gg5, daij

Most of the JEs just have "security".

@@ -16,2 +16 @@
-<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
-<gloss>security guarantee (e.g. military security, network security, etc.)</gloss>
+<gloss>(guarantee of) security</gloss>

smk: 「索隠」とも書く。

Google N-gram Corpus Counts
╭─ーーーー─┬─────────╮
│ 索引　　 │ 922,472 │
│ 索隠　　 │     382 │
│ さくいん │ 149,411 │
╰─ーーーー─┴─────────╯

@@ -8,0 +9,4 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>索隠</keb>
+<ke_inf>&sK;</ke_inf>

I think the singular form is enough.
Not used adjectivally.

@@ -18,4 +18 @@
-<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
-<gloss>index</gloss>
-<gloss>indices</gloss>
-<gloss>indexes</gloss>
+<gloss>index (in a book)</gloss>

gg5, prog, lumonous

@@ -19,0 +20,2 @@
+<gloss>to have a look at</gloss>
+<gloss>to check (a patient's pulse)</gloss>

Iwakoku and smk redirect to サファイア.

Google N-gram Corpus Counts
╭─ーーーーー─┬─────────┬───────╮
│ 青玉　　　 │  17,593 │  3.8% │
│ サファイア │ 451,446 │ 96.2% │
╰─ーーーーー─┴─────────┴───────╯

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="1057110">サファイア</xref>

luminous, wisdom, daij

"adolescent" is wrong.

@@ -18 +17,0 @@
-<pos>&adj-no;</pos>
@@ -19,0 +19 @@
+<gloss>adolescence</gloss>
@@ -21 +20,0 @@
-<gloss>adolescent</gloss>

Aligning

@@ -16 +15,0 @@
-<gloss>BoJ</gloss>

Looks OK.

Shouldn't "triggering" be a gloss?

@@ -36 +36,2 @@
-<gloss>firing (event, trigger, etc.)</gloss>
+<gloss>firing (of an event)</gloss>
+<gloss>triggering</gloss>

@@ -36 +36 @@
-<gloss>firing (an event, trigger, etc.)</gloss>
+<gloss>firing (event, trigger, etc.)</gloss>

https://programmer-life.work/programming-terms/fire

@@ -29,0 +30,7 @@
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<pos>&vs;</pos>
+<pos>&vi;</pos>
+<field>&comp;</field>
+<gloss>firing (an event, trigger, etc.)</gloss>

I've only skimmed the discussion but personally I still think "wanting" is better and more helpful than the original "wanted". As Jim and Alan seem content with this version as well, I think it's time to let this rest.

Apologies but I must insist that, for the reasons previously listed, it is the worst set out of the three.
I have thus far tried, without apparent success, to focus on the alternative glosses' merits. 
However, I think this point can also be made by trying to find the current gloss' merits instead.

For example, I once again bring up this: Assume all three candidates(wanting, want, wanted ) are all equally valid in regards to semantics and syntax and then try to translate a few sentences with ほしい using each of them - I think you will agree that the translations with the current gloss sound significantly more awkward than either of the rest.
This prompts the question: if they are all equally meritorious but 'wanting' has the singular demerit of being the most unnatural, what is it that makes it the most suitable choice over the others, which harbour no such fault?

Thanks for the discussion. Short of having extensive information about the use of the term in context (as in Makino and Tsutsui) we really have no alternative but to have a small set of succinct glosses. I'm comfortable with the current set.

I would like to provide some counterpoints.

On case alternation other than 欲しい, etc.
The translative を does not qualify, it is used specifically with intransitive motion verbs to mark a path traversed - it is semantically distinct from accusative を. Here we have a particle taking upon another function that is not present elsewhere; with 欲しい, what is being proposed is that a particle suddenly takes the function of another particle for seemingly no reason. 
Translative and accusative を have much better parallels in locative and dative に.
What happens with the (ら)れる・できる potential forms is much more similar, but it can still be inferred from their historical usage and etymology that they were originally structured with が over that which is possible to be acted upon, and the actor with に - they do not originally take objects and I think it a mistake to call the が格 an object.

On transitivity, semantics and syntax.
"Fish is wanted" and "I want fish" are semantically equivalent. You seem to be conflating semantic/thematic roles and syntactic roles, they are related but not the same; across those two sentences the thematic roles remain the same, it is only the syntactic roles that change in regards to who is the subject.
That 欲しい feels transitive, I suspect comes from it having two thematic roles that you would expect of a transitive verb: stimulus and experiencer.
In the two sentences above, the fish is the stimulus and I/me is the experiencer; in European languages, we commonly have the experiencer as the subject and the stimulus as the object of a transitive verb, that is the case of the english 'want' - but Japanese does not do this, it has the stimulus as the nominative resulting in an intransitive word while the experiencer is either omitted, topicalised, or marked by the dative.

As for the case alternation in 欲しい、嫌い and 好き.
I advocate for disregarding this entirely. Though you can occasionally find someone who uses を欲しい most do not. Acceptability tests also consistently rank the use of accusatives with those adjectives lower than the standard nominative; and if you go asking about you will find someone who opposes those structures after not too long - particularly so for を欲しい - but I do not think you could find someone who considers the usual が as ungrammatical.
Those uses are an anomaly and should be held to be an anomaly, the grammar of adjectives does not license their existence.

Lastly, が as a grammatical object.
It is unfalsifiable. Japanese lacks things such as number and gender agreement on predicates, which deprives us of any features we could use to determine what is and is not the subject. The only recourse we have is the が格.
So, you could say that in that one case it does indeed represent the object - but you cannot prove it and neither can I disprove you.
However, if we say that it becomes the object, then that becomes a peculiar exception to the grammar: we have essentially created a new rule. Similarly, we would need another one that says that に marks the subject whenever it is used every blue moon or so.
I argue, that since neither can be proven nor disproven, we take it to always be the subject and choose the gloss accordingly as that reduces the number of rules and exceptions we have to work with, making the process more consistent and eliminating potential confusion by the reader: if all else is equal, the simpler alternative should be better.

Hasegawa, Y. (2014). Japanese: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge University Press.

Schaanning, J. G. (2019). Case-alternation with Japanese adjectives: A cognitive transitive perspective (Master's thesis).

To throw in my two cents:

From a syntax perspective, in most situations in Japanese, the case marker corresponds to the grammatical function (e.g., nominative が marks the subject, accusative を marks the direct object). But I agree with the view that 欲しい (along with 好き and others) is an exception where the nominative case marker が actually indicates the direct object (Hasegawa 2014). 

For what it's worth, other examples of such "case alternation" occur with potential verbs, where the direct object can be marked with either が or を, and with motion verbs, where the location of motion--not the direct object--is marked with を.

From a cognitive perspective, I would argue that 欲しい *feels* transitive, so I agree with Marcus's 2021 comment that it should have an active gloss. This mainly a feeling from personal experience, as I don't feel that the glosses "wanted"/"want-able"/"desirable" accurately convey the semantics of 欲しい compared to the more transitive "want". 

If I say 肉がほしい, I mean "I want fish", and not "Fish is wanted" (which is semantically incorrect, as the want-er is definitely the speaker). In my interpretation, this is a sentence whose subject is not directly referenced and whose predicate ほしい acts on a direct object 肉 with the case marker が. One could argue for the interpretation "Fish is wanted (by me)", but this feels stilted to me.

There are also plenty of examples in both literature and spontaneous speech where native speakers replace が with the "nonstandard" を when using 欲しい, which may suggest a similar stance that 欲しい is an transitive predicate. For instance, Murakami in his novel, The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle (1994): 「十分だけでいいから時間を欲しいの。」(see Schaanning 2019 for more examples).

So I'm in favor of "want" or "wanting" rather than "wanted" for the glosses. I see the potential value in using "wanted" as a gloss since it's easier to explain to a learner why 欲しい takes the case marker が and makes POS alignment between Japanese and English easier, but I think it's less faithful to how 欲しい is used and perceived. 

All told, there is no definitive solution to this: Hasegawa admits, "At one time, I [...] equated nominative [が] with subject, but I am now convinced that accepting a nominative-marked direct object is more appropriate [...] The reader can likewise select either stance because both are equally persuasive and equally problematic."

Non, you have recently submitted some very good and thoughtful suggestions to several entries, and I hope that you will continue to contribute to jmdict. If our editors do not wish to spend more time considering this entry, then that's the end of the discussion. Please bear in mind that we're all volunteers, that engaging in arguments can be very taxing on the time and energy of others, and that the happiness of our long-time contributors is more important than any particular entry.

Once more, apologies, I am fully aware that this must be a nuisance but I cannot agree with the decision to close this as none of the points I made were rebuked nor the question I raised answered.
As it stands, the decision to reject 2308129 seems to be one without any objective backing as the translation criteria I have brought up now and previously against the current glosses is the same one that the very editor who closed it has just used as support for minor alterations to the proposed での entry.

So, I again ask: translate any sentence with 'want', then do the same with 'wanting'; disregard 'wanted' altogether if you wish to.
食べ物が欲しい = I want food
食べ物が欲しい = I (am) wanting food?
I think that which is the most natural translation is evident. But if so, what is it that makes the latter a better choice over the former?

Thanks for the discussion. Short of having extensive information about the use of the term in context (as in Makino and Tsutsui) we really have no alternative but to have a small set of succinct glosses. I'm comfortable with the current set.

I would like to provide some counterpoints.

On case alternation other than 欲しい, etc.
The translative を does not qualify, it is used specifically with intransitive motion verbs to mark a path traversed - it is semantically distinct from accusative を. Here we have a particle taking upon another function that is not present elsewhere; with 欲しい, what is being proposed is that a particle suddenly takes the function of another particle for seemingly no reason. 
Translative and accusative を have much better parallels in locative and dative に.
What happens with the (ら)れる・できる potential forms is much more similar, but it can still be inferred from their historical usage and etymology that they were originally structured with が over that which is possible to be acted upon, and the actor with に - they do not originally take objects and I think it a mistake to call the が格 an object.

On transitivity, semantics and syntax.
"Fish is wanted" and "I want fish" are semantically equivalent. You seem to be conflating semantic/thematic roles and syntactic roles, they are related but not the same; across those two sentences the thematic roles remain the same, it is only the syntactic roles that change in regards to who is the subject.
That 欲しい feels transitive, I suspect comes from it having two thematic roles that you would expect of a transitive verb: stimulus and experiencer.
In the two sentences above, the fish is the stimulus and I/me is the experiencer; in European languages, we commonly have the experiencer as the subject and the stimulus as the object of a transitive verb, that is the case of the english 'want' - but Japanese does not do this, it has the stimulus as the nominative resulting in an intransitive word while the experiencer is either omitted, topicalised, or marked by the dative.

As for the case alternation in 欲しい、嫌い and 好き.
I advocate for disregarding this entirely. Though you can occasionally find someone who uses を欲しい most do not. Acceptability tests also consistently rank the use of accusatives with those adjectives lower than the standard nominative; and if you go asking about you will find someone who opposes those structures after not too long - particularly so for を欲しい - but I do not think you could find someone who considers the usual が as ungrammatical.
Those uses are an anomaly and should be held to be an anomaly, the grammar of adjectives does not license their existence.

Lastly, が as a grammatical object.
It is unfalsifiable. Japanese lacks things such as number and gender agreement on predicates, which deprives us of any features we could use to determine what is and is not the subject. The only recourse we have is the が格.
So, you could say that in that one case it does indeed represent the object - but you cannot prove it and neither can I disprove you.
However, if we say that it becomes the object, then that becomes a peculiar exception to the grammar: we have essentially created a new rule. Similarly, we would need another one that says that に marks the subject whenever it is used every blue moon or so.
I argue, that since neither can be proven nor disproven, we take it to always be the subject and choose the gloss accordingly as that reduces the number of rules and exceptions we have to work with, making the process more consistent and eliminating potential confusion by the reader: if all else is equal, the simpler alternative should be better.

Hasegawa, Y. (2014). Japanese: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge University Press.

Schaanning, J. G. (2019). Case-alternation with Japanese adjectives: A cognitive transitive perspective (Master's thesis).

To throw in my two cents:

From a syntax perspective, in most situations in Japanese, the case marker corresponds to the grammatical function (e.g., nominative が marks the subject, accusative を marks the direct object). But I agree with the view that 欲しい (along with 好き and others) is an exception where the nominative case marker が actually indicates the direct object (Hasegawa 2014). 

For what it's worth, other examples of such "case alternation" occur with potential verbs, where the direct object can be marked with either が or を, and with motion verbs, where the location of motion--not the direct object--is marked with を.

From a cognitive perspective, I would argue that 欲しい *feels* transitive, so I agree with Marcus's 2021 comment that it should have an active gloss. This mainly a feeling from personal experience, as I don't feel that the glosses "wanted"/"want-able"/"desirable" accurately convey the semantics of 欲しい compared to the more transitive "want". 

If I say 肉がほしい, I mean "I want fish", and not "Fish is wanted" (which is semantically incorrect, as the want-er is definitely the speaker). In my interpretation, this is a sentence whose subject is not directly referenced and whose predicate ほしい acts on a direct object 肉 with the case marker が. One could argue for the interpretation "Fish is wanted (by me)", but this feels stilted to me.

There are also plenty of examples in both literature and spontaneous speech where native speakers replace が with the "nonstandard" を when using 欲しい, which may suggest a similar stance that 欲しい is an transitive predicate. For instance, Murakami in his novel, The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle (1994): 「十分だけでいいから時間を欲しいの。」(see Schaanning 2019 for more examples).

So I'm in favor of "want" or "wanting" rather than "wanted" for the glosses. I see the potential value in using "wanted" as a gloss since it's easier to explain to a learner why 欲しい takes the case marker が and makes POS alignment between Japanese and English easier, but I think it's less faithful to how 欲しい is used and perceived. 

All told, there is no definitive solution to this: Hasegawa admits, "At one time, I [...] equated nominative [が] with subject, but I am now convinced that accepting a nominative-marked direct object is more appropriate [...] The reader can likewise select either stance because both are equally persuasive and equally problematic."

@@ -24 +24 @@
-<s_inf>name used in China and Korea</s_inf>
+<s_inf>name orig. used in China and Korea</s_inf>

I agree.

All of my kokugos only describe the pirates as 日本人

I also think it's fine as it is

https://www.worldhistory.org/Wako/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/wako
https://study.com/academy/lesson/wokou-origin-history-facts-wako-pirates.html
ルミナス: Wako (pirate)

Hmm. I wondered about rearranging the glosses but now I think it's probably best as it is. Perhaps "Japanese, etc." as they weren't exclusively Japanese.

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/日本銀行

Looks like it's always "BOJ".

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

daijr: 汚染。汚濁。また、汚染物質。

Daijirin and smk split this into two senses.

@@ -9 +9,8 @@
-<gloss>contamination (esp. linguistic contamination)</gloss>
+<gloss>contamination</gloss>
+<gloss>pollution</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<xref type="see" seq="1290350">混交・2</xref>
+<field>&ling;</field>
+<gloss>contamination</gloss>

koj, daij, gg5

@@ -9,2 +9,3 @@
-<xref type="see" seq="1290350">混交</xref>
-<gloss>contamination</gloss>
+<xref type="see" seq="1290350">混交・2</xref>
+<xref type="see" seq="1290350">混交・2</xref>
+<gloss>contamination (esp. linguistic contamination)</gloss>

Entry created

I don't believe this assertion is correct. Resubmit with evidence.

The word "all" is missing which is always present in English when referring to this type of school.

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<gloss>girls' high school</gloss>
+<gloss>all girls' high school</gloss>

Entry created

@@ -17,0 +18 @@
+<misc>&hist;</misc>

KOD has 柘榴口; I think it can lead.

@@ -5 +5 @@
-<keb>石榴口</keb>
+<keb>柘榴口</keb>
@@ -8 +8 @@
-<keb>柘榴口</keb>
+<keb>石榴口</keb>

石榴口	202	23.2%
柘榴口	358	41.2%
ざくろ口	273	31.4%
ザクロ口	36	4.1%

https://yourei.jp/柘榴口
柘榴口 31 examples
石榴口 21 examples
ざくろ口 15 examples
ザクロ口 0 examples

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/ザクロ

石榴口 seems to possibly have the better/modern claim to "correctness", though I'm not sure why. Maybe just that 石 is joyo and valid.  Wikipedia actually mentions 石榴口 with etymology as a note in the pomegranate article.

@@ -5,0 +6,6 @@
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>柘榴口</keb>
+</k_ele>
+<k_ele>
+<keb>ざくろ口</keb>

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>low door used in bathouses to prevent the hot water from cooling (Edo period)</gloss>
+<gloss>low door used in bathhouses to prevent the hot water from cooling (Edo period)</gloss>

I went to one, and it was never referred to as an "all boys' high school". I suspect the "all" is more common in AmE. It's not necessary to understand this entry.

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>all boys' high school</gloss>
+<gloss>boys' high school</gloss>

The word "all" is missing which is always present in English when referring to this type of school.

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>boys' high school</gloss>
+<gloss>all boys' high school</gloss>

GG5

daijr: スポーツ競技で，何らかの利益獲得をねらった選手やチームがわざと手を抜く試合のこと。決勝トーナメントで有利な相手と当たるように，予選リーグの試合でわざと負ける場合など。

I don't think GG5's glosses are correct. Can't find any support for that meaning.
Not necessarily losing. Could also intentionally play for a draw.

@@ -13,7 +13 @@
-<gloss>match where one side loses on purpose</gloss>
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<pos>&n;</pos>
-<field>&sports;</field>
-<gloss>dull game</gloss>
-<gloss>dull match</gloss>
+<gloss>match in which one side deliberately underperforms (e.g. losing in order to face a favourable opponent in the next round)</gloss>

daijirin, jitsuyou

https://www.weblio.jp/content/無気力試合

@@ -8 +8 @@
-<reb>むきりょくしあい</reb>
+<reb>むきりょくじあい</reb>

Yes, that's the meaning that's all over the Japanese press. I'll put it back, and keep GG5's as a second sense.

@@ -13,0 +13,5 @@
+<gloss>match where one side loses on purpose</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<field>&sports;</field>

Correcting a typo.
I think めたくそ should lead so that there's a consistent order for the hiragana/katakana pairs.

@@ -3,0 +4,3 @@
+<r_ele>
+<reb>めたくそ</reb>
+</r_ele>
@@ -8 +11 @@
-<reb>めたくそ</reb>
+<reb>めちゃくそ</reb>
@@ -11 +14 @@
-<reb>めちゃく</reb>
+<reb>メチャクソ</reb>
@@ -15,3 +17,0 @@
-</r_ele>
-<r_ele>
-<reb>メチャクソ</reb>

Quiet

https://ja.hinative.com/questions/18901419
https://www.weblio.jp/content/めちゃくそ
めちゃくそ	3223	55.1%
メチャクソ	711	12.2%
めったくそ	1426	24.4%
メッタクソ	485	8.3%

More variants. The ref sites say they're ksb. Could be added here or in a separate entry.

@@ -8,0 +9,12 @@
+</r_ele>
+<r_ele>
+<reb>めちゃく</reb>
+</r_ele>
+<r_ele>
+<reb>めったくそ</reb>
+</r_ele>
+<r_ele>
+<reb>メチャクソ</reb>
+</r_ele>
+<r_ele>
+<reb>メッタクソ</reb>

@@ -11,0 +12 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="1604980">めちゃめちゃ・3</xref>

めたくそ	4692	47.4%
メタクソ	5214	52.6%

https://meaning-book.com/blog/20190521170735.html
「めたくそ」という表現はめちゃくちゃ、ひどく、という意味になり、

https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q10253912550
「めちゃめちゃ」の意。

http://www1.tmtv.ne.jp/~kadoya-sogo/ibaraki-me.html
めためた、めちゃくちゃ

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>quality certification (of precious metal)</gloss>
+<gloss>quality certification (of a precious metal)</gloss>

KOD

@@ -12,2 +12,2 @@
-<gloss>fineness certification (of precious metal)</gloss>
-<gloss>purity certification</gloss>
+<gloss>quality certification (of precious metal)</gloss>
+<gloss>hallmark</gloss>

https://www.mint.go.jp/eng/operations-eng/eng_operations_certification-01.html
daijr

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guangxu_Emperor

wiki

閻魔虫	21	3.0%
エンマムシ	654	93.7%
えんまむし	23	3.3%
GG5

Histeridae is エンマムシ科.

@@ -8,0 +9 @@
+<re_nokanji/>
@@ -15 +16,2 @@
-<gloss>histeridae</gloss>
+<misc>&uk;</misc>
+<gloss>hister beetle (Hister jekeli)</gloss>
@@ -17 +18,0 @@
-<gloss>hister beetle</gloss>

English Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histeridae
Japanese Wiki: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/エンマムシ

Word seen in 漢字でGO! (Hard)

物理名	1343
Reverso

Seems it's a bit broader.

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<gloss>physical name (of a database table)</gloss>
+<gloss>physical name (of a database table, key, device, etc.)</gloss>

https://wa3.i-3-i.info/diff416name.html
https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-physical-name-and-a-logical-name-in-databases

物理名	1343

Aligning.

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<gloss>logical name (of a database table)</gloss>
+<gloss>logical name (of a database table, key, device, etc.)</gloss>

https://wa3.i-3-i.info/diff416name.html
https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-physical-name-and-a-logical-name-in-databases

論理名	9254

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/numbers-game
RP

@@ -13 +13 @@
-<gloss>use of numbers to misrepresent fact</gloss>
+<gloss>deceiving by misuse of numbers and statistics</gloss>

https://www.wordreference.com/jaen/数字遊び

数字遊び	4389

G n-grams:

ぽまいら 2,479 78.6%
ポマイラ   675 21.4% <- jitsuyō

@@ -5,0 +6,3 @@
+</r_ele>
+<r_ele>
+<reb>ポマイラ</reb>

jitsuyo, wikt

https://word-dictionary.jp/posts/2824
「ぽまいら」とは「お前ら」を意味するネットスラングで、

https://meaning-book.com/blog/20190411093757.html
「ぽまいら」とは、インターネットのスラングで「お前ら」の意味で用いられる言葉です。

https://netyougo.com/2ch/4907.html
「ぽまいら」とは「お前ら」を意味するネットスラングである。

gg5, prog, koj

???

I don't think this entry is needed. While the compound is not uncommon, its meaning is quite obvious. It's not in any references.

There wasn't an entry so I added one.

???

I don't think this entry is needed. While the compound is not uncommon, its meaning is quite obvious. It's not in any references.

There wasn't an entry so I added one.