そっくり is most frequently (though not exclusively) about looks so I don't think including examples like "personality" and "situation" is particularly helpful. I didn't see any good rationale/evidence for the inclusion either, despite the wall of text. Brian, please, try and be more concise.

@@ -19 +19 @@
-<gloss>exactly alike (e.g. in appearance, personality, etc.)</gloss>
+<gloss>exactly alike (e.g. in appearance)</gloss>
@@ -22 +22 @@
-<gloss>strikingly similar (e.g. situation)</gloss>
+<gloss>strikingly similar</gloss>

Trimming a little.
PLEASE try and be more concise and keep your comments to the entry in question. For discussion of the general structure and content of entries use other forums such as the mailing list or GitHub.

@@ -22 +22 @@
-<gloss>strikingly similar (e.g. situation, police case, etc.)</gloss>
+<gloss>strikingly similar (e.g. situation)</gloss>

I apologize. I'm getting riled up and ahead of myself, and need to get more Japanese feedback on some of these things, regardless of how many refs and examples I find on the internet, before making drastic changes to entries like these. (I still think 瓜二つ - "Peas in a Pod" has fundamental issues due to modern usage shifts *in English*, where it now even means "get along really well together", nothing to do with Japanese).

As a general statement, when 5 glosses mean "physically identical" and one gloss looks ambiguous, it's not clear whether the ambiguous gloss is present because it's sometimes-synonymous with the other 5 glosses, or because the Japanese term is ambiguous. When eijiro has such a mountain of "physically identical" glosses, it just reinforces that problem.  For that reason, I think some explicit statement that "yes, this word has dynamic usage, even though the other glosses might not" is useful.  

I used "e.g." here because clearly this can be any of "appearance, personality, etc.", not necessarily all simultaneously (but possibly so). It seems like "esp. in appearance" is probably true, but probably not necessary given the other glosses. 

If that is the case for 瓜二つ, as it is here, I think that should be made explicit in that entry as well. I honestly do not know.  I think it is clear that 瓜二つ *principally* means identical.  Including "peas in a pod" with no further explanation does not overcome that, because, as noted in our discussion, some people thing "peas in a pod" does mean "physically identical" as well.

There is something to the ambiguity of 似る in Japanese, which is used in the kokugos for many of these terms.  よく似ていますね can mean a bunch of things, of course. It does *seem*, that absent context, the default interpretation of both 似る and そっくり is "physical resemblance".  But it also doesn't take too much context to overcome that for either.

I just got, for example, a 私の若い頃にそっくりだ. "He's just like me when I was young" (with a lot of prior discussion of motivations and ambition leading up to it).

The example sentence may be problematic. 
Does 
あなたはお母さんにそっくりね。
mean:
You look just like your mother.
or
You're just like your mother.
or
You remind me so much of your mother. (combining personality and appearance)
or
Your mother was a strong-willed woman, and so are you. In that way, you are very much alike.

Probably all are possible. Claiming one over another in a simple example sentence might be misleading.

@@ -19 +19 @@
-<gloss>exactly alike (in appearance)</gloss>
+<gloss>exactly alike (e.g. in appearance, personality, etc.)</gloss>

Article title：
そっくりなものを「瓜二つ」というのはなぜ？
https://dime.jp/genre/1199386/

(Defines 瓜二つ with そっくり)
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。   <----- そっくり = すごく似ている = 瓜二つ
人間で例えると→You guys look alike, just like twins.
といった意味です。

There is an absolute mass of physical comparisons:
https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=そっくり
Up-to-and-including:
そっくりさんを使う
use a body double
そっくりさんコンテスト
look-alike contest
そっくりそのまま模造する
clone（～を）〔【同】copy exactly〕

AND !!!
そっくりで
as like [alike] as two peas (in a pod)〔【直訳】エンドウのさやの中の二つの豆のようによく似ている〕
as like as (two) eggs

Because the JE's think "two peas" = identical.

Saw this twice today, first was someone defining 瓜二つ using this term. Second was in the same show/episode with 瓜二つ used to compare someone with a statue, using そっくり for someone else to compare themselves to the same statue years earlier. 
俺たちにそっくりだろう。Don't they look exactly like us?

The current example sentence is literally:
あなたはお母さんにそっくりね。
You look just like your mother.

If there were such ambiguity, this would be "you *are* just like your mother", not "look just like".

eijiro is something like 50 different versions of "identical" or look-alike for this term.

Even eijiro's "strikingly similar" applies to situations where we would say "these situations *look* the same".  It does not appear to suggest that two people whose personalities were strikingly similar could use そっくり to express that.

@@ -19,2 +19 @@
-<gloss>exactly like</gloss>
-<gloss>just like</gloss>
+<gloss>exactly alike (in appearance)</gloss>
@@ -21,0 +21,2 @@
+<gloss>identical</gloss>
+<gloss>strikingly similar (e.g. situation, police case, etc.)</gloss>

I don't think "bucks" is needed. If we want to keep it, it should be a separate entry.

@@ -10 +9,0 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="1110850">フォワード・1</xref>
@@ -12,6 +11,2 @@
-<gloss>backs</gloss>
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<pos>&n;</pos>
-<s_inf>usu. in team names.</s_inf>
-<gloss>bucks</gloss>
+<gloss>back (player)</gloss>
+<gloss>the backs</gloss>

@@ -15,0 +16 @@
+<s_inf>usu. in team names.</s_inf>

if it's only used in compounds like that, perhaps it should be dumped or have its pos changed

Mainly seems to be in names like トレイルバックス, アイスバックス, etc. No sign it's used in Japanese for dollars, apart from transliterations. VAX in its own sense is fine.

@@ -9,0 +10 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="1110850">フォワード・1</xref>
@@ -11 +11,0 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="1110850">フォワード・1</xref>
@@ -18 +17,0 @@
-<gloss>dollars</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>

gg5, luminous

@@ -22 +22,2 @@
-<gloss>to take time</gloss>
+<gloss>to take (much) time</gloss>
+<gloss>to be delayed</gloss>

Google N-gram Corpus Counts
╭─ーーー─┬────┬───────╮
│ 暇取る │ 86 │100.0% │
│ 暇どる │  0 │  0.0% │ sankoku
│ 隙取る │  0 │  0.0% │ jitenon, shinkoku, iwakoku, koj
╰─ーーー─┴────┴───────╯

@@ -5,0 +6,8 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>隙取る</keb>
+<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>暇どる</keb>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
@@ -11,0 +20,2 @@
+<pos>&vi;</pos>
+<misc>&dated;</misc>

I'm not entirely opposed to the idea, but I'm not really sure what's at stake. The form isn't completely hidden, just moved to a note.

We've used this style on quite a few entries recently. See 1164780 (一挺), 1167270 (一旒), 1299600 (杜鵑花), 1260670 (因・もと), 1588320 (撮す), etc.

Since this is a policy decision that affects many entries, it would be best to have this discussion on github or the mailing list.

i don't think it's a good idea to hide a kanji form that is in multiple references and in absolute numbers pretty common
imo it's better to split it off and cross-reference it

@@ -9,4 +8,0 @@
-</k_ele>
-<k_ele>
-<keb>採り上げる</keb>
-<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
@@ -25,8 +20,0 @@
-<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
-</k_ele>
-<k_ele>
-<keb>採りあげる</keb>
-<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
-</k_ele>
-<k_ele>
-<keb>採上げる</keb>
@@ -49 +37 @@
-<s_inf>sometimes written as 採り上げる</s_inf>
+<xref type="see" seq="2860162">採り上げる</xref>

I think this is OK. I've reindexed the sentences to match.

I think 7 senses is fine, but I think senses 02 and 03 proposed by penname01 are overlapping a bit. I don't think the glosses for sense 03 ("to take up (a topic, etc.); to deal with; to treat") correctly capture the meaning of the corresponding sense in the kokugos.

Meikyo 3e:
  ③［取］特に取り立てて問題にする。「欠陥商品を━・げて糾弾する」「弱点を━・げて非難する」
Shinsen 10e:
  ⑥特別に問題とする。「━ほどのものでない」
Sankoku 8e:
  ④問題と〈する／してあつかう〉。「大きく━・━必要のない問題」

I am proposing that we gloss this sense with something like "to take issue with; to make a problem of; to bring up (as a point of criticism)"

Meikyo 2e has the 採 form for this sense, but the third edition dropped it. I think we can make 採り上げる a hidden form and add a note to sense 02, which is where most refs put it. I wouldn't object to splitting it into a separate entry either.

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
@@ -42 +41,0 @@
-<stagk>取り上げる</stagk>
@@ -50,2 +49,3 @@
-<s_inf>esp. 採り上げる</s_inf>
-<gloss>to adopt (e.g. a proposal)</gloss>
+<s_inf>sometimes written as 採り上げる</s_inf>
+<gloss>to adopt (a proposal)</gloss>
+<gloss>to take up (a topic)</gloss>
@@ -54 +53,0 @@
-<gloss>to take up (a complaint, etc.)</gloss>
@@ -59,4 +58,3 @@
-<s_inf>esp. 取り上げる</s_inf>
-<gloss>to take up (a topic, etc.)</gloss>
-<gloss>to deal with</gloss>
-<gloss>to treat</gloss>
+<gloss>to take issue with</gloss>
+<gloss>to make a problem of</gloss>
+<gloss>to bring up (as a point of criticism)</gloss>
@@ -65 +62,0 @@
-<stagk>取り上げる</stagk>
@@ -73 +69,0 @@
-<stagk>取り上げる</stagk>
@@ -84 +79,0 @@
-<stagk>取り上げる</stagk>
@@ -90 +84,0 @@
-<stagk>取り上げる</stagk>

this entry previously had 5 senses
採り上げる is definitely not [sK] as it's present in sankoku, meikyo, shinkoku, obunsha
sankoku does have a separate entry for 採り上げる, so maybe we could follow their lead and split it (and cross-reference it here)
i think that having "to adopt (e.g. a proposal)" and "to report (news)" in the same sense is confusing, they're pretty different things
it's true that the (current) 3 and 4 senses can be merged as they're basically the same thing which would result in 6 senses

Removing [ichi1] from the hidden 取上げる form.

@@ -21 +20,0 @@
-<ke_pri>ichi1</ke_pri>

I think this is OK. I've reindexed the sentences to match.

I think 7 senses is fine, but I think senses 02 and 03 proposed by penname01 are overlapping a bit. I don't think the glosses for sense 03 ("to take up (a topic, etc.); to deal with; to treat") correctly capture the meaning of the corresponding sense in the kokugos.

Meikyo 3e:
  ③［取］特に取り立てて問題にする。「欠陥商品を━・げて糾弾する」「弱点を━・げて非難する」
Shinsen 10e:
  ⑥特別に問題とする。「━ほどのものでない」
Sankoku 8e:
  ④問題と〈する／してあつかう〉。「大きく━・━必要のない問題」

I am proposing that we gloss this sense with something like "to take issue with; to make a problem of; to bring up (as a point of criticism)"

Meikyo 2e has the 採 form for this sense, but the third edition dropped it. I think we can make 採り上げる a hidden form and add a note to sense 02, which is where most refs put it. I wouldn't object to splitting it into a separate entry either.

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
@@ -42 +41,0 @@
-<stagk>取り上げる</stagk>
@@ -50,2 +49,3 @@
-<s_inf>esp. 採り上げる</s_inf>
-<gloss>to adopt (e.g. a proposal)</gloss>
+<s_inf>sometimes written as 採り上げる</s_inf>
+<gloss>to adopt (a proposal)</gloss>
+<gloss>to take up (a topic)</gloss>
@@ -54 +53,0 @@
-<gloss>to take up (a complaint, etc.)</gloss>
@@ -59,4 +58,3 @@
-<s_inf>esp. 取り上げる</s_inf>
-<gloss>to take up (a topic, etc.)</gloss>
-<gloss>to deal with</gloss>
-<gloss>to treat</gloss>
+<gloss>to take issue with</gloss>
+<gloss>to make a problem of</gloss>
+<gloss>to bring up (as a point of criticism)</gloss>
@@ -65 +62,0 @@
-<stagk>取り上げる</stagk>
@@ -73 +69,0 @@
-<stagk>取り上げる</stagk>
@@ -84 +79,0 @@
-<stagk>取り上げる</stagk>
@@ -90 +84,0 @@
-<stagk>取り上げる</stagk>

this entry previously had 5 senses
採り上げる is definitely not [sK] as it's present in sankoku, meikyo, shinkoku, obunsha
sankoku does have a separate entry for 採り上げる, so maybe we could follow their lead and split it (and cross-reference it here)
i think that having "to adopt (e.g. a proposal)" and "to report (news)" in the same sense is confusing, they're pretty different things
it's true that the (current) 3 and 4 senses can be merged as they're basically the same thing which would result in 6 senses

Of all the references I checked (JES & Kokugos) only Meikyo mentioned 採り上げる. GG5 has sense 2 for 取り上げる so that "esp." looks rather doubtful. Also, the JEs have 4 senses which I think works well. I think the 7 senses is overdoing it.
I'd be OK with making 採り上げる [sK], goin back to 4 senses, and stripping out all the notes and restrictions.

Quiet. Closing.

I'll lock in Robin's note, approve to shorten the queue, and reopen for a while in case there's more discussion.

@@ -20 +20 @@
-<s_inf>blunt outside of compounds; 女性 or 女の人 are preferable</s_inf>
+<s_inf>less polite than 女性 or 女の人</s_inf>

The entry is not just for standalone 女 as the first sense has the n-pref PoS as well.

I don't think so. Some おんな compounds do sound "blunt", and it goes without saying that the note doesn't apply to terms like 女坂.
This entry is for the standalone word 女/おんな. I don't think we need to complicate things by mentioning compounds.

おんな〈の／ノ〉〈子／こ／コ〉
╭─ーーーーー─┬─────────╮
│ おんなの子 │  15,253 │
│ おんなノ子 │      20 │
│ おんなのこ │ 124,421 │
│ おんなのコ │   3,647 │
╰─ーーーーー─┴─────────╯

Had a typo in my search pattern (おんあ instead of おんな). No big difference.

〈女／おんあ／オンナ〉〈の／ノ〉〈子／こ／コ〉

Google N-gram Corpus Counts
╭─ーーーーー─┬────────────┬───────╮
│ 女の子　　 │ 14,136,830 │ 97.0% │
│ 女のコ　　 │    263,573 │  1.8% │
│ オンナの子 │     35,514 │  0.2% │ - add, sK
│ 女のこ　　 │     19,098 │  0.1% │ - add, sK
│ 女ノ子　　 │        770 │  0.0% │
│ 女ノコ　　 │        286 │  0.0% │
│ オンナノ子 │         49 │  0.0% │
│ オンナノコ │    102,435 │  0.7% │
│ オンナのコ │     21,350 │  0.1% │
│ オンナのこ │        517 │  0.0% │
│ おんあのこ │         45 │  0.0% │
╰─ーーーーー─┴────────────┴───────╯

@@ -11,0 +12,8 @@
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>オンナの子</keb>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>女のこ</keb>

女の子	14136830	98.2%
女のコ	263573	        1.8%

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

I think there are many cases where absolute values are important, but I sort-of agree that it's not so important in these sorts of cases. I'll add it to my work-around file for WWWJDIC glossing.

@@ -18,4 +17,0 @@
-</r_ele>
-<r_ele>
-<reb>オンナノコ</reb>
-<re_nokanji/>

I don't think absolute values for variant forms are that meaningful when it comes to common words. With a threshold like 10k hits, we'd end up including all sorts of rubbish that most people would very rarely (if ever) encounter. If text glossing considerations are the main sticking point here, then we should implement hidden kanji/reading fields. Users don't need to be shown オンナノコ.

Google N-gram Corpus Counts
╭─ーーー─┬────────┬───────╮
│ 掃討　 │ 99,102 │ 93.3% │
│ 掃蕩　 │  3,118 │  2.9% │
│ 掃盪　 │      0 │  0.0% │
│ 剿討　 │      0 │  0.0% │
│ 掃とう │  4,005 │  3.8% │
╰─ーーー─┴────────┴───────╯

@@ -10,0 +11,5 @@
+<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>掃盪</keb>
+<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>
@@ -13,0 +19 @@
+<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>
@@ -16 +22,2 @@
-<keb>掃盪</keb>
+<keb>掃とう</keb>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>

GG5, etc.

This should make it clearer.

@@ -27,2 +27,2 @@
-<gloss>cleaning up</gloss>
-<gloss>sweeping up</gloss>
+<gloss>cleaning up (enemy remnants)</gloss>
+<gloss>sweeping clean (of opponents)</gloss>

does anyone else think it would be useful having a note on this term about the fact it refers to enemies, corruption etc.. ?

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

@@ -25,0 +26 @@
+<pos>&vt;</pos>

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/竹馬
中国語では「竹馬」（竹马）を「ツウマー」と読むが、日本のものとはまったく異なる遊びを指す。切り落とした1本の竹を掴み、それを馬に乗るように跨いで引きずり回すだけのものだが、日本でも当初はこれが「竹馬」と呼ばれていた。

The "hobby horse" sense appears to be archaic. It's not in the JEs or smaller kokugos.

@@ -22,0 +23 @@
+<misc>&arch;</misc>

Fair enough.

not house on stilts

@@ -19 +19 @@
-<gloss>stilts</gloss>
+<gloss>stilts (for walking)</gloss>

中国	39,356,808	99.9%	
中國	44,369	        0.1%

@@ -11 +11 @@
-<ke_inf>&oK;</ke_inf>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>

Yes

Better w/o restrictions?

I don't think sense 2 can be considered an abbr

@@ -19,0 +20 @@
+<re_inf>&sk;</re_inf>
@@ -22 +22,0 @@
-<stagr>ちゅうごく</stagr>
@@ -28 +27,0 @@
-<stagr>ちゅうごく</stagr>
@@ -31 +29,0 @@
-<misc>&abbr;</misc>
@@ -35 +32,0 @@
-<stagr>ちゅうごく</stagr>
@@ -42,0 +40 @@
+<s_inf>also read ちゅうこく</s_inf>

Thought we added [hist] to all entries/senses containing the word ritsuryo?

@@ -41,0 +42 @@
+<misc>&hist;</misc>

Yes, I think 当せん makes the merge a bit messy. Reverting.

@@ -10,8 +9,0 @@
-<k_ele>
-<keb>当籤</keb>
-<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>
-</k_ele>
-<k_ele>
-<keb>当せん</keb>
-<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
-</k_ele>
@@ -25 +16,0 @@
-<stagk>当選</stagk>
@@ -37,2 +28,2 @@
-<s_inf>usu. as 当せん</s_inf>
-<gloss>winning (in a lottery, raffle, etc.)</gloss>
+<xref type="see" seq="1619880">当籤</xref>
+<gloss>winning a prize (in a lottery, raffle, etc.)</gloss>

maybe it's fine like this? still probably best to not merge
sorry for all the comments

@@ -36,0 +37 @@
+<s_inf>usu. as 当せん</s_inf>

actually nvm, 当せん is really only used for sense 2 and it wouldn't be clear with a merge unless we keep it visible
best to not merge and reject this edit i guess

sankoku, smk, meikyo

Google N-gram Corpus Counts
╭─ーーー─┬───────────┬───────╮
│ 当選　 │ 6,812,284 │ 98.6% │
│ 当籤　 │    10,541 │  0.2% │
│ 当せん │    85,100 │  1.2% │
╰─ーーー─┴───────────┴───────╯

i think it makes sense to merge entry 当籤 with this

@@ -9,0 +10,8 @@
+<k_ele>
+<keb>当籤</keb>
+<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>当せん</keb>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
+</k_ele>
@@ -16,0 +25 @@
+<stagk>当選</stagk>
@@ -27,0 +37 @@
+<gloss>winning (in a lottery, raffle, etc.)</gloss>
@@ -29 +38,0 @@
-<gloss>winning</gloss>

chujiten, daijr
見覚え	396,215	99.2%	
見憶え	1,993	0.5%	
見おぼえ	1,223	0.3%

Specifically seeing.

@@ -10 +10,5 @@
-<ke_inf>&iK;</ke_inf>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>見おぼえ</keb>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
@@ -17,0 +22 @@
+<gloss>memory (of having seen something or someone before)</gloss>

I think these sorts of xrefs are not needed.

@@ -18,2 +17,0 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="2860129">見覚えのある</xref>
-<xref type="see" seq="2860131">見覚えがある</xref>

How this is usually used in practice.  
Most comments/stats at 見覚えのある

@@ -17,0 +18,2 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="2860129">見覚えのある</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="2860131">見覚えがある</xref>

Unidic links 見憶え to 見覚え (doesn't stop it being iK.)

齲歯 is rK for むしば but not for うし/くし. I'll split out うし/くし into a separate entry.
I don't think 齲 is needed if it's only in kanjigen.

@@ -15,3 +15 @@
-</k_ele>
-<k_ele>
-<keb>齲</keb>
+<ke_inf>&rK;</ke_inf>
@@ -25,8 +22,0 @@
-<r_ele>
-<reb>うし</reb>
-<re_restr>齲歯</re_restr>
-</r_ele>
-<r_ele>
-<reb>くし</reb>
-<re_restr>齲歯</re_restr>
-</r_ele>
@@ -34,0 +25 @@
+<gloss>tooth decay</gloss>
@@ -36 +26,0 @@
-<gloss>tooth decay</gloss>

2m googits

@@ -8,0 +9,3 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>むし歯</keb>
@@ -32 +34,0 @@
-<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
@@ -36 +38 @@
-<gloss>caries</gloss>
+<gloss>dental caries</gloss>

-うし is the only reading for 齲歯 in gg5, meikyo.
-kanjigen has むしば as a reading for 齲

@@ -11,1 +11,1 @@
-<keb>齲</keb>
+<keb>齲歯</keb>
@@ -14,1 +14,1 @@
-<keb>齲歯</keb>
+<keb>齲</keb>
@@ -23,1 +23,1 @@
-<reb>くし</reb>
+<reb>うし</reb>
@@ -27,1 +27,1 @@
-<reb>うし</reb>
+<reb>くし</reb>

no evidence in daij/nikk that "齲" by itself can be read むし
ば..?

Google N-gram Corpus Counts
╭─ーーーーーー─┬─────────┬───────╮
│ 仲間内で　　 │ 161,796 │ 88.1% │
│ 仲間うちで　 │  21,928 │ 11.9% │
├─ーーーーーー─┼─────────┼───────┤
│ 仲間内の　　 │  87,082 │ 93.3% │
│ 仲間うちの　 │   6,275 │  6.7% │
├─ーーーーーー─┼─────────┼───────┤
│ 仲間内だけ　 │  13,004 │ 87.4% │
│ 仲間うちだけ │   1,872 │ 12.6% │
╰─ーーーーーー─┴─────────┴───────╯

Less than 20% mazegaki form -> sK

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

chuujiten; iwakoku

gg5, prog, daijr

@@ -17,0 +18 @@
+<pos>&n;</pos>
@@ -19,3 +20,2 @@
-<gloss>private</gloss>
-<gloss>informal</gloss>
-<gloss>among one's people (group, friends)</gloss>
+<gloss>(among) one's friends</gloss>
+<gloss>(within) one's circle</gloss>

仲間内	311564	89.1%
仲間うち	38108	10.9%

@@ -7,0 +8,3 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>仲間うち</keb>

Best not to mix noun glosses and adjective glosses.

@@ -15,0 +16,3 @@
+<gloss>stone construction</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
@@ -18 +20,0 @@
-<gloss>stone construction</gloss>
@@ -19,0 +22 @@
+<gloss>(made of) stone</gloss>

GG5, etc.

@@ -18 +18 @@
-<gloss>(made of) stone</gloss>
+<gloss>stone construction</gloss>

石造の	11233	  
石造の建物	391	<-- this is the number 1 collocation

石造りの建物	11226	96.6%
石造の建物	391	3.4%

石造りの	108240	90.6%
石造の	11233	9.4%

I saw kanji. I looked up せきぞう. I found this, I didn't find 石造り, which is 10-1 favored.  I only found it because I was checking ngrams.

If that's not enough, authors seem to like to furigana 石造 as いしづくり:

https://furigana.info/w/石造

Looking at reverso, "stone" is the most likely gloss, so aligning.

@@ -16,0 +17,2 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="1703200">石造り</xref>
+<gloss>(made of) stone</gloss>

@@ -13,0 +14 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="1820370">蔵ざらえ</xref>

daijr: 在庫商品を整理するため，またはその名目で，安売りすること。くらざらえ。

I don't think "rummage sale" works.

@@ -16 +15,0 @@
-<gloss>rummage sale</gloss>

GG5: 	a (warehouse) 「clearance [rummage] sale.

Making clear it's a sale.

@@ -14 +14,3 @@
-<gloss>clearance</gloss>
+<gloss>clearance sale</gloss>
+<gloss>warehouse sale</gloss>
+<gloss>rummage sale</gloss>

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

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

@@ -22,0 +23 @@
+<misc>&id;</misc>

〈歯／は／ハ〉に〈衣／絹／きぬ／キヌ〉を〈着／き〉せない

Google N-gram Corpus Counts
╭─ーーーーーーーーー─┬───────┬───────╮
│ 歯に衣を着せない　 │ 2,024 │ 73.8% │
│ 歯に衣をきせない　 │   496 │ 18.1% │ - add, sK
│ 歯に絹を着せない　 │   154 │  5.6% │ - add, sK
│ 歯にきぬを着せない │    47 │  1.7% │
│ はにきぬをきせない │    22 │  0.8% │
╰─ーーーーーーーーー─┴───────┴───────╯

Changing x-ref to 歯に衣着せぬ, which is the most common form of this expression.

@@ -5,0 +6,8 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>歯に衣をきせない</keb>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>歯に絹を着せない</keb>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
@@ -13 +21 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="2259790">歯に衣着せない</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="2399560">歯に衣着せぬ</xref>

Aligning.

@@ -14,0 +15 @@
+<gloss>not mince one's words</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

@@ -22,0 +23 @@
+<misc>&id;</misc>

〈歯／は／ハ〉に〈衣／絹／きぬ／キヌ〉を〈着／き〉せぬ

Google N-gram Corpus Counts
╭─ーーーーーーーー─┬───────┬───────╮
│ 歯に衣を着せぬ　 │ 2,805 │ 74.6% │
│ 歯に衣をきせぬ　 │   700 │ 18.6% │
│ 歯に絹を着せぬ　 │   234 │  6.2% │
│ 歯にきぬを着せぬ │    20 │  0.5% │
╰─ーーーーーーーー─┴───────┴───────╯

Aligning

@@ -5,0 +6,8 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>歯に衣をきせぬ</keb>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>歯に絹を着せぬ</keb>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
@@ -12 +20,6 @@
-<gloss>not mince matters</gloss>
+<pos>&adj-f;</pos>
+<xref type="see" seq="2399560">歯に衣着せぬ</xref>
+<gloss>outspoken</gloss>
+<gloss>forthright</gloss>
+<gloss>frank</gloss>
+<gloss>direct</gloss>

Entry created

@@ -13 +13,2 @@
-<gloss>writing or drawing with a pen</gloss>
+<gloss>writing with a pen</gloss>
+<gloss>drawing with a pen</gloss>

Eijiro, various glossaries (e.g. ペン書きオシログラフ)

I'd keep it.

@@ -12 +12,2 @@
-<gloss>writing or drawing in ink</gloss>
+<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
+<gloss>writing or drawing with a pen</gloss>

gg5: ペン書きの　pen-written.

GG5 has it but I wouldn't mind dropping it.

ペン書き	6835

Necessary? Drawn with a pen rather than in ink, surely?

English N-gram Counts
bungee jumping 158468
bungee-jumping 8166

Usually written without a hyphen.

@@ -13 +13,2 @@
-<gloss>bungee-jumping</gloss>
+<pos>&vi;</pos>
+<gloss>bungee jumping</gloss>

gg5

also the jump itself, i think

@@ -6,0 +7,3 @@
+<r_ele>
+<reb>バンジー・ジャンプ</reb>
+</r_ele>
@@ -10,0 +14 @@
+<gloss>bungee jump</gloss>

Daijr, GG5, etc.

I don't think the "(from ...) is needed. No ngram count for バンジージャンピング.

@@ -9 +9,2 @@
-<gloss>bungee-jumping (from bungee jump)</gloss>
+<pos>&vs;</pos>
+<gloss>bungee-jumping</gloss>

Entry created

@@ -22,0 +23 @@
+<misc>&id;</misc>

〈歯／は／ハ〉に〈衣／絹／きぬ／キヌ〉〈着／き〉せない

Google N-gram Corpus Counts
╭─ーーーーーーーー─┬───────┬───────╮
│ 歯に衣着せない　 │ 2,609 │ 88.3% │
│ 歯に絹着せない　 │   200 │  6.8% │ - add, sK
│ 歯に衣きせない　 │   106 │  3.6% │ - add, sK
│ 歯にきぬ着せない │    39 │  1.3% │
╰─ーーーーーーーー─┴───────┴───────╯

Adding x-ref to 歯に衣着せぬ, which is the most common form of this expression.

@@ -5,0 +6,8 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>歯に絹着せない</keb>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>歯に衣きせない</keb>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
@@ -12,0 +21 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="2399560">歯に衣着せぬ</xref>

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<pos>&adj-i;</pos>
@@ -12,0 +14 @@
+<gloss>not mince one's words</gloss>

Entry created

Looks fine.

@@ -24,0 +25 @@
+<misc>&id;</misc>

Reopening for review.

Google N-gram Corpus Counts
╭─ーーーーーーーー─┬────────┬───────╮
│ 歯に衣着せぬ　　 │ 62,969 │ 89.4% │
│ 歯に衣を着せぬ　 │  2,805 │  4.0% │
│ 歯に衣着せない　 │  2,609 │  3.7% │
│ 歯に衣を着せない │  2,024 │  2.9% │
╰─ーーーーーーーー─┴────────┴───────╯

We have four entries for variations of this expression (listed above). This entry (衣着せぬ) seems to be the most common and most recorded by references. I will align the other three entries and point them here.

@@ -25 +24,0 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="2259790">歯に衣着せない</xref>

〈歯／は／ハ〉に〈衣／絹／きぬ／キヌ〉〈着／き〉せぬ

Google N-gram Corpus Counts
╭─ーーーーーーー─┬────────┬───────╮
│ 歯に衣着せぬ　 │ 62,969 │ 96.8% │
│ 歯に衣きせぬ　 │    782 │  1.2% │ - add, sK
│ 歯にきぬ着せぬ │    618 │  0.9% │ - add, sK
│ 歯に絹着せぬ　 │    504 │  0.8% │ - add, sK (meikyo: 「衣」を「絹」と書くのは誤り。)
│ 歯に絹きせぬ　 │    124 │  0.2% │
│ 歯にきぬきせぬ │     41 │  0.1% │
│ はにきぬきせぬ │     44 │  0.1% │
╰─ーーーーーーー─┴────────┴───────╯

@@ -5,0 +6,12 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>歯に衣きせぬ</keb>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>歯にきぬ着せぬ</keb>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>歯に絹着せぬ</keb>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>

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

Aligning glosses with 1949380.

@@ -17,0 +18,2 @@
+<gloss>reasonable</gloss>
+<gloss>no wonder</gloss>

Clear enough wo the "to be".

@@ -16,2 +16,2 @@
-<gloss>(to be) natural</gloss>
-<gloss>(to be) understandable</gloss>
+<gloss>natural</gloss>
+<gloss>understandable</gloss>

@@ -14,0 +15 @@
+<pos>&adj-i;</pos>

Entry created

daijs

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

@@ -16 +15,0 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="1514970">暮春</xref>
@@ -17,0 +17 @@
+<gloss>late spring</gloss>

G n-grams:

暮の春　 358 77.5% <- koj; haiku dictionaries
暮れの春 104 22.5% <- daijr/s

@@ -6,0 +7,3 @@
+<k_ele>
+<keb>暮れの春</keb>
+</k_ele>
@@ -10,0 +14 @@
+<pos>&exp;</pos>

koj

揺り木馬	373		
揺木馬	0		
ゆり木馬	64

@@ -5,0 +6,4 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>ゆり木馬</keb>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>
@@ -12 +16 @@
-<gloss>rocking-horse</gloss>
+<gloss>rocking horse</gloss>

GG5, Eijiro

http://ejje.weblio.jp/content/揺り木馬

@@ -11 +11 @@
-<gloss>ragout</gloss>
+<gloss>ragout (stew)</gloss>

@@ -9,0 +9,1 @@
+<field>&food;</field>

koj, daij, gg5

gg5, RP

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
+<field>&anat;</field>

gg5, eij

I don't think it does imply a lack of ambiguity, but in case it helps I've made the glosses a bit broader.

@@ -13,0 +14 @@
+<gloss>to open up to someone else</gloss>
@@ -15,2 +16 @@
-<gloss>to open one's heart</gloss>
-<gloss>to open up to someone else</gloss>
+<gloss>to be openhearted</gloss>

Second google hit for "心を開く方法":
心を閉ざしている人の心を開く方法12選！ 心を開けない人 

Another Example: 7 rules of listening and speaking to get others to open up to you: 
相手に心を開かせる聞き方と話し方・７つの法則
https://next.rikunabi.com/journal/20160711_1/
Text includes: 心を開きにくくなることもあります   <--- sometimes it might get hard to open their hearts
『初対面で相手の心を開く！46のルール』             <--- open your interlocutor's heart at your first meeting! 46 rules
Google mistranslates these both backwards, ie.: "Open your heart to someone when you meet them for the first time! 46 rules"

相手の心を開く	702	 <-- open someone else's heart
相手の心を開かせる 566    <-- get someone else's heart to open 

is higher than, for example:
自分の心を開く	613	  
私の心を開く	51

Thank you for the feedback on eijiro.  I know I see questionable errors there all the time.  It's true, if eijiro agrees with the specific real-world encounter I'm looking at, I tend not to triple-check, and sometimes I should.  I did concede there isn't *actually* a second sense, this is more of a pragmatic suggestion.  For example, without context, what does this mean:

心を開く方法

The current glosses suggest this is unambiguous. It's your own heart. English speakers have no intuition that there are two opposing interpretations of this phrase. A second sense would make this clear.

This ordering seems more common than our intuitions would suggest.  If you search *just* google news for just for the string "相手の心を開く" there are 18 pages of actual results.  regular google yields an infinite scroll.

My suggested [2] is the form I encountered it in the wild, so I have a bias.  All I can say is that I believe a sense[2], or some other way in sense[1] to suggest the ambiguity, would be helpful to learners.

I'm not seeing two senses here; more a broad use of the expression.
Be wary of too much reliance on Eijiro. We warn against it in the editorial policy page. It's OK for confirmation.

@@ -14 +13,0 @@
-<s_inf>自分の～</s_inf>
@@ -18,8 +16,0 @@
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<pos>&exp;</pos>
-<pos>&v5k;</pos>
-<misc>&id;</misc>
-<s_inf>他人の～</s_inf>
-<gloss>to get someone to open up to you</gloss>
-<gloss>to unlock someone's heart</gloss>

We don't usually do notes like I've added, but maybe you can think of something to clarify explicitly

@@ -13,0 +14 @@
+<s_inf>自分の～</s_inf>
@@ -21,0 +23 @@
+<s_inf>他人の～</s_inf>

https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=心を開く
（人）の心を開く秘訣
key to unlocking someone's heart
内気な（人）の心を開く
draw someone out of his shyness
人々の心を開く
open people's minds
open the minds of the people

[1] looks like something you do to your own heart, and that's correct.  But you can also 開く someone else's heart in Japanese, which is not something you can readily do in English.  If I say "open up someone else's heart", that sounds to me like surgery.

Case-in-point, see how this translator reverses the structure for an English audience:
(Context: running errands for stubborn old woman before she will help them): 頑張っておばあさんの心を開こうか 
Let's do what we can to get her to open up to us

While these are obviously variants of the same sense, I think doing this as one sense in English would be confusing.

Eijiro has some other potential glosses for other people's hearts that you might be interested in glossing over.

@@ -15,0 +16,8 @@
+<gloss>to open up to someone else</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&exp;</pos>
+<pos>&v5k;</pos>
+<misc>&id;</misc>
+<gloss>to get someone to open up to you</gloss>
+<gloss>to unlock someone's heart</gloss>

didn't realize there was already 血の気の多い

@@ -10,0 +11 @@
+<pos>&exp;</pos>
@@ -12,2 +13,4 @@
-<gloss>easy to get angry</gloss>
-<gloss>prone to violence</gloss>
+<gloss>hot-blooded</gloss>
+<gloss>hot-headed</gloss>
+<gloss>temperamental</gloss>
+<gloss>impulsive</gloss>

sankoku, obunsha, jitsuyou

Google N-gram Corpus Counts
╭─ーーーーーー─┬───────╮
│ 血の気が多い │ 9,355 │
╰─ーーーーーー─┴───────╯

GG5: 合流(地)点 the point where two 《rivers, roads, civilizations》 meet; the meeting point 「of [between] two 《civilizations》; 《at》 the confluence of two 《rivers》.

I think that 4th gloss was redundant. 合流点 could be aligned.

@@ -15,2 +15 @@
-<gloss>meeting point</gloss>
-<gloss>merging area (e.g. on a highway onramp)</gloss>
+<gloss>meeting point (of civilizations, etc.)</gloss>

合流点	85039	65.2%
合流地点	45474	34.8%

川の合流点	7221	62.2%
川の合流地点	4386	37.8%

Mostly "confluence".  Also "meeting point", "rendezvous point", "junction"....
https://context.reverso.net/translation/japanese-english/合流地点

Comments at xref.  Lots of ngrams, perfectly common even if it feels a little simplistic/redundant. Not in eijiro.

First google hit was actually a honda website with a picture of a merge/junction at a highway onramp, with pic:
https://global.honda/jp/safetyinfo/kyt/master/master07.html
本線の一番左の走行車線を走っていて、合流地点が近づいたら、合流してくるクルマの動きに注意しましょう。

Image search suggests this might have a particular affinity with vehicle traffic for whatever reason.

Another vehicle pic, again, merging area from JAF (Japanese Automobile Federation)
https://jaf.or.jp/common/kuruma-qa/category-drive/subcategory-technique/faq130
本線を走行中に合流地点に近づき、加速車線を使って合流してくるクルマが見えたら....

Very similar verbiage between JAF and Honda.  I don't get the same sorts of results for 合流点, it is possible that " merging area (e.g. on a highway onramp)" should *not* be harmonized with the xref...

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/マーダーミステリー_(ゲーム)
https://www.uzu-app.com/what-is-mdms
https://www.lostproduct.jp/beginner/

Not just board games.

@@ -5 +5 @@
-<reb>マーダーミステリ</reb>
+<reb>マーダーミステリー</reb>
@@ -8 +8 @@
-<reb>マーダー・ミステリ</reb>
+<reb>マーダー・ミステリー</reb>
@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>murder mystery (as a board game theme)</gloss>
+<gloss>murder mystery (game)</gloss>

So it seems.

wikipedia
also shortened to マダミス

In Japanese, only used for board games

GG5, etc.

@@ -10,0 +11 @@
+<pos>&exp;</pos>
@@ -12,2 +13,2 @@
-<pos>&exp;</pos>
-<gloss>familiar (e.g. face, person, place, etc.)</gloss>
+<gloss>familiar</gloss>
+<gloss>well-remembered</gloss>

見覚え	394505	  
見覚えのある	188262	  
見覚えがある	53391	  
見覚えある	27759	  
見覚えのない	21750	  
見覚えがあった	18481	  
見覚えのある顔	16690	  
見覚えがあり	12038	  
見覚えあり	9694	  
見覚えのある人	8342	  
見覚えのある顔が	7856	  
見覚えのある方	6727	  
見覚えの無い	5986	  

collocations:
見覚えのある顔	16690	  
見覚えのある人	8342	  
見覚えのある名前	5701	 <-- maybe if you read the name, you can use this, but not if you hear it?
見覚えのある風景	5313	  
見覚えのある場所	3340	  

https://context.reverso.net/translation/japanese-english/見覚えのある
familiar face
familiar woman
familiar landmark
...figure he recognized
anything familiar?

https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=見覚えのある
見覚えのある顔
familiar face

Much longer list of glosses for 見覚えがある, but this a statement/sentence more than an adj-f
https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=見覚えがある

見覚えがある 
https://nativecamp.net/heync/question/26277#:~:text=familiar（ファミリアー）は「,のある」という意味です。&text="There's something familiar about your,になんだか見覚えがある。）
英語で「見覚えがある」は "look familiar" と言います。

Almost 50% of 見覚え is *just* this exact formulation, and at least 85%+ 見覚え(の・が)（ある・ない） and variants.

The glosses currently on 見覚え are a fair distance from how this is actually used.

My context:
あの戦士のほう見覚えがある. That warrior looks so familiar.
2. I think I recognize this warrior.

But that's with が.

"recognizable", notably, does not work, since it means "generally recognizable".  Even though "I did/didn't recognize" would be common if converted, and would be appropriate on an entry for 見覚えがある

Koj
枝番	11125

Abbr of 枝番号.

daijr
daijs

Ironically, the Italian "ragu" is a loanword, from the French "ragout".

daijs
ラグー	24609	67.6%
ラグーソース	11768	32.4%

I checked a yoji dictionary before approving and it didn't have it.

https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q10181634420

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

Reverso
https://www.tokiwa-ss.co.jp/journal/knowledge-of-money/money-four-character-idiom.html
開運招福	16672

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>attracting good luck</gloss>
+<gloss>bringing luck and good fortune</gloss>

https://everywhere.tokyo/glossary-of-religious-terms/

Not sure about the exact meaning.

KOD: (decorative) charred cedar

daij koj
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakisugi
焼杉	15597	70.2%
焼き杉	6624	29.8%

daijs, nikk: https://kotobank.jp/word/可罰的違法性-46070
GG

gg5

The refs all have the less common form.

https://kotobank.jp/word/カバティーナ-46071
カヴァティーナ	6583	88.2%
カバティーナ	878	11.8%

ホビーホース	237 - in RP

Perhaps ホビーホース too?

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/木馬#棒馬（ホビー・ホース）
https://teno-kyoshitsu.com/recipe/bouuma.html
棒馬	160

Uncommon but most of the EJs have it as a gloss for "hobby horse".

gg5, meikyo
齲歯	1,894		
う歯	6,805

Split from 1604850.