User:Was a bee/tree


 * Brain -> wikidata:Q1073
 * Human brain -> wikidata:Q492038


 * part of -> wikidata:Property:P361
 * has part -> wikidata:Property:P527
 * subclass of -> wikidata:Property:P279
 * found in taxon -> wikidata:Property:P703


 * Scripts -> Module:Wikidata


 * Tree-generation method for biological species -> Automated taxobox system

Problem 1: Specie-general/Human-specific Bifurcation problem
How to treat bifurcations of articles between "specie-general article" (e.g. Brain) and "human-specific article" (e.g. human brain)?
 * Article about Brain (wikidata:Q1073) exists in 142 language editions
 * Article about Human brain (wikidata:Q492038) exists in 33 language editions
 * Possible solutions
 * 1) Showing only the most specific one which is useful for human readers (human brain)
 * 2) Showing all (brain, human brain)
 * 3) Showing the most general one (brain)

Problem 2.1: Simply missing
There are terms which exist in tree, but there are no encyclopedic articles in Wikipedia. This situation is rare for English edition (because English edition has the broadest coverage, see stats). But this is the case happens more frequently especially in small sized language edition. For example Inuktitut edition Wikipedia (https://iu.wikipedia.org) has no article about Brain, as of 2017-04-06. (You can check how many Wikipedia language editions have article about "brain" at wikidata:Q1073.)
 * Solutions
 * 1) Simple red link is OK (Red link). This is true especially in big editions like English Wikipedia.
 * 2) Using Interlanguage link. This template is useful in language editions which have small article coverage.

Problem 2.2: Forever missing
There is another problem beyond coverage. Some terms in tree do not suffice Notability criteria. For example, FMA uses concept "material anatomical entity" to categorize various anatomical concepts. This "material anatomical entity" concept is basically only served for tree making purpose. The concept would not become encyclopedic article.
 * Possible solutions

Problem 3.1: Horizontal (human and animals)
How to think about comparative anatomical point of view? Although human anatomy is center interest for most readers, comparative perspective is also interesting. For example, UBERON treats anatomical concepts through not human-specific, but specie-general way.

Problem 3.2: Depth (gross and microscopic)
Gross anatomy generally treats only the structure which can be distinguished through "human bare eye". But its boundaries are blur. For example, we can distinguish each gyri on brain through bare eye (sulci defines its boundaries). But we can not distinguish each Brodmann's areas without microscope (different Brodmann's area has different style of cell structure in thin layers).

Problem 4: Multiple meaning of "part of" problem
From functional or developmental point of view, brain is a part of central nervous system. This is well known classification of brain among experts. But at the same time, brain is a part of head, undoubtedly. This is spacial/locational classification, and would be (in a sense) very "common-sensual" point of view of general readers.
 * Possible solutions
 * 1) Showing only the most accepted classification among experts (brain is part of.... central nervous system)
 * 2) Showing all (brain is part of.... central nervous system, head)
 * 3) Showing all with qualification (brain is part of.... central nervous system (functional/developmental), head (spacial/locational))
 * 4) Showing different meanings separately (developmental-tree, spacial-tree)