Hi.
You just have added a claim that encephalon (Q75865) is a subclass of {{Q|1073}} (brain). But the entity brain (Q1073) already contains a claim that it, itself, is a subclass of encephalon (Q75865). Isn't such a recursive cyclical subclassing a problem in database consistency?
When trying to figure out the difference between the terms I looked at the French Wiki. The French Wiki says that brain (Q1073) is for Bilateria (Q5173) while encephalon (Q75865) is for Chordata (Q10915). Given that all members of Chordata are also members of the Bilateria that means that encephalon is the subclass of brain and not the other way around. Thus I removed the existing subclass claim. I know added found in taxon (P703) to make it more clear.
It might very well be that currently other languages currently make different distinctions. Mappings like this are quite messy when they evolved without well-defined terms. We also have human brain (Q492038) for the human brain.
Of course this might require chaning the mapping on other pages. Cases like this require a bit of untangling.
Yyes there is a problem in Russian, hehehe - and that also was why I was asking is that right... :)
The Russian description tells us that the "encephalon" is "мозг". In Russian, the "мозг" may have several meanings, unlike the very well defined meaning of the term "encephalon". In one meaning, it means the "brain" (ie, that part inside the skull or head) plus the "spinal cord" together, ie, it equals "central nervous system". In another meaning it can mean a central ganglion of any bilateria, not only chordates, including an ant or a bee, so I can say "мозг муравья" and be right. In the third, narrower, meaning it can be used as a synonym of the part inside the skull/head, so it is only chordates... and does not include the spinal cord, so it's essentially the same as "brain" in chordates...
Then when we come to "brain", the Russian description says it's "головной мозг". Again, this term in Russian can be two-meaning - some insist on using it only for chordates, ie, only for those who have a skull (bone or cartilaginous, no matter) and a well-developed brain. For lower bilateria, they insist on using central ganglion - "центральный нервный узел". Some others can still use "головной мозг" for all the bilateria, like ant or bee, just in the manner in which others use "мозг" without "головной".
See how much a pain in the butt there is with terms in Russian? :) And I don't really know how to correctly solve this dilemma, will think. I think your subclassing is right, it's russian definitions that need to be corrected, but how - I have to think a lot :) ~~~~
I know that this kind of anatomical puzzles can be heard when different languages try to do different things. As a general rule it helps to create multiple items for the different conceptualizations, then explain the meaning of every item with has part (P527) and found in taxon (P703).
Afterwards there the task for finding good labels and description for them (it's good when tasks have an English description because English is the common language). Then there's the couragous task of matching the Wikipedia articles to the proper items. That can be controversial as it can mean that the item doesn't have interwiki links anymore.
Applied ontology certainly isn't boring ;)
It seems that there are some other opinions about what encephalon is about, we'll see ;)
I saw ;)
And I was somehow thinking that such an un-consensus situation is quite predictable with such a wide and many-meaning term :)
The encephalon/brain distinction in different languages is not just quite different, but in some languages & some contexts, like I told you about the situation in Russian language, is essentially absent, so in some contexts terms can be used interchangeably. In still other contexts, the distinction is 180 degrees opposite to the distinction in English or French, in the sense in which term we are supposed to include not just the cephalic part but also the spinal cord - in "мозг" (currently in Wikidata equated to encephalon) it is included, in "головной мозг" (currently equated to brain) it isn't... :) What a pain :)
This is not like the distinction between dorsal thalamus ("thalamus proper") and ventral thalamus ("subthalamus" or "prethalamus"), which is very clear from both anatomical (dorsal/ventral) and histological (zona limitans intrathalamica is the border) standpoints :)
A while ago I went through the items for arm. We now have:
arm (excluding hand) (Q43471), free upper limb (Q24517852), upper arm (Q379859) and upper limb (Q841423)
The English word "arm" can mean all three. To solve issues like this it's valuable to create multiple item and add "has part" to each one.