloss>to to put in all one's effort</gloss>
+<gloss>to put in all one's effort</gloss>

GG5, etc.
総力を挙げる	1122
総力をあげる	606
総力を挙げて	36656
総力をあげて	26548

@@ -16,3 +16,4 @@
-<gloss>to give one's everything (as a group)</gloss>
-<gloss>to put all one's efforts in</gloss>
-<gloss>to have all hands on deck</gloss>
+<s_inf>usu. as 総力を挙げて</s_inf>
+<gloss>to devote all one's energies</gloss>
+<gloss>to give one's everything</gloss>
+<gloss>to to put in all one's effort</gloss>

@@ -17,0 +18 @@
+<gloss>to have all hands on deck</gloss>

https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=総力を
https://thesaurus.weblio.jp/content/総力をあげる

I'd prefer adj-f here.
I don't mind using wadoku as support for there being an entry, but they are rather looser about letting things in than we are. I don't know how closely things are vetted. I know the founder, Ulrich Apel, quite well, but I don't know how closely he is involved.

@@ -11 +11 @@
-<pos>&adj-pn;</pos>
+<pos>&adj-f;</pos>

I think citing wadoku is quite similar to 
citing eij or wikipedia. I think we're all 
clear they are not as authorative as the 
kokugos, so I don't see it as a problem.

Our other 〜すべき entries are either exp or adj-f. Daijr has 愛すべき as 連語 (exp); shinmeikai has it as 連体 (adj-pn). It would be good to settle on one.
By the way, I don't think dictionary projects like Wadoku, JMdict, etc. should use each other as references. It's like Wikipedia citing Baidu Baike as a source.

@@ -13,2 +13,3 @@
-<gloss>worthy of celebration</gloss>
-<gloss>of great importance</gloss>
+<gloss>worth commemorating</gloss>
+<gloss>momentous</gloss>
+<gloss>monumental</gloss>

wadoku

記念すべき	712076

adj-pn or adj-f?

https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=記念すべき
https://ejje.weblio.jp/content/記念すべき

If it were kept, we'd need the regular usage as the first sense, and it'd get messy. 
I'm canning it, but I'll delete rather than reject.

it's a reject from me too, but a halfhearted one

That itself indicates a problem with the proposed entry. There are 20 Tanaka sentences containing 反対に but only those two relate to this proposed entry; the other 18 are 反対 in its common adverbial use. There are other common uses of 反対に such as 反対にする and 反対に回る.
The more I look at it, the less useful this proposed entry seems.

There are two sentences with this use:
夏にはたくさん雨が降るが、反対に冬にはほとんど降らない。 We have much rain in summer but on the other hand we have little rain in winter. 
「天気予報では今日は涼しいそうよ」「反対に、暑い気がする」 "The weather forecast says it's cool today." "On the contrary, I feel hot."

GG5: 反対に 〔逆に〕 the 「other [wrong] way; 〔方向〕 in the opposite direction; 〔これに反し〕 on the contrary.

Although GG5 has it indexed, I don't think it's really worth an entry, any more than 反対の or 反対する.

gg5 examples:
内職は手間賃が安くてひと月働いてもいくらにもならない.　The rates for piecework done at home are very low, and you can work for a month and earn [it comes to] hardly anything.
彼が結婚してからまだいくらにもならない.　It is only very recently that [almost no time since] he got married.
meiyko (いくら): 《「━にもならない」の形で》金額が数えるまでもないほどに少ないさま。わずかにしかならない。
「売り払っても━にもならない」

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>Shitennouji</gloss>
+<gloss>Shitennōji</gloss>

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

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

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>International Buddhist University</gloss>
+<gloss>Shitennōji International Buddhist University</gloss>

University correction
-*- via bulkupd.py -*-

@@ -11 +11 @@
-<misc>&place;</misc>
+<misc>&organization;</misc>

Bad kana. Correct version is an entry.

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

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

@@ -11 +11 @@
-<misc>&place;</misc>
+<misc>&organization;</misc>

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

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

@@ -11 +11 @@
-<misc>&place;</misc>
+<misc>&organization;</misc>

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

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

@@ -11 +11 @@
-<misc>&place;</misc>
+<misc>&organization;</misc>