reverso
医学部	1,478,694

@@ -5,0 +6 @@
+<ke_pri>spec1</ke_pri>
@@ -8,0 +10 @@
+<re_pri>spec1</re_pri>
@@ -13 +15,2 @@
-<gloss>medical department</gloss>
+<gloss>department of medicine</gloss>
+<gloss>school of medicine</gloss>

gg5, prog, luminous

@@ -12 +12,3 @@
-<gloss>medical faculty</gloss>
+<gloss>faculty of medicine</gloss>
+<gloss>medical department</gloss>
+<gloss>medical school</gloss>

mk

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

daijr/s, prog

Separating senses.

@@ -12,0 +13,3 @@
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
@@ -13,0 +17,2 @@
+<gloss>nickname</gloss>
+<gloss>alias</gloss>

gg5, prog, daij

@@ -16,0 +17 @@
+<gloss>one's life</gloss>
@@ -19,0 +21 @@
+<gloss>one order</gloss>

mk

@@ -16,2 +16,5 @@
-<gloss>(a) life</gloss>
-<gloss>(a) command</gloss>
+<gloss>one life</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<gloss>one command</gloss>

gg5: そのふたごは本当にうり二つだ.　Those twins are exactly alike [as alike as two peas in a pod].
prog: 二人は瓜二つだ Those two are 「exactly alike [as like as two peas (in a pod)].
luminous: その双子はうり二つだ The twins are as alike as two peas (in a pod).
wisdom: あの兄弟は瓜二つだ Those brothers are exactly [very much] alike. ｟話｠ Those brothers are as like as two peas (in a pod) [are like two peas in a pod].

I think you've cleared up any potential confusion with the addition of "(in appearance)" to the first gloss.
We have more than enough evidence that "two peas in a pod" is an appropriate gloss for 瓜二つ.

@@ -21,0 +22,2 @@
+<gloss>like two peas in a pod</gloss>
+<gloss>(practically) identical</gloss>
@@ -24 +25,0 @@
-<gloss>(practically) identical</gloss>

https://www.quora.com/What-is-generally-understood-by-the-cliche-like-peas-in-a-pod-when-said-of-people
Peas in a pod from which the the idiom like peas in a pod refers to, are English (garden peas), a type of climbing legume that result in pods that contain a row of visually perfect and almost identical round peas. The idiom itself concludes that the implied (usually two or more people) pair or group display traits, mannerisms, ideas, or habits that are almost indistinguishable. Like peas in a pod says that they are kindred and must have came from the same place in one way or another to be so alike.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-all-the-two-peas-in-a-pod-sayings-and-what-do-they-mean
Answer 1. “Two peas in a pod” - Two things that go together
Ex : Me and my sister are two peas in a pod. We both love to ski, swim, and draw.

Answer 2. Actually it usually refers to two people who are similar in every way ..ie each one like the other ..so that it would seem they come out of the same “pod “.

Answer 3. So then one could say of two siblings that are “the same/like-minded/share the same interests/dress the same/share the same interests and aspirations /have similar character traits or personalities .. or even may even look the same etc., as being “like two peas in a pod”.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=two peas in a pod
two people getting along really well
lani and makayla are like two peas in a pod when theyre together

two peas in a pod
literally 2 biffles who can live in a pod.
In other words, very similar people!

wudgie & budgie
valentine's dae baes 4 ever like two peas in a pod

To be fair (and I don't have this intuition *at all*):
Two people who look almost identical.
Zooey Deschanel and Katy Perry are two peas in a pod!

2 peas in a pod
Very similar, a couple made for each other

again, "like two peas in a pod" ...  I will stipulate that the OED, Cambridge, and Collins definitions all support what this term *used to mean* (and still means to some people), and that it is reasonable for older J-E references to have incorporated it. 

I like pointing at dictionaries as much as the next person.  In fact I did as much, pointing at Merriam-Webster, which directly contradicts the entries you've drawn on in response.  Maybe British people think it means "especially in appearance?"  Maybe some Americans do.  Perhaps it's your intuition as well. But I don't.  Webster's doesn't. (see my first post for a full ref).

Or see any of the numerous quora refs above.  For instance, "the same/like-minded/share the same interests/dress the same/share the same interests and aspirations /have similar character traits or personalities .. or even may even look the same etc.".   Note how "or even in look the same" is an afterthought, the least important component.

I asked a random mid-50s American buddy of mine to describe what "two peas in a pod" implies, and he said "exactly alike".  And I said "exactly alike how?".  And then he proceeded to describe their personalities.

I know as a native speaker that many people simply do not think "peas in a pod" means "physically identical".  I barely consider "physical similarity" to have any link to the expression at all.  For me, this would strikingly jarring or misleading gloss in most cases that 瓜二つ would be encountered, which is an explicitly statement about physical appearance(perhaps like "peas" used to be). 瓜二つ seems to make no claims on personality, and "peas in a pod" definitely does.

I'd say the proof is in the pudding, as it were.  "peas in a pod" is not used by translators in practice. It's an extremely common English expression, so you'd think it should be a perfect match. (melons->peas). Yet it is quite rarely used(see reverso).  Why translate "瓜二つ" as "they're identical"?  Why not say "they're two peas in a pod".  Obviously *something* is not matching up.

So, maybe 60% of English speakers still think "peas in a pod" means "physically identical", and 40% think it means "very similar in mannerisms and personality".  I'm not saying anyone is "wrong" about the meaning of the expression. But why choose an idiom that's going to put off 40% of your readers?(or 20%, or 10%).   There are so many perfectly useful idiomatic translations that won't confuse anyone. Why hang on to this one? 

I saw the Collin's definition before posting.  Of course I searched for every definition I could find.  But I wasn't trying to trick anyone by omitting it, I just don't think it matters. It's only a good gloss if it's not going to cause widespread confusion among the translator's audience, and in modern English "peas in a pod" absolutely will.

Well, my 2p.

It's too bad about [expl]. I've run into these cases a few times now, and I honestly think jmdict would benefit from a policy change on this one. The etymology of idiomatic expressions can often be extremely helpful to learners for retaining the vocabulary. (and to translators, for a clearer sense of potential nuance).

@@ -21,2 +21 @@
-<gloss>exactly alike</gloss>
-<gloss>like two peas in a pod</gloss>
+<gloss>exactly alike (in appearance)</gloss>
@@ -24,0 +24 @@
+<gloss>(practically) identical</gloss>

two peas in a pod
   ODE: so similar as to be indistinguishable or nearly so.  "they were two peas in a pod, both with the same high cheekbones and hairline."
   Collins: very similar in appearance or character.  "She is convinced the men are brothers. She said: `It was uncanny. They were like two peas in a pod.'"
   Cambridge: very similar, especially in appearance.  "The twins are like two peas in a pod.:

瓜二つの女性	1,057		
瓜二つな女性	28		
瓜二つの顔	743		
瓜二つな顔	37	
---
瓜二つが	        78		
瓜二つを	        21

Most of the dictionary definitions for "two peas in a pod" mention appearance. I think it's fine as a gloss. All the JEs have it.
The kokugos have this as 形動 but adj-no usage is much more common. Not a noun.
An expl gloss isn't appropriate here. I don't think a lit gloss works either as the expression only contains two words: "melon" and "two". We could explain it in a note but I'm not sure it's necessary.

@@ -8,0 +9 @@
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
@@ -18,2 +19 @@
-<pos>&exp;</pos>
-<pos>&n;</pos>
+<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
@@ -21,5 +21,4 @@
-<gloss>mirror images</gloss>
-<gloss>carbon copies</gloss>
-<gloss>spitting images (of each other)</gloss>
-<gloss>perfect look-alikes</gloss>
-<gloss g_type="expl">like two halves of a melon sliced lengthwise</gloss>
+<gloss>exactly alike</gloss>
+<gloss>like two peas in a pod</gloss>
+<gloss>spitting image (of)</gloss>
+<gloss>carbon copy (of)</gloss>

daijs: 縦に二つに割った瓜のように、親子・兄弟などの顔かたちがよく似ていることのたとえ。

https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=うり二つ&ref=wl
carbon copy〔カーボンコピーした書類のように、人の顔や声がそっくりなこと。〕
cut from the same cloth  <--- I also consider this a "personality" idiom
double（他人の）image〔可算〕
look-alike〔可算〕
peas in a pod
perfect look-alike
spit〈話〉（よく似ている）〔【参考】spit and image〕  <--- I acknowledge this etymology, but consider it not well known
spitting image

うり二つである
be a perfect duplicate

（人）とうり二つの目をしている
have the exact same eyes as

見た目がうり二つである
look exactly like each other（2者は）

Reverso tends not to replace with an idiom either... 
https://context.reverso.net/translation/japanese-english/瓜二つ
 It looks exactly like Fifi,
This looks exactly like my mother,
was the spitting image of Shingen.
 is the spitting image of the lieutenant
Those twins look like two peas in a pod. <--- found one, but rare
Columbia's virtually identical to Enterprise.  
It's essentially a mirror Earth.
 but looked identical to it,
 and held hostage, a look-alike...
She is the spitting image of Ayako 
Your boy- he looks a whole lot like you, doesn't he?

I request that you keep a [lit] or [expl] entry if at all possible.  Maybe with better wording.  I thought this was "two melons", and figured "well, I guess melons all kind of look alike...".  daijs specifies 1 melon sliced in two, which would pretty much yield a mirror image. Makes a lot more sense, and is useful to understanding the idiom.

「瓜二つ」の正しい意味知ってる
https://domani.shogakukan.co.jp/716414
性格などではなく、見た目が似ていることがわかりますね。　<---- Explicitly *not* related to personality.

Websters: "two peas in a pod"
—used to say that two people or things are very similar to each other
My brother and I are two peas in a pod. We both like the same things.  <--- incompatible with 瓜二つ

Speaking for myself, I feel like "peas in a pod" at least *includes* an assertion about personality, and I think our gloss "(as alike as)" betrays that.  The almost total absence from reverso of "peas in a pod" suggests there is something off about that idiom matchup.

うり２つ is definitely in use.  Even comes up in book results. But I don't personally worry too much if it's displayed...

@@ -9,0 +10,4 @@
+<k_ele>
+<keb>うり２つ</keb>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
+</k_ele>
@@ -17 +21,5 @@
-<gloss>(as alike as) two peas in a pod</gloss>
+<gloss>mirror images</gloss>
+<gloss>carbon copies</gloss>
+<gloss>spitting images (of each other)</gloss>
+<gloss>perfect look-alikes</gloss>
+<gloss g_type="expl">like two halves of a melon sliced lengthwise</gloss>

Robin gave this a fair amount of consideration and I think we should now move on. There are over 200k entries in JMdict and no shortage of ones in need of improvement, so it's best if we don't get hung up for too long on any one in particular. I think the currently approved glosses on this entry are adequately clear and shouldn't cause any confusion.

These are the examples pulled from m-w.com:

Aug-2023, honestly I don't even know what the implication is here
https://people.com/chrissy-teigen-cuddles-baby-son-wren-vacation-video-7570251
Chrissy Teigen and her baby Wren Alexander are two peas in a pod.


September 2023:
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/way-romain-gavras-places-hand-100000930.html
Here, Dua and Romain give off the impression of being two peas in a pod, says Donaldson. They’re “exhibiting the ‘in sync’ power couple walk,” she explains, meaning their strides match and their demeanor is self-assured.

What’s more: The way they are holding hands is very telling, Donaldson adds. Their interlaced fingers with their palms pressed against each other say they are connected on more than a physical level. “It also highlights the reciprocal feeling [they appear to] have for each other.”

Two cats who are distinctly not similar looking:
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article284633790.html
Cat siblings land at NC shelter — again. Now ‘two peas in a pod’ get a second chance

Vinny and Leo are described as 6-year-old brothers that “will practically smother you with love.” The cats also show affection to each other, acting as “two peas in a pod.”

Modern usage has gone off the rails.

Just another example for my understanding of the Japanese sense:

urifutatsu 瓜二つ とはどういう意味ですか?
https://ja.hinative.com/questions/24680877
そっくり（すごく似ている）という意味です。
人間で例えると→You guys look alike, just like twins.   
といった意味です。


Searching for 瓜二つ + 性格 I got this impressive entry on 瓜二つ, which *knows*, and explicitly points out the "cut from the same cloth" makes implications about personality, but has no apparent awareness that "peas in a pod" does as well(no doubt because it also relies on the venerable old JEs):
https://dime.jp/genre/1199386/
英語ではどのように表現する？
「瓜二つ」を英語訳する場合によく使われるのが「be alike as two peas in a pod」。「pea」は「エンドウ豆」、「pod」は「豆のさや」を表す単語で、日本語に翻訳すると「さやの中の二つの豆のようによく似ている」となる。定型文として使われる慣用表現なので覚えておこう。
似た表現として、「cut from the same cloth」も挙げられる。直訳すると「同じ生地から作られた」を意味し、見た目や性格がよく似ている者同士を表す。 <<<==== "cut from the same cloth" = 見た目や性格, which is *different*

example sentence: 「うちのクラスにいる双子、本当に瓜二つで見分けがつかないよ」
The twins in my class look exactly the same, I can't tell them apart. (peas in a pod *completely* fails for me here)


Cutlery と Silverware と Flatware は
https://ja.hinative.com/questions/4913883
They mean the same thing, but silverware makes it sound like the cutlery is more expensive.

Just encountered again, comparing a *statue* with the person who the statue was of. 

I want to be clear why I am hammering at this, even though it is causing conflict and I'm looking like an ass:  If a Japanese person wants to say that two sisters are 瓜二つ because they look exactly alike, which is *the most common usage* of this expression, and she translates to "they are like two peas in a pod", then she will communicate an entirely different message than what was intended to a large portion of her audience.  

That is a problem.

I can't emphasize enough, this is about English, not Japanese. And it's about a shift in language that you might not have personally experienced, but for which I have provided plenty of evidence.  It's like the back & forth we had on 刃物 and cutlery vs knives.  The JE refs can all say that "刃物" means cutlery all day long, but too many English speakers think "cutlery" = "silverware" for this to be a useful anymore.

GG5, prog, progressive, and wisdom are either: 
1. all wrong/out of date
2. We are wrong / I am wrong, and 瓜二つ has a sense[2] that means "similar in personality".  I'll make the point by adding the sense.

Here's what these entries from gg5, prog, lum, and wisdom, mean to me, the Americans I have asked so far, and the pile of modern online refs I already provided:

gg5: Those twins are exactly alike [as alike as two peas in a pod].
Those twins have the same hobbies, wear the same clothes, like the same music, etc. and spend all their time together

wisdom: あの兄弟は瓜二つだ Those brothers are exactly [very much] alike. ｟話｠ Those brothers are as like as two peas (in a pod) [are like two peas in a pod].
Those two brothers both joined the drama club in school, participate in boy scouts, stay up late playing playstation together every night before bed.

The statements "They look like twins"  and "they are like two peas and a pod" do not register to me as being related in any way whatsoever. This is not a question of disambiguation. "two peas in a pod" has *almost nothing to do with physical appearance*.  And I have checked and provided refs, this is not only my intuition.

Given this, what is the point in giving "two peas in a pod" as a gloss?  It is an idiom whose meaning has shifted since Wisdom and the other JEs recorded it. And why should they know to fix it? As you pointed out Collins, Cambridge, and the OED all have this definition("identical"/"especially in appearance").  They are *all* out of date. (But not, as I have already noted, Merriam Webster). 

And I'm 42 and already out of touch.  Younger people have ascribed meanings to peas in a pod ("bffs - best friends forever") that are beyond even where I was with this thing.  It just doesn't reliably mean "identical" anymore.

===

*or*, I am off, and sense[2] is fine, and that's why the JEs have it.  If that is the case, I completely apologize for raising the issue at all. I'm not a native Japanese speaker, and I should query more natives beyond just relying on what I can find online and in references(I mean this very genuinely, here and in other entries).  But if that is the case, it should be its own sense.

I have thus far found no evidence that [2] should be a sense, and I have put some effort into looking.  The only evidence I have is that the JEs say 瓜二つ= "peas in a pod", and I think that *they* think that peas-in-a-pod = identical.  Thus, the very existence of "peas in a pod" in all of these references, and in jmdict, is just adding confusion to the meaning of 瓜二つ.  (and for Japanese people, adding confusion to the meaning of "peas in a pod").

@@ -22 +21,0 @@
-<gloss>like two peas in a pod</gloss>
@@ -25,0 +25,6 @@
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
+<misc>&id;</misc>
+<gloss>like two peas in a pod</gloss>
+<gloss>alike (esp. in personality and possibly appearance)</gloss>

gg5: そのふたごは本当にうり二つだ.　Those twins are exactly alike [as alike as two peas in a pod].
prog: 二人は瓜二つだ Those two are 「exactly alike [as like as two peas (in a pod)].
luminous: その双子はうり二つだ The twins are as alike as two peas (in a pod).
wisdom: あの兄弟は瓜二つだ Those brothers are exactly [very much] alike. ｟話｠ Those brothers are as like as two peas (in a pod) [are like two peas in a pod].

I think you've cleared up any potential confusion with the addition of "(in appearance)" to the first gloss.
We have more than enough evidence that "two peas in a pod" is an appropriate gloss for 瓜二つ.

@@ -21,0 +22,2 @@
+<gloss>like two peas in a pod</gloss>
+<gloss>(practically) identical</gloss>
@@ -24 +25,0 @@
-<gloss>(practically) identical</gloss>

https://www.quora.com/What-is-generally-understood-by-the-cliche-like-peas-in-a-pod-when-said-of-people
Peas in a pod from which the the idiom like peas in a pod refers to, are English (garden peas), a type of climbing legume that result in pods that contain a row of visually perfect and almost identical round peas. The idiom itself concludes that the implied (usually two or more people) pair or group display traits, mannerisms, ideas, or habits that are almost indistinguishable. Like peas in a pod says that they are kindred and must have came from the same place in one way or another to be so alike.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-all-the-two-peas-in-a-pod-sayings-and-what-do-they-mean
Answer 1. “Two peas in a pod” - Two things that go together
Ex : Me and my sister are two peas in a pod. We both love to ski, swim, and draw.

Answer 2. Actually it usually refers to two people who are similar in every way ..ie each one like the other ..so that it would seem they come out of the same “pod “.

Answer 3. So then one could say of two siblings that are “the same/like-minded/share the same interests/dress the same/share the same interests and aspirations /have similar character traits or personalities .. or even may even look the same etc., as being “like two peas in a pod”.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=two peas in a pod
two people getting along really well
lani and makayla are like two peas in a pod when theyre together

two peas in a pod
literally 2 biffles who can live in a pod.
In other words, very similar people!

wudgie & budgie
valentine's dae baes 4 ever like two peas in a pod

To be fair (and I don't have this intuition *at all*):
Two people who look almost identical.
Zooey Deschanel and Katy Perry are two peas in a pod!

2 peas in a pod
Very similar, a couple made for each other

again, "like two peas in a pod" ...  I will stipulate that the OED, Cambridge, and Collins definitions all support what this term *used to mean* (and still means to some people), and that it is reasonable for older J-E references to have incorporated it. 

I like pointing at dictionaries as much as the next person.  In fact I did as much, pointing at Merriam-Webster, which directly contradicts the entries you've drawn on in response.  Maybe British people think it means "especially in appearance?"  Maybe some Americans do.  Perhaps it's your intuition as well. But I don't.  Webster's doesn't. (see my first post for a full ref).

Or see any of the numerous quora refs above.  For instance, "the same/like-minded/share the same interests/dress the same/share the same interests and aspirations /have similar character traits or personalities .. or even may even look the same etc.".   Note how "or even in look the same" is an afterthought, the least important component.

I asked a random mid-50s American buddy of mine to describe what "two peas in a pod" implies, and he said "exactly alike".  And I said "exactly alike how?".  And then he proceeded to describe their personalities.

I know as a native speaker that many people simply do not think "peas in a pod" means "physically identical".  I barely consider "physical similarity" to have any link to the expression at all.  For me, this would strikingly jarring or misleading gloss in most cases that 瓜二つ would be encountered, which is an explicitly statement about physical appearance(perhaps like "peas" used to be). 瓜二つ seems to make no claims on personality, and "peas in a pod" definitely does.

I'd say the proof is in the pudding, as it were.  "peas in a pod" is not used by translators in practice. It's an extremely common English expression, so you'd think it should be a perfect match. (melons->peas). Yet it is quite rarely used(see reverso).  Why translate "瓜二つ" as "they're identical"?  Why not say "they're two peas in a pod".  Obviously *something* is not matching up.

So, maybe 60% of English speakers still think "peas in a pod" means "physically identical", and 40% think it means "very similar in mannerisms and personality".  I'm not saying anyone is "wrong" about the meaning of the expression. But why choose an idiom that's going to put off 40% of your readers?(or 20%, or 10%).   There are so many perfectly useful idiomatic translations that won't confuse anyone. Why hang on to this one? 

I saw the Collin's definition before posting.  Of course I searched for every definition I could find.  But I wasn't trying to trick anyone by omitting it, I just don't think it matters. It's only a good gloss if it's not going to cause widespread confusion among the translator's audience, and in modern English "peas in a pod" absolutely will.

Well, my 2p.

It's too bad about [expl]. I've run into these cases a few times now, and I honestly think jmdict would benefit from a policy change on this one. The etymology of idiomatic expressions can often be extremely helpful to learners for retaining the vocabulary. (and to translators, for a clearer sense of potential nuance).

@@ -21,2 +21 @@
-<gloss>exactly alike</gloss>
-<gloss>like two peas in a pod</gloss>
+<gloss>exactly alike (in appearance)</gloss>
@@ -24,0 +24 @@
+<gloss>(practically) identical</gloss>

Brian, I understand your frustration. Unfortunately we're not always going to reach a consensus. Please do not take this personally; it's not due to your "brash communication skills" or "purely social things between us." Everyone here wants to see the best dictionary possible, and sometimes we will simply disagree about how that should look.

It's important to bear in mind that this is a volunteer project, and every proposed amendment is a request for someone else's time and effort. We would like to have productive conversations and reach consensus views as often as possible, but you are not entitled to continue a discussion until you are satisfied. I think the time for review on this entry has passed and we are now moving on.

I believe I gave this in the first edit:
sankoku: (顔が)よく似ていること。

This seems to be an idiom in common use that pretty much all Japanese people know (certainly tossed around easily in modern media)
瓜二つ	58995

Adding a Japanese interview response.

@Stephen. I really appreciate the response.  It is reasonable.  I'm know I'm being really anti-social here.  I don't generally feel so strongly about things, but I disagree that my actual complaint, namely that this is an idiom that is likely to be widely misunderstood, has been at all addressed. I know this may just be rejected out of hand too.  I can wait a while for things to cool and then expand this to a general discussion on github about misleading and "dangerous" glosses later.  There may be 200k entries in jmdict, but there probably not more than 500 or 1000 super-commonly understood everyday idioms, and this is appears be one of them. It's worth having accurate glosses.

I was at the local greengrocer today, seemed like a good place to ask about 瓜二つ.  The nice Japanese woman running the shop gave me the the standard answer よく似ています. I asked - イメージだけ？　性格は同じなら... she made a funny face. No no, 顔が似ている, I kid you not, two very-similar little girls were running by outside and she pointed at them, and said "like those twins, they have exactly the same face".  And I said face only?  And she said yes, 顔がよく似ています.  I even explained why I was having the conversation, picked up a package of peas, and told her the English idiom (which she did not know).

If we'd kept an [expl] or a [lit] gloss, the rationale for "esp. the face" (verified by sankoku), would be obvious.

I didn't realize this was going to be such a controversy when I started.  If I had, I would have approached things differently.  When I got here, *peas in a pod* was the only gloss, and it was so strikingly wrong in the context I found it that I put a lot of effort into trying to fix this entry.  And "it's in the JEs", and "the OED defines as..." being given as a rationale to ignore what I know as an English speaker to be incorrect about an English idiom is incredibly disheartening.  I feel like I'm being told I don't understand my own language.

I know my brother doesn't count because he shares the same linguistic upbringing I do, but I had him on the phone and asked about "peas in a pod".  After he described the behavior of twins as an example, I asked "do two people have to look alike to be peas in a pod?".  His answer "appearance has practically nothing to do with it".  How could these idioms be more mismatched than that?

We can all disagree on what any particular idiom means.  That's fine. But whether an idiom is likely to cause confusion is an objective fact.  No one here has disputed the point that "peas in a pod" is likely to cause widespread misunderstandings for anyone who might chose to use it.  I really don't understand what the technical point of resistance is here, other than purely social things between us, and in particular brash communication skills on my part.

I've added my first hand experience with an actual Japanese person for the record.  I'm leaving "like peas in a pod" at the end in the hope you'll approve this edit as part of the main record, and add "esp. the face".  I maintain that it would be better for users of jmdict if "peas" were dropped, but I'll try not to look at this again for a while and let things be, whatever you chose to do.

@@ -21,2 +21 @@
-<gloss>exactly alike (in appearance)</gloss>
-<gloss>like two peas in a pod</gloss>
+<gloss>exactly alike in appearance (esp. the face)</gloss>
@@ -25,0 +25 @@
+<gloss>like peas in a pod</gloss>

gg5: そのふたごは本当にうり二つだ.　Those twins are exactly alike [as alike as two peas in a pod].
prog: 二人は瓜二つだ Those two are 「exactly alike [as like as two peas (in a pod)].
luminous: その双子はうり二つだ The twins are as alike as two peas (in a pod).
wisdom: あの兄弟は瓜二つだ Those brothers are exactly [very much] alike. ｟話｠ Those brothers are as like as two peas (in a pod) [are like two peas in a pod].

I think you've cleared up any potential confusion with the addition of "(in appearance)" to the first gloss.
We have more than enough evidence that "two peas in a pod" is an appropriate gloss for 瓜二つ.

@@ -21,0 +22,2 @@
+<gloss>like two peas in a pod</gloss>
+<gloss>(practically) identical</gloss>
@@ -24 +25,0 @@
-<gloss>(practically) identical</gloss>

https://www.quora.com/What-is-generally-understood-by-the-cliche-like-peas-in-a-pod-when-said-of-people
Peas in a pod from which the the idiom like peas in a pod refers to, are English (garden peas), a type of climbing legume that result in pods that contain a row of visually perfect and almost identical round peas. The idiom itself concludes that the implied (usually two or more people) pair or group display traits, mannerisms, ideas, or habits that are almost indistinguishable. Like peas in a pod says that they are kindred and must have came from the same place in one way or another to be so alike.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-all-the-two-peas-in-a-pod-sayings-and-what-do-they-mean
Answer 1. “Two peas in a pod” - Two things that go together
Ex : Me and my sister are two peas in a pod. We both love to ski, swim, and draw.

Answer 2. Actually it usually refers to two people who are similar in every way ..ie each one like the other ..so that it would seem they come out of the same “pod “.

Answer 3. So then one could say of two siblings that are “the same/like-minded/share the same interests/dress the same/share the same interests and aspirations /have similar character traits or personalities .. or even may even look the same etc., as being “like two peas in a pod”.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=two peas in a pod
two people getting along really well
lani and makayla are like two peas in a pod when theyre together

two peas in a pod
literally 2 biffles who can live in a pod.
In other words, very similar people!

wudgie & budgie
valentine's dae baes 4 ever like two peas in a pod

To be fair (and I don't have this intuition *at all*):
Two people who look almost identical.
Zooey Deschanel and Katy Perry are two peas in a pod!

2 peas in a pod
Very similar, a couple made for each other

again, "like two peas in a pod" ...  I will stipulate that the OED, Cambridge, and Collins definitions all support what this term *used to mean* (and still means to some people), and that it is reasonable for older J-E references to have incorporated it. 

I like pointing at dictionaries as much as the next person.  In fact I did as much, pointing at Merriam-Webster, which directly contradicts the entries you've drawn on in response.  Maybe British people think it means "especially in appearance?"  Maybe some Americans do.  Perhaps it's your intuition as well. But I don't.  Webster's doesn't. (see my first post for a full ref).

Or see any of the numerous quora refs above.  For instance, "the same/like-minded/share the same interests/dress the same/share the same interests and aspirations /have similar character traits or personalities .. or even may even look the same etc.".   Note how "or even in look the same" is an afterthought, the least important component.

I asked a random mid-50s American buddy of mine to describe what "two peas in a pod" implies, and he said "exactly alike".  And I said "exactly alike how?".  And then he proceeded to describe their personalities.

I know as a native speaker that many people simply do not think "peas in a pod" means "physically identical".  I barely consider "physical similarity" to have any link to the expression at all.  For me, this would strikingly jarring or misleading gloss in most cases that 瓜二つ would be encountered, which is an explicitly statement about physical appearance(perhaps like "peas" used to be). 瓜二つ seems to make no claims on personality, and "peas in a pod" definitely does.

I'd say the proof is in the pudding, as it were.  "peas in a pod" is not used by translators in practice. It's an extremely common English expression, so you'd think it should be a perfect match. (melons->peas). Yet it is quite rarely used(see reverso).  Why translate "瓜二つ" as "they're identical"?  Why not say "they're two peas in a pod".  Obviously *something* is not matching up.

So, maybe 60% of English speakers still think "peas in a pod" means "physically identical", and 40% think it means "very similar in mannerisms and personality".  I'm not saying anyone is "wrong" about the meaning of the expression. But why choose an idiom that's going to put off 40% of your readers?(or 20%, or 10%).   There are so many perfectly useful idiomatic translations that won't confuse anyone. Why hang on to this one? 

I saw the Collin's definition before posting.  Of course I searched for every definition I could find.  But I wasn't trying to trick anyone by omitting it, I just don't think it matters. It's only a good gloss if it's not going to cause widespread confusion among the translator's audience, and in modern English "peas in a pod" absolutely will.

Well, my 2p.

It's too bad about [expl]. I've run into these cases a few times now, and I honestly think jmdict would benefit from a policy change on this one. The etymology of idiomatic expressions can often be extremely helpful to learners for retaining the vocabulary. (and to translators, for a clearer sense of potential nuance).

@@ -21,2 +21 @@
-<gloss>exactly alike</gloss>
-<gloss>like two peas in a pod</gloss>
+<gloss>exactly alike (in appearance)</gloss>
@@ -24,0 +24 @@
+<gloss>(practically) identical</gloss>

Done.

The えいきゅう/とわ entry is an uncomfortable merge. I'm in favour of a separate 永久/永遠/とわ entry.

i think a separate 永久/永遠/とわ makes more sense, should probably be [poet] or [form]
ruigo reikai:「とわ」は、文学的表現として使われることが多い。
sankoku:〔雅〕
smk:「永久」の意の古風な表現。
shinkoku: 文章語

We currently have とわ as a reading in the 永久 entry, along with えいきゅう. Perhaps 永遠 can be added there as [sK]?. I don't think a distinct 永遠/とわ entry is needed.
Alternatively we could have a 永久/永遠/とわ entry, but even then 永遠 would probably be [rK] or [sK].

sankoku, smk, meikyo, jawiki all have とわ for both 永遠 and 永久
i just found it used this way for 永遠. i think there should be a separate とわ entry

What the heck. May as well include it.

@@ -16,0 +17 @@
+<gloss>shoe cubby</gloss>

"Things at my Japanese school that could send Americans into a coma…"
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7O55gYrMJ_o

First 10 seconds:
"We all had to change from outdoor to indoor shoes as soon as we entered the school, and 'no', I never saw any love-note confessions in the shoe cubbies".

(1.6 million "likes", so probably 20+ million views, no one in the comments questioning the vocab)

As an aside, some really nice pictures and a write-up in a non-school context:
"Build your own shoe cubby"
https://sincerelysarad.com/tag/diy-shoe-cubby/

How about:
shoe cubby (esp. in a school) 

"Native English speaker describing Japanese public school teaching experience" is a pretty common J->E scenario.

Video shows usage in the first 10~15 seconds.  I did not go looking for this video to make any kind of point, youtube dumped it on me randomly.  Usage exactly matches my intuition. The poster is also American, so possibly AmE. 

Maybe it's not possible to add "cubby" with our current glossing policies. In any case, both this and "shoe cupboard" point to a broader conversation I'd like to have on github when I can find the time. Suddenly busy with work, could be a while.

Not going to be worked up if "cubby" is not added, but I thought you might find this real-world example interesting.  I'd be curious if your "gut" reaction differs if seeing it live, but that's neither here nor there.

GG5, etc.

Never heard of cubby in this context.

@@ -16,2 +16 @@
-<gloss>shoe cabinet</gloss>
-<gloss>shoe cubby</gloss>
+<gloss>shoe cupboard</gloss>

https://buyee.jp/item/yahoo/shopping/bon-like_SBX100775?lang=en
Office storage ＞ Shoe storage, getabako (shoe cabinet)

I've been meaning to come and address "clog" for a while now.  We don't even have "clog" on the "geta" entry.  

I don't personally care for "shoe cupboard"; I feel like cupboards go in kitchens, and/or store food and kitchen supplies.  The internet has ample evidence that "shoe cupboard" is used, but even so, "cabinet" appears to be a stronger match... do we need both? If I search for "shoe cupboard" most of the image results come up with "shoe cabinet" in the titles.

Skimming through reverso, there was one school-specific gloss of "shoe cubby", which really does evoke elementary school vibes and seems like a great translation to me.  I quite like it.

Compare google image search: 
下駄箱 小学生
elementary school shoe cubby

Basically an exact match. 

Similarly, you can compare a straight "shoe cabinet" with 下駄箱, and they basically match exactly.

@@ -15,2 +15,3 @@
-<gloss>shoe rack (in an entrance)</gloss>
-<gloss>cupboard (for shoes and clogs)</gloss>
+<gloss>shoe rack (at an entrance)</gloss>
+<gloss>shoe cabinet</gloss>
+<gloss>shoe cubby</gloss>

@@ -15 +15 @@
-<pos>&exp;</pos>
+<pos>&n;</pos>

* gg5: an area [a zone] allowance
* https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/cost-of-living-allowance
* reverso: location allowance

勤務地手当　 3,893 <- gg5; daijr; heibonsha; nipp
勤務地手当て     0 <- wadoku: 勤務地手当(て)

Gloss was a bit opaque.

@@ -4,0 +5,3 @@
+<keb>勤務地手当</keb>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
@@ -5,0 +9 @@
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
@@ -12,0 +17 @@
+<gloss>regional cost of living allowance</gloss>

gg5, prog, luminous, wisdom

Don't know where it came from.

@@ -17,0 +18,5 @@
+<gloss>area</gloss>
+<gloss>zone</gloss>
+<gloss>district</gloss>
+<gloss>quarter</gloss>
+<gloss>section</gloss>
@@ -20,5 +24,0 @@
-<gloss>domain</gloss>
-<gloss>zone</gloss>
-<gloss>sphere</gloss>
-<gloss>territory</gloss>
-<gloss>area</gloss>

Most refs only have one sense.

Not sure what the second sense is supposed to mean. My best guess is that it's a figurative usage of the first sense.

@@ -24,4 +24 @@
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<pos>&n;</pos>
-<gloss>area (e.g. in programming languages)</gloss>
+<gloss>area</gloss>

I think one gloss is enough.

@@ -12 +11,0 @@
-<gloss>law enforcement authority</gloss>
@@ -14 +12,0 @@
-<gloss>the police</gloss>

GG5: 警察当局には事件の全容解明に向けていっそうの奮起を期待したい． We hope that the police authorities will put even more energy into uncovering all of the facts in the case.
その言葉には警察当局に対する強い不信感がにじみ出ていた． Those words revealed strong distrust of the police.

I still think it can stay. Possibly useful on occasions.

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<gloss>police authorities</gloss>
+<gloss>(the relevant) police authorities</gloss>

But is the gloss even helpful? I feel it ought to be "the relevant police authorities" or somethhing like that and well, that's really not more than the sum of its parts. Currently it seems like it can lead to confusion.

警察当局	78727

I think it's useful as a confirmation of it matching "the police". It has an example sentence. We possibly wouldn't add it now, but there's nothing to be gained by removing it.

gg5, daij

I don't think the x-ref is needed.

@@ -15 +14,0 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="1310680">止める・やめる・1</xref>
@@ -16,0 +16 @@
+<gloss>to stop (doing)</gloss>
@@ -19,5 +19,2 @@
-<gloss>to cut it out</gloss>
-<gloss>to lay off (an activity)</gloss>
-<gloss>to drop (a subject)</gloss>
-<gloss>to abolish</gloss>
-<gloss>to resign</gloss>
+<gloss>to drop</gloss>
+<gloss>to lay off</gloss>
@@ -24,0 +22 @@
+<gloss>to quit</gloss>

@@ -21 +21,2 @@
-<gloss>to drop (a subject) to abolish</gloss>
+<gloss>to drop (a subject)</gloss>
+<gloss>to abolish</gloss>

憑り付かれる	93

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

とり憑かれ	17,457

@@ -23,0 +24,4 @@
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>とり憑かれる</keb>

gg5, prog, daij
取り付かれ	106,329	27.7%	
取り憑かれ	99,412	25.9%	
取りつかれ	30,361	7.9%	
憑りつかれ	3,096	0.8%	
憑り付かれ	1,073	0.3%	
取付かれ	        858	0.2%	
とりつかれ	142,540	37.2%

Splitting into senses.

@@ -3,0 +4,3 @@
+<k_ele>
+<keb>取り付かれる</keb>
+</k_ele>
@@ -8 +11,2 @@
-<keb>取り付かれる</keb>
+<keb>憑り付かれる</keb>
+<ke_inf>&iK;</ke_inf>
@@ -11,0 +16 @@
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
@@ -14,0 +20 @@
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
@@ -18,4 +23,0 @@
-<ke_inf>&iK;</ke_inf>
-</k_ele>
-<k_ele>
-<keb>憑り付かれる</keb>
@@ -29,3 +31,8 @@
-<gloss>to become obsessed with</gloss>
-<gloss>to be possessed (by spirits, etc.)</gloss>
-<gloss>to be obsessive compulsive (OCD)</gloss>
+<pos>&vi;</pos>
+<gloss>to be possessed (by a spirit, demon, etc.)</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&v1;</pos>
+<pos>&vi;</pos>
+<gloss>to be possessed (by an idea, delusion, etc.)</gloss>
+<gloss>to be obsessed (with)</gloss>

gg5
切り広げ	860		
切り拡げ	156		
切広げ	37		
切拡げ	154

@@ -9,0 +10,8 @@
+<k_ele>
+<keb>切広げる</keb>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>切拡げる</keb>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
+</k_ele>
@@ -16,0 +25 @@
+<gloss>to enlarge by cutting</gloss>

smk: （他下一）

切り広げる 208 86.7% <- gg5; NHK accent; kokugos
切り拡げる  32 13.3%
切広げる　   0  0.0%
切拡げる　   0  0.0%

@@ -3,0 +4,3 @@
+<k_ele>
+<keb>切り広げる</keb>
+</k_ele>
@@ -11,0 +15 @@
+<pos>&vt;</pos>

Two senses in daijr/s.

eijiro:
長寿番組
a long-running program（ラジオ・テレビの）
long-running show（ラジオ・テレビの）
長寿社会
long-lived society
longevity society  <--- Perhaps a society for the study of longevity? Not worried about this one...


Many long-running examples
https://context.reverso.net/translation/japanese-english/長寿#long-running

A list of [adj-f] vs [adj-no] comparisons:
長寿コミック	138
長寿のコミック	0

長寿番組     49057
長寿の番組   93

長寿ラジオ	588
長寿のラジオ	0

長寿企業	   12305
長寿の企業  25

長寿シリーズ	4247
長寿のシリーズ	45

の does not look like [adj-no]:
長寿の秘訣	22675	<-- the secret to long life 
長寿のお祝い	26705	<-- blessing that one may have a long life (I assume)
長寿の湯	9091	        <-- fountain/springs/water that confer long life
You can skim the list, but they all look like this to me...
https://www.edrdg.org/~jwb/cgi-bin/ngramlookup?sent=長寿の&topjuku=on&top100=on

Encountered in Frieren as 長寿友達 about a several-hundred-year-old dwarf. "my long-lived friend".  This is an uncommon collocation *but* it notably appears as an adj-f construction, not adj-no. This is consistent with various other ngram examples pulled from a reverso search on 長寿 + "long-running". All are quite rarely adj-no vs adj-f (refs).

長寿の collocations appear to be "fountain of youth" variety, which I think we would not consider adj-no at all. (not a fountain that lives a long time, but a fountain that confers long life).

Non-natives would have a hard time getting from "long life" to "long-lived"(even some natives might...).  Combined with the unexpected "long-running", I think it's worth splitting out.

We have one collocation, 長寿番組: long-lived program (on TV, radio, etc.); long runner
But there are evidently a bunch of similar terms with reasonable ngram counts, and the structure appears to be productive. So I think it's valuable.

@@ -16 +15,0 @@
-<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
@@ -18,0 +18,5 @@
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&adj-f;</pos>
+<gloss>long-lived</gloss>
+<gloss>long-running (e.g. TV program)</gloss>

gg5, prog

@@ -16,0 +17 @@
+<gloss>long life</gloss>

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/think-out
  to devise by thinking; contrive.  'He thought out a plan for saving time'
gg5, prog, daij, meikyo
編み出し	143,208	84.7%	
あみ出し	20,703	12.2%	
編みだし	3,238	1.9%	
編出し	1,088	0.6%	
編だし	895	0.5%

"think out" is in all the JEs. It sounds fine to me, although it's more commonly used to mean "think about carefully".
I don't think "develop" is needed.
Added senses.

@@ -10,0 +11,13 @@
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>編みだす</keb>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>編出す</keb>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>編だす</keb>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
@@ -19,0 +33,2 @@
+<gloss>to think up</gloss>
+<gloss>to think out</gloss>
@@ -20,0 +36 @@
+<gloss>to come up with</gloss>
@@ -22 +37,0 @@
-<gloss>to develop</gloss>
@@ -24 +39,10 @@
-<gloss>to come up with</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&v5s;</pos>
+<pos>&vt;</pos>
+<gloss>to knit (a pattern into a sweater, etc.)</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&v5s;</pos>
+<pos>&vt;</pos>
+<gloss>to start knitting</gloss>

Surely that should be "think up" or "think of", and not "think out"?  (Google tells me that "to think out a plan" is quite common for something... perhaps a dialect difference...)  

I added "to develop", common on reverso and eijiro. I don't think that any of the "think" variants are a great loss, but I wouldn't make any of them the #2 suggestion.  Certainly not "think out".

@@ -21 +20,0 @@
-<gloss>to think out</gloss>
@@ -22,0 +22 @@
+<gloss>to develop</gloss>

https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=編み出
～するための独創的方法を編み出す
come up with a creative way to〈話〉

Flashy hero character "came up with" a collection of handsome poses (for his future statues).  I just liked the translation, none of the existing glosses here would have worked nearly as well for this pairing, and eijiro supports it.

@@ -23,0 +24 @@
+<gloss>to come up with</gloss>

Google N-gram Corpus Counts
╭─ーーーー─┬─────────┬───────╮
│ 無造作　 │ 245,430 │ 98.6% │
│ 無雑作　 │   3,445 │  1.4% │ - rK (kokugos)
│ むぞうさ │   2,167 │  N/A  │
╰─ーーーー─┴─────────┴───────╯

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>

daijr/s, prog

Added the たやすい sense and merged the two former ones. (There was no real difference between them.)

@@ -21,4 +21,4 @@
-<gloss>casual</gloss>
-<gloss>off-hand</gloss>
-<gloss>careless</gloss>
-<gloss>easy-going</gloss>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<gloss>easy</gloss>
+<gloss>simple</gloss>
+<gloss>ready</gloss>
@@ -27,0 +28,5 @@
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<gloss>casual</gloss>
+<gloss>off-hand</gloss>
+<gloss>easy-going</gloss>
+<gloss>careless</gloss>
@@ -29 +33,0 @@
-<gloss>simple</gloss>

@@ -9,0 +9,3 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>無雑作</keb>

Just one sense, and obviously best as an adjective.

@@ -14,0 +15 @@
+<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
@@ -16,7 +17 @@
-<gloss>long military service</gloss>
-<gloss>having experienced many battles</gloss>
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
-<gloss>seasoned (e.g. soldier)</gloss>
-<gloss>veteran</gloss>
+<gloss>veteran (e.g. soldier)</gloss>
@@ -23,0 +19,2 @@
+<gloss>seasoned</gloss>
+<gloss>(of) long military service</gloss>

歴戦	55192	  
歴戦の	50884
歴戦の勇者	7166	  
歴戦の勇士	5748	  
歴戦の傭兵	3385	  
歴戦の猛者	2902	  
歴戦の傭兵エキドナ	2724	  
歴戦の強者	1992	  
歴戦の戦士	1529	
... etc.

https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=歴戦の
歴戦の
battle-tested
単語帳
歴戦のを含む検索結果一覧
歴戦の兵士
experienced soldier
veteran《軍事》
歴戦の勇士
battle-scarred veteran
a brave and experienced soldier

Chiefly an adjective, so I think it should have adj. glosses available (again, not easily derived from the nouns).  The specific encounter was 
歴戦の老戦士
1. a seasoned old warrior
2. an old, seasoned warrior

that's +2 for "seasoned".  "veteran" is fairly common in reverso. I pulled battle-hardened from reverso, which I saw a couple of times. Maybe a bit strong, but eijiro give "battle-scarred veteran", so I don't know. Eijiro's "battle-tested" actually seems too weak.  Not enough implied battling....

〘名〙 何度もの戦争を経験したこと。何回も戦ったことのあること。 <- lots of battling

@@ -16 +15,0 @@
-<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
@@ -18,0 +18,6 @@
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
+<gloss>seasoned (e.g. soldier)</gloss>
+<gloss>veteran</gloss>
+<gloss>battle-hardened</gloss>

daijr: "何回も戦場で戦った経験があること。"

Specifically fighting.

@@ -17,0 +18 @@
+<gloss>having experienced many battles</gloss>

常しえ	666		
長しえ	157	
永え	368		
とこしえ	31,753

とこしえ is presumably uk. Splitting it out into a separate entry.

@@ -10,12 +9,0 @@
-<k_ele>
-<keb>長しえ</keb>
-</k_ele>
-<k_ele>
-<keb>常しえ</keb>
-</k_ele>
-<k_ele>
-<keb>永え</keb>
-</k_ele>
-<k_ele>
-<keb>永</keb>
-</k_ele>
@@ -24 +11,0 @@
-<re_restr>永久</re_restr>
@@ -28,3 +14,0 @@
-</r_ele>
-<r_ele>
-<reb>とこしえ</reb>
@@ -41 +24,0 @@
-<stagr>えいきゅう</stagr>
@@ -42,0 +26 @@
+<misc>&hist;</misc>

とわ now has its own entry.

@@ -9,3 +8,0 @@
-</k_ele>
-<k_ele>
-<keb>常</keb>
@@ -34,10 +30,0 @@
-<re_restr>永久</re_restr>
-<re_restr>長しえ</re_restr>
-<re_restr>常しえ</re_restr>
-<re_restr>永え</re_restr>
-<re_restr>永</re_restr>
-</r_ele>
-<r_ele>
-<reb>とわ</reb>
-<re_restr>永久</re_restr>
-<re_restr>常</re_restr>
@@ -49 +35,0 @@
-<s_inf>とわ tends to be more abstract</s_inf>

gg5, prog, daij

I don't think "immortality" is right.

@@ -45,0 +46 @@
+<pos>&n;</pos>
@@ -47 +47,0 @@
-<pos>&n;</pos>
@@ -50,0 +51 @@
+<gloss>permanence</gloss>
@@ -52 +52,0 @@
-<gloss>immortality</gloss>
@@ -56 +55,0 @@
-<pos>&adj-na;</pos>
@@ -58 +56,0 @@
-<pos>&adj-no;</pos>

@@ -59 +59 @@
-<gloss>Eikyuu era (1113.7.13-1118.4.3)</gloss>
+<gloss>Eikyū era (1113.7.13-1118.4.3)</gloss>

中辞典 uses kana in examples.

Adding a [uk] tag.
* The example sentences in saito use the kana form. I don't see this word in gg5 or prog, though.
* sankoku has this word tagged as "okay to write in kana."
* There's a lot of variance in the n-gram counts below, but the kana form seems to be more common.

Google N-gram Corpus Counts
╭─ーーーーーーーーーーー─┬─────╮
│ やすやすとは起こらない │ 853 │
│ 易々とは起こらない　　 │   0 │
├─ーーーーーーーーーーー─┼─────┤
│ やすやすと越え　　　　 │ 358 │
│ 易々と越え　　　　　　 │ 281 │
├─ーーーーーーーーーーー─┼─────┤
│ やすやすと手に　　　　 │ 353 │
│ 易々と手に　　　　　　 │ 439 │
├─ーーーーーーーーーーー─┼─────┤
│ やすやすと乗り越え　　 │ 197 │
│ 易々と乗り越え　　　　 │ 153 │
├─ーーーーーーーーーーー─┼─────┤
│ やすやすと受け入れ　　 │ 192 │
│ 易々と受け入れ　　　　 │ 260 │
├─ーーーーーーーーーーー─┼─────┤
│ やすやすと侵入　　　　 │ 157 │
│ 易々と侵入　　　　　　 │ 306 │
├─ーーーーーーーーーーー─┼─────┤
│ やすやすと許し　　　　 │ 156 │
│ 易々と許し　　　　　　 │ 139 │
╰─ーーーーーーーーーーー─┴─────╯

@@ -15,0 +16 @@
+<misc>&uk;</misc>

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>a bulk sale</gloss>
+<gloss>bulk sale</gloss>

Trimming. Having given those fields I don't think the note is needed.

@@ -14 +13,0 @@
-<s_inf>in accounting</s_inf>
@@ -16 +15 @@
-<gloss g_type="expl">documentary evidence of a financial transaction</gloss>
+<gloss>documentary evidence of a transaction</gloss>

"In the dictionary this word is "documented evidence" or "voucher" but are there any other more natural ways to say it?"
https://ja.hinative.com/questions/16521218
証憑 is the lingo in business and rarely used in conversations.
Instead, we use 「契約書」「請求書」「領収書」「発注書」「納品書」and so on.
https://www.robotpayment.co.jp/blog/accounting/
I think 通貨の証憑 means 小切手(check).   <--- don't think I agree...

Actually, the questioner's "通貨の証憑" is a fairly rare collocation (7 hits on google), and it pops up in an NGO doc published by MOFA so we can guess where he got it: 
又，契約通貨以外の通貨の証憑 <--- So the person who asked the question left out the context.  It's a voucher denominated in a currency different from the currency of the original contract

証憑	25738	86.5%
証憑書類	4024	13.5%  <-- I think "documented evidence(of a transaction)" might actually belong to this derivative

On the other hand...
https://ejje.weblio.jp/content/証憑書類
英和生命保険用語辞典での「証憑書類」の英訳
証憑書類
voucher
クロスランゲージ 37分野専門語辞書での「証憑書類」の英訳
証憑書類
evidenced document; voucher

With one odd exception, all eijiro glosses (and there are many collocations) are "voucher"
https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=証憑
This exception, which seems clearly wrong (just google "evidenced document" ):
証憑書類  <-- special compound
evidenced document

https://context.reverso.net/translation/japanese-english/証憑#-

What is a "voucher" in this context in English?
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/voucher.asp
KEY TAKEAWAYS
A voucher is a document used by a company’s accounts payable department containing the supporting documents for an invoice.
A voucher is essentially the backup documents for accounts payable, which are bills owed by companies to vendors and suppliers.
Documents in a voucher can include the supplier's invoice, amount owed, due date, general ledger accounts, and shipping receipts.
All of the amounts of outstanding vouchers owed are totaled, and the one lump sum is recorded as accounts payable on the balance sheet.
Vouchers are also used by governments and private businesses, which are then redeemable for various goods or services.

https://www.accountingcoach.com/blog/voucher-in-accounts-payable
A voucher is often a prenumbered form used in the accounts payable department to standardize and enhance a company's internal control over payments to its vendors and service providers.

If you look at what this is "documented evidence" of, it is of a business transaction, which would be consistent with "accounts payable" above. 
https://www.yayoi-kk.co.jp/seikyusho/oyakudachi/shohyo
証憑とは、英語でdocumented evidence。取引の事実を証明する各種書類の総称です。証憑があることで、過去にその企業や事業者がどのような取引を行ったのかがわかりますし、取引を行ったことの証明にもなります。

Just skimming though "憑"... 

[bus] or [finc] (or both?)?  "accounts payable" feels like a business unit to me, but contracts and financial contracts are a bit of an overlap.  

The preferred gloss as a piece of technical jargon seems to just be "voucher".   Reverso glosses are primarily "voucher" (except for the compound 証憑書類), and entries that use "evidence" are still in accounting contexts, like  "attached evidences for processing of the payment".

Google habitually translates as "voucher" as well, unless formed as 証憑書類.  This gets the "documentary evidence" treatment.

A quick google will show that eijiro/weblio's "evidenced document" cannot be correct (extremely rare). I think "documentary evidence" is more useful (and accurate) as an [expl] than as a gloss. Though if it happens to help someone as a gloss, all the better.

@@ -12 +12,5 @@
-<gloss>documented evidence (contract, voucher, etc.)</gloss>
+<field>&bus;</field>
+<field>&finc;</field>
+<s_inf>in accounting</s_inf>
+<gloss>voucher</gloss>
+<gloss g_type="expl">documentary evidence of a financial transaction</gloss>

Entry created

All maternity leave is post-birth in one sense of course but it\s used with this meaning here
https://groups.oist.jp/system/files/202301-handbook-for-expecting-and-new-parents-STAFF-EN_0.pdf
But things are complicated by the fact that you can apparently request some time before the scheduled birth as well.

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<gloss>maternity leave</gloss>
+<gloss>post-birth maternity leave</gloss>

@@ -15,4 +14,0 @@
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<pos>&n;</pos>
-<gloss>paternity leave</gloss>

Possibly not. It came in that way in 2006, but I see all the refs just have "maternity leave". 出産 doesn't usually apply to fathers.

Should this really have 2 senses?

アソシエイト	297,240		
アソシエート	233,499		
アソーシエイト	0

Most of the web results for アソーシエイト are proper names.
I don't think adj-f is needed.

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<re_inf>&sk;</re_inf>
@@ -15 +15,0 @@
-<pos>&adj-f;</pos>

@@ -10,0 +10,3 @@
+<r_ele>
+<reb>アソーシエイト</reb>
+</r_ele>

Entry created

Agreed

It seems the Japanese Wikipedia article has been deleted. Gets quite a few web hits but virtually none are about the shark.

OK

Wiki

Mazegaki addition (maze1)
-*- via bulkupd.py -*-

@@ -13,0 +14,3 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>取りつく</keb>

@@ -21,2 +21,3 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="1326900">取り付く・とりつく・4</xref>
-<s_inf>of a demon, thought, emotion, etc.</s_inf>
+<xref type="see" seq="1326900">取り付く・4</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="1326890">取り憑かれる・1</xref>
+<gloss>to possess (someone; of an evil spirit, idea, etc.)</gloss>
@@ -24 +24,0 @@
-<gloss>to possess</gloss>

I think they both can be hidden.

@@ -9 +9 @@
-<ke_inf>&iK;</ke_inf>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>

取り憑かれる	12528	96.0%
憑りつかれる	432	3.3%
憑り付かれる	93	0.7%  <-- we didn't add this one

取り憑く	5739	94.6%
憑りつく	271	4.5%
憑り付く	59	1.0%


憑りつい	1042	  
憑りついて	573	  
憑りついた	415	  

憑り付い	491	  
憑り付いた	317

I saw 憑りつかれる on 取り憑かれる, and it stood to reason that might also apply here.  Oddly enough, windows IME produces 憑りつかれる　and 憑りつく, but *not* 取り憑かれる or 取り憑く。Windows might be influential enough to have pushed this form into existence. (or at least elevated it significantly. I do see some old book results...).

MacOS and both new and old versions of android all produce the correct forms for me rather quickly(top-of-the-list), and do not produce the deviants at all.  On Windows I have to jump through hoops to type this correctly.

@@ -5,0 +6,8 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>憑りつく</keb>
+<ke_inf>&iK;</ke_inf>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>憑り付く</keb>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>

nikk: 上代語

The examples in the kokugos are archaic.

@@ -15 +15,2 @@
-<gloss>spirit who possesses a wondrous power</gloss>
+<misc>&arch;</misc>
+<gloss>spirit that possesses a mysterious power</gloss>

G n-grams:

奇御魂　　 184 20.8% <- nikk/koj
奇し御魂　   0  0.0% <- daijr/s
くしみたま 700 79.2% (false positives?)

@@ -5,0 +6,3 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>奇し御魂</keb>

koj

G n-grams:

二人羽織　　 10,012 86.2%
二人羽織り　  1,442 12.4% <- examples: http://blog.livedoor.jp/lifeseijyo/archives/1079180856.html and https://daisinho.jp/pages/176/detail=1/b_id=6636/r_id=268/
ににんばおり    166  1.4%

@@ -5,0 +6,3 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>二人羽織り</keb>

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="1171770">羽織</xref>

@@ -12,1 +12,0 @@
-<gloss>performance in which one person wears a haori on their shoulders, while another person behind them puts their arms through the sleeves of the haori and feeds the person in front</gloss>
@@ -14,0 +13,1 @@
+<gloss g_type="expl">performance in which one person wears a haori on their shoulders, while another person behind them puts their arms through the sleeves of the haori and feeds the person in front</gloss>

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>long-running program (on TV, radio, etc.)</gloss>
+<gloss>long-running (TV, radio) program</gloss>

Came here after editing 長寿.

Never heard "long runner" in my life, and when I google it I get carpets.   You may have other intuitions if you want to restore it, but "long-running" seems quite common and fitting to me.  

You can google "long-lived program" vs "long-running program".  Or:
"long-lived television program" (10 hits)
"long-running television program" (11,000 googits). 

The bare "long-lived program" results seem to suggest it's more common for long-lived university research programs, which wouldn't apply here.  And it's comparatively rare anyway.

@@ -12,2 +12 @@
-<gloss>long-lived program (on TV, radio, etc.)</gloss>
-<gloss>long runner</gloss>
+<gloss>long-running program (on TV, radio, etc.)</gloss>

gg5

also radio

@@ -12,1 +12,1 @@
-<gloss>long-lived TV show</gloss>
+<gloss>long-lived program (on TV, radio, etc.)</gloss>

@@ -13,0 +13,1 @@
+<gloss>long runner</gloss>

7,100,000 results
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/長寿番�
%84%E3%81%AE%E4%B8%80%E8%A6%A7

@@ -12,1 +12,1 @@
-<gloss>TV program its popularity last long time</gloss>
+<gloss>long-lived TV show</gloss>

@@ -5 +5 @@
-<keb>マイクロRNA</keb>
+<keb>マイクロＲＮＡ</keb>

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<gloss>MicroRNA</gloss>
+<gloss>microRNA</gloss>

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<field>&genet;</field>
@@ -12,0 +14 @@
+<gloss>miRNA</gloss>

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiRNA

アールエヌエー is the correct spelling.

@@ -8 +8 @@
-<reb>マイクロアールエンエイ</reb>
+<reb>マイクロアールエヌエー</reb>

reverso
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/非推奨

@@ -11 +11 @@
-<pos>&n;</pos>
+<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
@@ -15 +15 @@
-<pos>&n;</pos>
+<pos>&adj-no;</pos>

https://e-words.jp/w/非推奨.html
https://wa3.i-3-i.info/word11214.html

I'd go with this.

@@ -12,2 +12 @@
-<gloss>question wording</gloss>
-<gloss>problem statement</gloss>
+<gloss>text of an (exam) question</gloss>

This may be better.

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<gloss>question wording</gloss>
@@ -13 +13,0 @@
-<gloss>question wording</gloss>

* gg5: 〔試験の〕 the words [wording] of a question.
* genius: sentence in an exam question
* wikt: text that makes up a question/problem
* tatoeba: 算数の問題文って時々そんなシチュエーションないだろってツッコミたくなる  Sometimes, math problems have such improbable scenarios that I think to myself, "when would that ever happen?". 

* https://forvo.com/word/問題文/#ja

Reading is correct. Not sure about "problem statement", as the refs focus on exams.

https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=問題文
https://ejje.weblio.jp/content/問題文

Reading presumed.
問題文	138224

daijr, redir to 藍墨
青墨	5837	79.7%
藍墨	1489	20.3%

stole gloss from 藍墨

OK

furigana.info link doesn't have any instance of 常
sankoku, smk, meikyo have a 永久/永遠/とわ entry but 常 isn't included

i think 常 is probably [rK]

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>

https://furigana.info/r/とわ

I'm not so sure it's rare. It's in several of the smaller kokugos. 8 instances of 永久/とわ in Aozora Bunko, 6 of 永遠/とわ. I'm not sure how common it is to read 永久 as とわ without furigana.
Daijs, koj and nikk have 常.

@@ -9 +9,3 @@
-<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>常</keb>
@@ -19,0 +22 @@
+<gloss>perpetuity</gloss>
@@ -21 +23,0 @@
-<gloss>perpetuity</gloss>

JEs only have 永久.

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

RP, eij
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/アメリカ合衆国の州歌
州歌	1348

常しえ	666		
長しえ	157	
永え	368
とこしえ	31,753

Split from 1576520.
Chujiten and proj use 常しえ in their examples.

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/獣医学部

These names are more common.

@@ -12 +12,2 @@
-<gloss>department of veterinary science</gloss>
+<gloss>department of veterinary medicine</gloss>
+<gloss>school of veterinary medicine</gloss>

@@ -3 +2,0 @@
-<ent_seq>5358937</ent_seq>

gg5

Not a proper name.

@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
-<ent_corp type="jmnedict">jmnedict</ent_corp>
+<ent_corp type="jmdict">jmdict</ent_corp>
@@ -11,2 +11,2 @@
-<misc>&place;</misc>
-<gloss>Juuigaikubu</gloss>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<gloss>department of veterinary science</gloss>

ウィスキーセット	42	36.8%
ウィスキー・セット	0	0.0%
ウイスキーセット	72	63.2%
ウイスキー・セット	0	0.0%

Thank.you for your submission. 
Not common, not more than the sum of its parts.

P. 206 of 「漂う子」 by 丸山正樹  (ISBN: 9784167913847): 「最後に河原の妻が、テーブルにウィスキーセットを置き、自分も奥へと消えていた。」

Not a proper name. Already in jmdict.

 Kyou to Kyō conversion
-*- via bulkupd.py -*-

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>Kyouikugakubu</gloss>
+<gloss>Kyōikugakubu</gloss>

Not a proper name. Already in jmdict.

Kou fixup
-*- via bulkupd.py -*-

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>Kougakubu</gloss>
+<gloss>Kōgakubu</gloss>

wiki

@@ -11,2 +11,2 @@
-<misc>&unclass;</misc>
-<gloss>Sangitakamura</gloss>
+<misc>&person;</misc>
+<gloss>Sangitakamura (alias of Ono no Takamura)</gloss>

Hits are for state songs.

Surely not a name.

https://www.shinshu-u.ac.jp/english/

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<gloss>Shinshuu University</gloss>
+<gloss>Shinshu University</gloss>

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

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

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

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

OK. I'll:
- create entries for the 長崎大-like abbreviations
- delete the universiy+department/faculty/school combinations.

> Probably you mean we are only covering a small subset.
Yes.
I agree that we should have the abbreviated university names.

I'm puzzled by the "tiny subset of all the university*faculty combinations". Isn't this a university faculty/department? Ah. Probably you mean we are only covering a small subset.
Since 信州大学 and 農学部 are already entries, I think this could be dropped. In some, such as 岡大医学部, we don't actually have an 岡大 entry. We probably should include those abbreviations.

There are 61 entries in jmnedict ending in 学部 (excluding 10 短期大学部 entries, which are names of institutions). I suggest we delete all of them. I don't think they're useful. It's a tiny subset of all the university*faculty combinations.

Not a proper name. Already in jmdict.

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>Mitsuo Aida (1924.5.20-1991.12.17), poet</gloss>
+<gloss>Mitsuo Aida (1924.5.20-1991.12.17; poet and calligrapher)</gloss>

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/相田みつを
相田 みつを
本名	相田 光男（あいだ みつを）
誕生日	1924年5月20日

Looked like a typo.

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>Mitsuo Aida (1994.5.20-1991.12.17), poet</gloss>
+<gloss>Mitsuo Aida (1924.5.20-1991.12.17), poet</gloss>

wiki

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>Aida Mitsuo (Mitsuwo)</gloss>
+<gloss>Mitsuo Aida (1994.5.20-1991.12.17), poet</gloss>

Not a proper name. Already in jmdict.

Not a proper name. Already in jmdict.

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

wiki

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

wiki

Use ASCII single quote character(')

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<gloss>Jissen Women’s University Junior College</gloss>
+<gloss>Jissen Women's University Junior College</gloss>

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

wiki