GG5, etc.

Yes, it's the original French meaning. It's comparatively recently that it's come to mean a short CV (in English.)

@@ -13,0 +14 @@
+<gloss>digest</gloss>

nikk: 要約。大意。_また、研究などの要旨を印刷したもの。_ my emphasis
https://twitter.com/OnTakahashi/status/1331510732802801665
In corporate Japan, they print out powerpoint slides and call it a レジュメ (Resume). When I first started working in a JP company and they 
asked me if I prepared a resume for my presentation, I was like "we gotta do self-introductions before presenting?". Was wild.

random house: 1, a brief written account of personal, educational, and professional qualifications and experience, as that prepared by an 
applicant for a job.
2, a summing up; summary.
I think it might be more helpful to not include "resume" among the glosses as it inevitably leads people to think of CVs

@@ -12,2 +12 @@
-<lsource xml:lang="fre"/>
-<gloss>résumé</gloss>
+<lsource xml:lang="fre">résumé</lsource>
@@ -15,0 +15 @@
+<gloss>abstract</gloss>

G n-grams:
レジメ	50544
レジュメ	360786

@@ -5 +5 @@
-<reb>レジメ</reb>
+<reb>レジュメ</reb>
@@ -8 +8 @@
-<reb>レジュメ</reb>
+<reb>レジメ</reb>
@@ -12,2 +12,2 @@
-<lsource xml:lang="fre">résumé</lsource>
-<gloss>resume</gloss>
+<lsource xml:lang="fre"/>
+<gloss>résumé</gloss>

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<lsource xml:lang="fre"/>
+<lsource xml:lang="fre">résumé</lsource>

gg5, prog, daijr

@@ -13 +12,0 @@
-<gloss>to pull in (rope)</gloss>
@@ -14,0 +14,3 @@
+<gloss>to pull in</gloss>
+<gloss>to draw in</gloss>
+<gloss>to reel in</gloss>
@@ -19,3 +21,4 @@
-<gloss>to trace</gloss>
-<gloss>to retrace</gloss>
-<gloss>to unravel (e.g. a story)</gloss>
+<gloss>to trace (history, threads of a story, etc.)</gloss>
+<gloss>to retrace (e.g. memories)</gloss>
+<gloss>to go over</gloss>
+<gloss>to unravel</gloss>

GG5

@@ -13,0 +14,8 @@
+<gloss>to haul in (hand over hand)</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&v5r;</pos>
+<pos>&vt;</pos>
+<gloss>to trace</gloss>
+<gloss>to retrace</gloss>
+<gloss>to unravel (e.g. a story)</gloss>

gg5, prog

Noun glosses for sense 2.

@@ -34,3 +34,4 @@
-<gloss>green</gloss>
-<gloss>wet behind the ears</gloss>
-<gloss>juvenile</gloss>
+<gloss>greenhorn</gloss>
+<gloss>fledgeling</gloss>
+<gloss>novice</gloss>
+<gloss>rookie</gloss>

OK, I'll split them. I'll approve and reopen this one for a bit. I'll also reindex the sentences.

@@ -17,4 +16,0 @@
-<reb>ひな</reb>
-<re_pri>ichi1</re_pri>
-</r_ele>
-<r_ele>
@@ -22,4 +17,0 @@
-</r_ele>
-<r_ele>
-<reb>ヒナ</reb>
-<re_nokanji/>
@@ -32,0 +25 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="2847628">雛・ひな・1</xref>
@@ -35,0 +29 @@
+<gloss>fledgling</gloss>
@@ -38 +31,0 @@
-<stagr>ひな</stagr>
@@ -40,7 +33 @@
-<gloss>hina doll</gloss>
-<gloss g_type="expl">doll displayed during the Girls' Festival</gloss>
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<stagr>ひよこ</stagr>
-<stagr>ひよっこ</stagr>
-<pos>&n;</pos>
+<misc>&uk;</misc>

I think we should split
I don't like messy and complex entries like this

@@ -15 +15 @@
-<gloss>holding one's sword pointing towards the opponents eyes (kendo stance)</gloss>
+<gloss>holding one's sword pointing towards the opponent's eyes (kendo stance)</gloss>

GG5, etc.

@@ -15 +15 @@
-<gloss>middle-level posture in kendo with sword pointing towards the opponents eyes</gloss>
+<gloss>holding one's sword pointing towards the opponents eyes (kendo stance)</gloss>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chūdan-no-kamae

The current definition of this kendo stance can be easily misinterpreted as a sword attack, which is incorrect.

@@ -15 +15 @@
-<gloss>aiming at the eye (with a sword)</gloss>
+<gloss>middle-level posture in kendo with sword pointing towards the opponents eyes</gloss>

@@ -20,0 +20,1 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="1650810">白眼・はくがん・2</xref>

hiragana longer

@@ -25 +25 @@
-<gloss>long sword (as opposed to the shorter katakana)</gloss>
+<gloss>long sword (as opposed to the shorter katana)</gloss>

daij, meikyo

I think だいとう should be a separate entry.
See Marcus's comment below regarding 横刀.
I don't think the "straight single-edged Japanese sword" sense is needed. It's really a note on kanji usage. We could add a note to sense 1 but I'm not sure it's necessary. 世界大百科 notes: "主として直刀に属するものを〈大刀〉と書き，平安時代以降の外反り（そとぞり）刀を〈太刀〉の文字であらわすのが習慣であるが，考古学用語としては，古墳時代の内反りの素環頭大刀も，便宜上〈大刀〉と書いている。"

@@ -12,3 +11,0 @@
-<ke_pri>news2</ke_pri>
-<ke_pri>nf33</ke_pri>
-<ke_pri>spec2</ke_pri>
@@ -18 +15 @@
-<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
+<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>
@@ -26,7 +22,0 @@
-<r_ele>
-<reb>だいとう</reb>
-<re_restr>大刀</re_restr>
-<re_pri>news2</re_pri>
-<re_pri>nf33</re_pri>
-<re_pri>spec2</re_pri>
-</r_ele>
@@ -35,2 +25 @@
-<gloss>long sword (esp. the tachi, worn on the hip edge down by samurai)</gloss>
-<gloss>large sword</gloss>
+<gloss>long sword (as opposed to the shorter katakana)</gloss>
@@ -39,2 +28 @@
-<stagk>大刀</stagk>
-<stagr>たち</stagr>
+<stagk>太刀</stagk>
@@ -43,8 +31,2 @@
-<gloss>straight single-edged Japanese sword (from the mid-Heian period or earlier)</gloss>
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<stagk>大刀</stagk>
-<stagr>だいとう</stagr>
-<pos>&n;</pos>
-<gloss>guandao</gloss>
-<gloss>Chinese glaive</gloss>
+<gloss>tachi</gloss>
+<gloss g_type="expl">sabre-like sword worn on the hip with the blade facing down</gloss>

太刀	292419	87.4%
大刀	41578	12.4%
横刀	443	0.1% -> sK

Not sure 横刀 belongs here. I'm seeing refs to it as おうとう. Anyway, 横 is not related to 太/大.
Also, I see the JEs split 太刀/たち and 大刀/だいとう.

@@ -18 +18 @@
-<ke_inf>&oK;</ke_inf>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
@@ -29 +28,0 @@
-<re_restr>横刀</re_restr>

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/charge?s=t  (scroll down to meaning #2)

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

Koj, Daijr, GG5, etc.

I think it's better without that second sense. No other ref goes into that area and I think it's probably a bit vague and historical.

@@ -12,6 +12 @@
-<gloss>charge d'affaires of a legation</gloss>
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<pos>&n;</pos>
-<xref type="see" seq="2847547">臨時代理公使</xref>
-<gloss>charge d'affaires ad interim</gloss>
+<gloss>chargé d'affaires</gloss>

nikk:
② 特命全権公使が欠けたとき、またはその職務を遂行できないとき、一時的に代理をつとめる公使。正確には臨時代理公使のこと。

(haven't checked whether sense 1 is correct)

@@ -13,0 +14,5 @@
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<xref type="see" seq="2847547">臨時代理公使</xref>
+<gloss>charge d'affaires ad interim</gloss>
+</sense>

Just have the proper Hepburn one.

@@ -22 +21,0 @@
-<gloss>tanto</gloss>

English language sources that speak of traditional/historical Japanese weaponry, of often mention what Japanese sources would term tantou, as "tantō", or simply "tanto"
(though, of course, outside of that context, 短刀 can be used to refer to various short swords or knives, hence the other glosses)

@@ -18,0 +19 @@
+<gloss>knife</gloss>
@@ -20,0 +22,2 @@
+<gloss>tanto</gloss>
+<gloss>tantō</gloss>

I will reject this because no sources have been referenced. I'm sure the entry can be improved, but I don't feel Alan's edit is a good 
springboard for that.

>I don't think the romanized "katana" should be in a different sense; they're the same thing.

"(single-edged) sword" includes falchions, sabres, cutlasses, hangers, Messers, dussack, backswords, kopis, all kinds of Dao, shamshir, saif, tulwar, Kilij, shotel etc etc …and also katana, tachi (大刀), tachi (太刀), nodachi/oodachi, nagamaki, kodachi, wakizashi…

So…
Clearly not the same sense.

Not unless you propose making it something like
"(single-edged) sword; katana; wakizashi; tachi; nagamaki; dao; sabre; Messer; falchion; dussack; hanger; backsword; scimitar"
Note that the above list is by no means exhaustive, so there are types missing. Also I used the umbrella term scimitar for all the distinctly different types of Middle Eastern/Indian blades …and using tachi to cover oodachi/nodachi/kodachi as well (as well as 大刀), and the general term Dao, to cover all of the countless different types of single edged Chinese swords
…and yet, it still looks rather preposterously long.

@@ -21,7 +21 @@
-<gloss>(single-edged) sword</gloss>
-<gloss>katana</gloss>
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<pos>&n;</pos>
-<gloss>dagger</gloss>
-<gloss>knife</gloss>
+<gloss>(single-edged) blade (usu. knife/dagger or sword)</gloss>

sense 5 - not a Japanese concept, doesn't need an expl.

@@ -46,2 +46 @@
-<gloss>knife money</gloss>
-<gloss g_type="expl">knife-shaped commodity money used in Zhou dynasty China</gloss>
+<gloss>knife money (knife-shaped commodity money used in ancient China)</gloss>

GG5, etc. Koj, Daijr/s

I don't think the romanized "katana" should be in a different sense; they're the same thing.
I wouldn't mind if "dagger; knife" went into the first sense. They were there originally, but in 2007 Rene split them on the grounds that their usage was "arch" (we might say "hist" now.) Then I dropped the "arch" in 2018.

@@ -22,3 +21,0 @@
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<pos>&n;</pos>

As I have come to understand, JMdict indicates that descriptions separated by a semicolon, within the same sense, indicates that the separated descriptions are different ways of describing the same thing.

Also, shouldn't the senses of "(single-edged) sword" and "dagger; knife" simply be in a single sense of "(single-edged) blade"?
Or "(single-edged) blade; (single-edged) sword; knife; dagger"?

…and when speaking of かたな, in terms of a Japanese sword, is is sometimes used to refer to "Japanese sword", generally, and sometimes as katana (in the English sense of the word. What is known as 打刀, in Japanese), specifically.

Note that neither Japanese, nor Chinese, have the same knife/dagger vs sword distinction, as exists in English.
They merely have terms for blades, distinguishing by number of edges, but not length. (though that distinction has become somewhat blurred, in Japan …after they stopped making double-edged swords or combat knives/daggers, and tool knives are all single edged, aside from a few very specialized exceptions. Hence meaning that the distinction had little practical value anymore, as practically all blades were single edged. Until Modern times, that is)
This leads to a lot of erroneous translations. (arguably _especially_ by Japanese people)

@@ -21,0 +22,3 @@
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>

All of my previously cited sources
Also https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/刀

>I will reject this because no sources have been referenced. I'm sure the entry can be improved, but I don't feel Alan's edit is a good 
springboard for that.

The sources were all the ones I had previously cited!
Why should I have to re-cite all of them, every single time, when I have already cited them?

>世界大百科事典 第２版 katana:

katana? Not かたな?
That would suggest it is talking about the English word, which strictly refers to 打刀.
As it is not the same word, that source is clearly completely irrelevant.

>daijr says 細長い (2ア) and 長い (2イ).

(2ア) and (2イ) indicates that these are sub-senses.
Not what the term exclusively refers to.
Note that daijr also states "3) 小さい刃物。".
Did you choose to ignore that, because it conflicts with (utterly destroys) your position?

…and what about how koj says "1) 刀身が短い片刃の刃物。"
Not to mention "3) 小さい刃物。きれもの。" (this is also identical to sense 4, in daijs)

As for it referring to Japanese swords, specifically…
Well, I could find a whole bunch of different sources, but would Japanese Wikipedias article, on かたな suffice?
The first image you see, straight away, is a French military sabre …and it goes on to list tons of non-Japanese blades.

>/…/短刀など/…/

短刀 is typically a knife.
Note your other source (nipp katana), which states "30センチメートル未満のものを短刀とよび分ける".
Not that there is any kind of lack of sources, that refer to 短刀 as a knife.

@@ -21,2 +21 @@
-<gloss>Japanese sword (esp. a single-edged one)</gloss>
-<gloss>katana</gloss>
+<gloss>(single-edged) blade (usu. sword or knife/dagger)</gloss>

(nipp sekaidaihyakka)

@@ -21 +21 @@
-<gloss>sword (esp. a single-edged one)</gloss>
+<gloss>Japanese sword (esp. a single-edged one)</gloss>

brit: katana entry:
太刀 (たち) ，打刀 (うちがたな) ，脇差 (わきざし) ，短刀などの日本刀の総称。

世界大百科事典 第２版 katana:
広義には日本刀全体を指すこともあるが，狭義には刃を上向きにして腰にさす2尺(60.6cm)以上の刀身のもののみを刀という。

nipp katana: 
ものを切るのに適したように片刃にこしらえた武器。刺突用に両刃にこしらえた武器は剣という。刀身の長さが60センチメートル以上のものを太刀(たち)・刀、30
～60センチメートル未満のものを脇差(わきざし)、30センチメートル未満のものを短刀とよび分ける。

koj, daijs, daijr

I suggest removing the dagger/knife sense - it seems to be arch and just risks making the entry more confusing than it has to be.
Saying sense 1 often refers to "knives/daggers" (as Alan did in a rejected suggestion) doesn't match with what's in the references - nipp 
and sekaidaihyakka both say 60cm+. daijr says 細長い (2ア) and 長い (2イ). 
All senses that suggest it's something shorter seem to be archaic.

@@ -21 +21 @@
-<gloss>(single-edged) sword</gloss>
+<gloss>sword (esp. a single-edged one)</gloss>
@@ -23,5 +22,0 @@
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<pos>&n;</pos>
-<gloss>dagger</gloss>
-<gloss>knife</gloss>

sense 5 - not a Japanese concept, doesn't need an expl.

@@ -46,2 +46 @@
-<gloss>knife money</gloss>
-<gloss g_type="expl">knife-shaped commodity money used in Zhou dynasty China</gloss>
+<gloss>knife money (knife-shaped commodity money used in ancient China)</gloss>

Re: "Japanese", 世界大百科事典 and brit say it's spec 日本刀, jawiki says it's not country-specific. Google images are all katana (except 
the jawiki pic of a sable).
but Brit's サーベル entry: 軍用の刀 
daijs' サーベル entry too: ...片刃の刀 / 洋剣
(nikk calls it 剣, nipp 洋式刀/長剣

@@ -21 +21 @@
-<gloss>Japanese sword (esp. single-edged)</gloss>
+<gloss>sword (esp. Japanese single-edged)</gloss>

Yes, I don't think I actually intended to remove it.

@@ -21,0 +22 @@
+<gloss>katana</gloss>

Shouldn't we keep "katana" as a gloss? It's a very recognisable word in English.

Can be shorter.

@@ -21 +21 @@
-<gloss>Japanese sword (esp. a single-edged one)</gloss>
+<gloss>Japanese sword (esp. single-edged)</gloss>

Daggers and spears are not blades; they *have* blades. Given that in the narrow (and most commonly understood) sense, 日本刀 refers specifically to swords (which includes 短刀/short swords) I see no issue with "Japanese sword".

@@ -21 +21,2 @@
-<gloss>Japanese combat blade (often single-edged and curved)</gloss>
+<gloss>Japanese sword (usu. single-edged and curved)</gloss>
+<gloss>Japanese bladed weapon</gloss>

No kokugo, nor any Japanese language encyclopedia, states that 日本刀 refers exclusively to swords.
ALL sources (even most English language ones) agree that traditional Japanese combat knives/daggers, naginata, and traditional Japanese spears (none of which could possibly be called swords), are all forms of 日本刀.

That j-e dictionaries translate it as Japanese sword, is immaterial.
Kokugos and, far more so, encyclopedias, are far more reliable and accurate (and extensive), in terms of establishing what the term means, entails, and includes.

The entries of a dictionary, are supposed to be based on what the terms truly mean. Not strictly on what is written in other dictionaries.
(which is then shortly expressed/summarized/compressed, within the limits of a dictionary entry)
Dictionaries are very useful, certainly, but…
I do not understand this attitude of dictionary entries, being the foremost source, for what a word means.
They clearly aren't.
They are far more limited, than other, more in-depth and extensive, resources.
Often so far as to be oversimplified and somewhat flawed and potentially a bit misleading, due to their limitations.
…not to mention how you can always find some entries, that are just plain wrong even (at least with the Japanese kokugos, and quite frequently in jp-en/en-jp dictionaries) across multiple dictionaries.

@@ -21 +21 @@
-<gloss>Japanese sword (usu. single-edged and curved)</gloss>
+<gloss>Japanese combat blade (often single-edged and curved)</gloss>

daij, meikyo
jwiki: 刀剣類は、日本では古墳時代以前から製作されていたが、一般に日本刀と呼ばれるものは、平安時代末期に出現してそれ以降主流となった反りがあり刀身の片側に刃がある刀剣のことを指す。

I agree.
Probably best to leave out "katana", though.

@@ -15,0 +16,3 @@
+<r_ele>
+<reb>にっぽんとう</reb>
+</r_ele>
@@ -18,2 +21 @@
-<gloss>(traditional) Japanese sword (usu. single-edged and curved)</gloss>
-<gloss>katana</gloss>
+<gloss>Japanese sword (usu. single-edged and curved)</gloss>

I too prefer the entry as it was. It's not wrong to point out that it refers to "traditional" swords, but I'm not really sure what's 
gained. I don't think anybody was likely to misinterpret "Japanese sword".

GG5: a Japanese sword; a katana 
中辞典: a Japanese sword; a katana
ルミナス: Japanese sword
Daijr, Daijs, etc.

I was comfortable with the previous version, which matched the major JEs. We don't want an encyclopedic entry - people can go to other sources for that. I've suggested a bit of contextual information, but I don't think it's necessary.

@@ -18 +18,2 @@
-<gloss>(traditional) Japanese (combat) blade.</gloss>
+<gloss>(traditional) Japanese sword (usu. single-edged and curved)</gloss>
+<gloss>katana</gloss>

I do not regard this submission as meeting the standards expected for this project.

>Daggers and spears are not blades; they *have* blades.

Daggers are not blades? Preposterous.
You are, however, correct when it comes to spears
Besides: "bladed weapon" is quite simply a far better phrasing, either way. I'm grateful to see that improvement.

>Given that in the narrow (and most commonly understood) sense, 日本刀 refers specifically to swords

Even the most narrow sense/use, still includes knives
…and, I'd argue, also naginata.
Just because you assume that they don't, due to thinking of 日本刀 as "Japanese sword" in your own mind, doesn't mean that the Japanese speaker/writer who is using the term, means/thinks of it in that way, when they use it.

>(which includes 短刀/short swords)

短刀, in terms of Japanese weaponry, typically (though not quite exclusively) refers to knives/daggers.
To claim otherwise, is simply ridiculous.

@@ -21 +20,0 @@
-<gloss>Japanese sword (usu. single-edged and curved)</gloss>

Daggers and spears are not blades; they *have* blades. Given that in the narrow (and most commonly understood) sense, 日本刀 refers specifically to swords (which includes 短刀/short swords) I see no issue with "Japanese sword".

@@ -21 +21,2 @@
-<gloss>Japanese combat blade (often single-edged and curved)</gloss>
+<gloss>Japanese sword (usu. single-edged and curved)</gloss>
+<gloss>Japanese bladed weapon</gloss>

No kokugo, nor any Japanese language encyclopedia, states that 日本刀 refers exclusively to swords.
ALL sources (even most English language ones) agree that traditional Japanese combat knives/daggers, naginata, and traditional Japanese spears (none of which could possibly be called swords), are all forms of 日本刀.

That j-e dictionaries translate it as Japanese sword, is immaterial.
Kokugos and, far more so, encyclopedias, are far more reliable and accurate (and extensive), in terms of establishing what the term means, entails, and includes.

The entries of a dictionary, are supposed to be based on what the terms truly mean. Not strictly on what is written in other dictionaries.
(which is then shortly expressed/summarized/compressed, within the limits of a dictionary entry)
Dictionaries are very useful, certainly, but…
I do not understand this attitude of dictionary entries, being the foremost source, for what a word means.
They clearly aren't.
They are far more limited, than other, more in-depth and extensive, resources.
Often so far as to be oversimplified and somewhat flawed and potentially a bit misleading, due to their limitations.
…not to mention how you can always find some entries, that are just plain wrong even (at least with the Japanese kokugos, and quite frequently in jp-en/en-jp dictionaries) across multiple dictionaries.

@@ -21 +21 @@
-<gloss>Japanese sword (usu. single-edged and curved)</gloss>
+<gloss>Japanese combat blade (often single-edged and curved)</gloss>

daij, meikyo
jwiki: 刀剣類は、日本では古墳時代以前から製作されていたが、一般に日本刀と呼ばれるものは、平安時代末期に出現してそれ以降主流となった反りがあり刀身の片側に刃がある刀剣のことを指す。

I agree.
Probably best to leave out "katana", though.

@@ -15,0 +16,3 @@
+<r_ele>
+<reb>にっぽんとう</reb>
+</r_ele>
@@ -18,2 +21 @@
-<gloss>(traditional) Japanese sword (usu. single-edged and curved)</gloss>
-<gloss>katana</gloss>
+<gloss>Japanese sword (usu. single-edged and curved)</gloss>

gg5, prog

@@ -16,2 +16,3 @@
-<gloss>in spare time</gloss>
-<gloss>odd job</gloss>
+<gloss>spare time</gloss>
+<gloss>free time</gloss>
+<gloss>leisure time</gloss>

meikyo; wisdom; chuujiten; prog

@@ -15,0 +16 @@
+<misc>&fam;</misc>
@@ -16,0 +18,9 @@
+<gloss>son</gloss>
+<gloss>child</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<misc>&derog;</misc>
+<gloss>mere boy</gloss>
+<gloss>stripling</gloss>
+<gloss>greenhorn</gloss>

gg5, prog, chujiten, daij, koj

Added sense.
I don't think we need "hitherto".
いまだ only applies to the first two senses.

@@ -20 +19,0 @@
-<gloss>hitherto</gloss>
@@ -27 +26 @@
-<gloss>not yet</gloss>
+<gloss>(not) yet</gloss>
@@ -29,0 +29 @@
+<stagr>まだ</stagr>
@@ -33 +33 @@
-<gloss>besides</gloss>
+<gloss>(more) still</gloss>
@@ -35,0 +36,9 @@
+<stagr>まだ</stagr>
+<pos>&adv;</pos>
+<misc>&uk;</misc>
+<gloss>at least</gloss>
+<gloss>comparatively</gloss>
+<gloss>relatively</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<stagr>まだ</stagr>
@@ -40 +49 @@
-<gloss>not yet finished with</gloss>
+<gloss>not yet done</gloss>

gg5

still is the most common translation and should come first

@@ -17,0 +18 @@
+<gloss>still</gloss>
@@ -21 +21,0 @@
-<gloss>still</gloss>

gg5, prog, daij

I don't think "not necessarily lying down" is necessary.

@@ -27 +27 @@
-<gloss>to sleep (not necessarily lying down)</gloss>
+<gloss>to sleep</gloss>
@@ -32,0 +33,3 @@
+<gloss>to rest (in peace)</gloss>
+<gloss>to lie (buried)</gloss>
+<gloss>to sleep (in the grave)</gloss>
@@ -39,2 +42,3 @@
-<gloss>to be dormant</gloss>
-<gloss>to be unused</gloss>
+<gloss>to lie unused</gloss>
+<gloss>to lie untapped</gloss>
+<gloss>to lie untouched</gloss>

tightening xref

@@ -26,3 +26,3 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="1360010">寝る</xref>
-<xref type="see" seq="1360010">寝る</xref>
-<xref type="see" seq="1360010">寝る</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="1360010">寝る・3</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="1360010">寝る・3</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="1360010">寝る・3</xref>

Aligning with the deleted ナメる entry.
I don't think we need to give the etymology for sense 4, especially if it's not certain.

@@ -14,0 +15,4 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>無礼る</keb>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
@@ -44 +47,0 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="2848112">無礼・なめ</xref>
@@ -46 +49,3 @@
-<s_inf>poss. from 無礼（なめ）; also written 無礼る and ナメる</s_inf>
+<s_inf>also written as ナメる and 無礼る</s_inf>
+<gloss>to underestimate</gloss>
+<gloss>to make light of</gloss>
@@ -48,2 +53 @@
-<gloss>to make fun of</gloss>
-<gloss>to put down</gloss>
+<gloss>to make a fool of</gloss>
@@ -51 +55 @@
-<gloss>to underestimate</gloss>
+<gloss>to disparage</gloss>

Cancelling the ナメる split. See deleted 2847552.

@@ -18,0 +19,4 @@
+</r_ele>
+<r_ele>
+<reb>ナメる</reb>
+<re_inf>&sk;</re_inf>
@@ -42 +46 @@
-<s_inf>poss. from 無礼（なめ）; also written 無礼る</s_inf>
+<s_inf>poss. from 無礼（なめ）; also written 無礼る and ナメる</s_inf>

Google N-gram Corpus Counts
205,053	 97.1%	舐める
  5,883	  2.8%	嘗める
    162	  0.1%	甞める
212,513	  n/a	なめる

oddly enough, I just encountered this as 嘗める

@@ -9,0 +10 @@
+<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>
@@ -12,0 +14 @@
+<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>

Thanks

daij, meikyo, shinmeikai

For たぐり, daijr just has "たぐること"; daijs has "たぐること。また、その用具。「―網」「―船」" I think we can just put reading restrictions on the senses that don't apply to たぐる.

@@ -15 +15,15 @@
-<gloss>reeling in (thread, etc.)</gloss>
+<gloss>reeling in by hand</gloss>
+<gloss>winding by hand</gloss>
+<gloss>spinning by hand</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<stagr>てぐり</stagr>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<gloss>transport by passing from hand to hand (e.g. in a bucket brigade)</gloss>
+<gloss>passing along a human chain</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<stagr>てぐり</stagr>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<gloss>arrangements</gloss>
+<gloss>managing</gloss>
@@ -19 +33,3 @@
-<gloss>transport by passing from hand-to-hand</gloss>
+<xref type="see" seq="2836248">手繰り網</xref>
+<misc>&abbr;</misc>
+<gloss>dragnet</gloss>

GG5 (てぐり only) 〔手で繰(く)ること〕 spinning by hand; hand spinning.
Daijr/s have different entries for てぐり and たぐり.

Flagging this for attention.

I don't think "obs" works that well with names. I think the extra stuff helps.

@@ -17,2 +17 @@
-<misc>&obs;</misc>
-<gloss>Japan Defense Agency (Defence) (became Ministry of Defense in January 2007)</gloss>
+<gloss>Japan Defense Agency (became Ministry of Defense in January 2007)</gloss>

do we need the bit in parenthesis, or is obs + xref enough?

@@ -18 +18,2 @@
-<gloss>Japan Defense Agency (Defence) (became Japanese Ministry of Defense in January 2007)</gloss>
+<misc>&obs;</misc>
+<gloss>Japan Defense Agency (Defence) (became Ministry of Defense in January 2007)</gloss>

@@ -17 +17 @@
-<gloss>Japan Defense Agency (Defence) (became Japanese Ministry of Defense in Jan. 2007)</gloss>
+<gloss>Japan Defense Agency (Defence) (became Japanese Ministry of Defense in January 2007)</gloss>

https://www.rct.uk/collection/72783
https://www.martialartswords.com/blogs/articles/sword-spotlight-the-japanese-koshigatana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_sword
"When worn with full armour, the tachi would be accompanied by a shorter blade in the form known as koshigatana ("waist sword"); a type of short sword with no handguard"

All the kokugos describe it as a short sword. So do plenty of English-language sources. "Tanto" isn't helpful.

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>guardless tanto worn on the hip</gloss>
+<gloss>short guardless sword worn on the hip</gloss>

koj
腰に差す鍔(つば)のない短い刀。小刀(しょうとう)。腰挿。腰の物。
daijr
腰に差す，つばのない短い刀。鞘巻(サヤマキ)などを用いた。腰挿し。腰の物。
daijs
腰にさす、鐔（つば）のない短い刀。鞘巻（さやまき）など。腰ざし。

As stated, daijs and daijr, as well as Japanese Wikipedia, all clearly state that it is a knife. The sources are also clear, whether explicit or merely implicit, that it is a type of knife that falls under the meaning of the English term "tanto" (which is narrower than the much wider Japanese term 短刀, which it originates from …as is quite common, with loanwords. Just look at katana [which means 打刀, specifically] vs かたな [(single-edged) blade])

Kojien is less clear, in that the words used could possibly refer to either knife or short sword
…but the accompanying illustration, leaves no room for any doubt, that it is talking about a knife.

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>short guardless sword worn on the hip</gloss>
+<gloss>guardless tanto worn on the hip</gloss>

More common expression. Alternatively "carried on the hip".

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>short guardless sword carried at the hip</gloss>
+<gloss>short guardless sword worn on the hip</gloss>

daijs daijr nikk koj

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>tanto carried at the hip and lacking a guard</gloss>
+<gloss>short guardless sword carried at the hip</gloss>

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/短刀
Koujien, Daijirin, Daijisen

I don't know of a source, that could reliably indicate this word being used to refer to a sword. I by no means rule out the possibility of such a sense existing, but I see no evidence for it.
There is, however, ample evidence of the term being used to refer to a type of tanto.

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>short sword</gloss>
+<gloss>tanto carried at the hip and lacking a guard</gloss>

I do not regard this submission as meeting the standards expected for this project.

The previously listed ones
https://www.touken-world.jp/tips/9770/
https://www.touken-world.jp/word/word/page/3/#ancho19960
(in further explaining the above: https://www.touken-world.jp/word/word/?sa=た,ち,つ,て,と#ancho1077)
https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/腰刀/
https://bunka.nii.ac.jp/heritages/detail/339109

>All the kokugos describe it as a short sword.

That is a lie, plain and simple.
Especially in regards to Kojien, with its illustration.

>So do plenty of English-language sources.

This is a Japanese word.
Hence Japanese sources, obviously, trump English language ones.
Especially as errors and misunderstandings in translation, in these matters, are quite common.

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>short guardless sword worn on the hip</gloss>
+<gloss>short guardless knife worn on the hip</gloss>

https://www.rct.uk/collection/72783
https://www.martialartswords.com/blogs/articles/sword-spotlight-the-japanese-koshigatana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_sword
"When worn with full armour, the tachi would be accompanied by a shorter blade in the form known as koshigatana ("waist sword"); a type of short sword with no handguard"

All the kokugos describe it as a short sword. So do plenty of English-language sources. "Tanto" isn't helpful.

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>guardless tanto worn on the hip</gloss>
+<gloss>short guardless sword worn on the hip</gloss>

koj
腰に差す鍔(つば)のない短い刀。小刀(しょうとう)。腰挿。腰の物。
daijr
腰に差す，つばのない短い刀。鞘巻(サヤマキ)などを用いた。腰挿し。腰の物。
daijs
腰にさす、鐔（つば）のない短い刀。鞘巻（さやまき）など。腰ざし。

As stated, daijs and daijr, as well as Japanese Wikipedia, all clearly state that it is a knife. The sources are also clear, whether explicit or merely implicit, that it is a type of knife that falls under the meaning of the English term "tanto" (which is narrower than the much wider Japanese term 短刀, which it originates from …as is quite common, with loanwords. Just look at katana [which means 打刀, specifically] vs かたな [(single-edged) blade])

Kojien is less clear, in that the words used could possibly refer to either knife or short sword
…but the accompanying illustration, leaves no room for any doubt, that it is talking about a knife.

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>short guardless sword worn on the hip</gloss>
+<gloss>guardless tanto worn on the hip</gloss>

More common expression. Alternatively "carried on the hip".

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>short guardless sword carried at the hip</gloss>
+<gloss>short guardless sword worn on the hip</gloss>

We probably don't need the "formerly" bit?
(a [formerly] type of gloss tag could be helpful)

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (formerly Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications)</gloss>
+<gloss>Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications</gloss>

Wikip, Daijisen

Aligning.

@@ -12 +12,2 @@
-<gloss>very large tachi</gloss>
+<xref type="see" seq="2784660">大太刀</xref>
+<gloss>extra-long sword</gloss>

simplification, as per the change at 大太刀.

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>large tachi, over 3 shaku (90.9cm)</gloss>
+<gloss>very large tachi</gloss>

Nodachi/oodachi were sometimes carried (but not drawn from!) the back
…or on a horse
…or carried by a retainer

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>large war sword (carried across the back)</gloss>
+<gloss>large tachi, over 3 shaku (90.9cm)</gloss>

Not now.

we don't need the "formerly" bit, do we? it refers to 防衛庁, not the 防衛省.

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>Ministry of Defense (formerly Japan Defense Agency)</gloss>
+<gloss>Ministry of Defense</gloss>

Entry created

We can use the fancy new field tags.

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<field>&biol;</field>
+<field>&genet;</field>

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

@@ -8 +8 @@
-<reb>じゅうふくいでんし</reb>
+<reb>ちょうふくいでんし</reb>

Entry created

forked

Change to fit edit at 刀

@@ -12,2 +12,2 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="1446420">刀・1</xref>
-<xref type="see" seq="1446420">刀・1</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="1446420">刀・2</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="1446420">刀・2</xref>

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="1446420">刀</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="1446420">刀・1</xref>

Entry created

OK

suggest reinstating this as it's a government agency, and we have basically all the other ones.

It's already in JMnedict.

jmnedict?

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>

I meant "shouldn't assume ".

GG5: an extra-long sword

We should assume everyone looking at the entry knows what "tachi" means.

@@ -15,4 +15,2 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="2002610">野太刀</xref>
-<xref type="see" seq="2002610">野太刀</xref>
-<xref type="see" seq="2002610">野太刀</xref>
-<gloss>very large tachi</gloss>
+<xref type="see" seq="1408340">太刀・たち・1</xref>
+<gloss>extra-long sword</gloss>

incomprehensible? Well… I find that to be very hyperbolic, but I take your point.
How about this?

@@ -17 +17 @@
-<gloss>large tachi, over 3 shaku (90.9cm)</gloss>
+<gloss>very large tachi</gloss>

this edit only succeeds in making
the entry totally incomprehensible.

@@ -15 +15,2 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="2002610">野太刀・のだち</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="2002610">野太刀</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="2002610">野太刀</xref>

"Extra-long sword" seems a bit redundant.
Also, AFAIK, nodachi and oodachi are perfect synonyms.

@@ -16,2 +16 @@
-<gloss>large war sword (carried across the back)</gloss>
-<gloss>extra-long sword</gloss>
+<gloss>large tachi, over 3 shaku (90.9cm)</gloss>

GG5 too.

Yes, it should be てぐりあみ. Depending on context 手繰り can be one or the other.

@@ -9,3 +8,0 @@
-</r_ele>
-<r_ele>
-<reb>たぐりあみ</reb>

https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/手繰り網/
https://www.weblio.jp/content/手繰り網
https://www.weblio.jp/content/手繰り

A typo in the original entry?

@@ -8 +8,4 @@
-<reb>たぐりあめ</reb>
+<reb>てぐりあみ</reb>
+</r_ele>
+<r_ele>
+<reb>たぐりあみ</reb>

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="1601500">引き網・ひきあみ</xref>

gg5 daijs www-images

https://mayonez.jp/topic/1020620
元気でね	47562
お元気でね	5556
common way of saving goodbye... but （お）元気で 
by itself can also be used this way. Maybe 
that should be a separate entry also.

@@ -11,2 +11 @@
-<pos>&exp;</pos>
-<gloss>Best of luck to</gloss>
+<pos>&int;</pos>
@@ -13,0 +13 @@
+<gloss>take good care of yourself</gloss>

https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=元気でね

Can't verify if its in a dictionary but Google Translate gives it "take care", I hear at all the time, most recently a line in the movie Hanamizuki, and its definitely not A + B.

教員室	10964

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>staff room</gloss>
+<gloss>staffroom</gloss>
@@ -13,0 +14 @@
+<gloss>faculty lounge</gloss>

精選版 日本国語大辞典
https://kotobank.jp/word/教員室-2029110

wiki
one of few things listed in the "日本の行政機関" infobox on wikipedia
国家安全保障会議	12602

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/個人情報保護委員会
government agency, probably belongs in jmdict.

Vital body.

wiki
government agency

https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/98_abe/meibo/index.html

wiki
asahi keyword
https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/98_abe/meibo/index.html (very bottom)
nikk has 法制局長官: 〘名〙 内閣法制局長官の略。

GG5

Probably helps.

@@ -12,0 +13 @@
+<gloss>acting chargé d'affaires</gloss>

my bad, missed the 大 in the brit entry.
https://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/ms/po/page22_001327.html#section3
臨時代理大使 is chargé d'affaires ad interim - I'm not sure what  this translates to

臨時代理大・公使 in brit

nikk 代理公使
正確には臨時代理公使のこと。

帯回し	465
WWW images

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<gloss>undressing of a woman by a villain pulling from her obi, spinning her round</gloss>
+<gloss>undressing of a woman by a villain, by pulling her obi and spinning her round</gloss>

* https://dic.pixiv.net/a/帯回し
* https://middle-edge.jp/articles/orUS8#item1889198
* https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q12150541272
* https://www.rbbtoday.com/article/2018/05/18/160611.html

Most succinct I could make it while preserving key details.

何があろうと	28216
何があっても	279062
1 GG5 example and 1 Tanaka sentence.

OK. A bit marginal.

https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=何があろうと
https://ejje.weblio.jp/sentence/content/"何があろうと"

Koj, Daijr

大辞泉

wikipedia talks about modifying anime figurines so that they become more sexual in nature. google images contain some of that, but also 
other toys, like a scary-looking Thomas the Tank Engine thing.
魔改造	14691
https://www6.nhk.or.jp/nhkpr/post/original.html?i=26527
"魔改造とは……
オモチャや家電のリミッターを外し、えげつないモンスターに改造する行為"

@@ -12 +12,2 @@
-<gloss>extreme modification</gloss>
+<misc>&sl;</misc>
+<gloss>extreme modification (esp. of cars or toy figurines)</gloss>

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/魔改造

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/魔改造

何らかの物品に対して本質が変わってしまうほどの大幅（過剰）な改造