Talk:Biceps brachii muscle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. Start This page has been rated as start-Class on the quality assessment scale Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance assessment scale This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a WikiProject related to the study of anatomy. Start rated as start-Class on the assessment scale Mid rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale

changed "30 inch bicep" to "30 inch upper arm" as the original statement neglects the more significant extent the triceps contributes to this measurement (and to a lesser extent brachioradialis, brachialis and corachobrachialis)

This comes from the ambiguity in the term "biceps". When a biometrician refers to the measurement of the circumference of the upper arm, the term used is often "biceps measurement", even though the measure includes the entire upper arm. The Guinness Book from which the information was taken calls the measure a "biceps" measurement. --EncycloPetey 13:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 image issues 2 "Hideous paragraph" 3 Missing details 4 Article name

[edit] image issues

The iamges Image:Biceps.jpg is under a non-commercial licence and is therefore not suitable for wikipedia. Could someone with a cameria please make a replacement? Thanks.--nixie 05:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I've already taken two photos (one with the arm pronated, one with it supinated) because I noticed the copyright problem. Unfortunately, I now have to figure out how to get the images onto the site -- It's a new camera and the computer I work through has been replaced with a new mdel/platform/etc. However, I hope to have them in within the next week. --EncycloPetey 10:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It's probably be best to upload them to the commons (if you plan to release them into the PD, GFDL or use one of the free creative commons licences), as .jpgs.--nixie 05:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Hideous paragraph"

User:JSpudeman wrote: I'm sorry.. but that paragraph was absolutely hideous.. supination is already explained within the header. Someone needs to find a tidyer place for those images, too.

But the paragraph was one that you wrote. I merely cleaned up the spelling and punctuation, explained what some of the obscure terms meant, and moved it to the beginning of the "Function" section. That section needs an introductory paragraph because (presumably) all three functions of the biceps brachii are eventually to be discussed. Otherwise, there is no point in having a two-tiered set of headers.

Seriously, if you have this much trouble writing, you should ask for help. There are a lot of generous people here on Wikipedia who enjoy being asked for their kind assistance. --EncycloPetey 19:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the pictures, what's wrong? They display just fine both on the Mac (OS X) and PC (Win NT) where I have displayed them, and they work at several font sizes and browser window widths. --EncycloPetey 19:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The text i mentioned wasn't something i had typed. Secondly - take a look at my other edits, and you'll find i have no problems with my grammar. WP:NPA The magical Spum-dandy 13:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong on both counts. Go back and compare old edits -- the text I transferred was from what you had written. Given the problems you had with grammar and your obsessive use of the semi-colon, I don't think you're one to judge the quality of your own writing. Please get an informed opinion. --EncycloPetey 07:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing details

I noticed that there are some details missing, such as: Latin names of muscles "biceps brachii caput brevis" and "biceps brachii caput longum", the short and the long biceps muscles. Even if it most common to refer biceps as biceps brachii, this should be explained in introduction or terminalogy. GA Fantastic (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right that the terms should be mentioned, but they are not considered separate muscles. Rather, those are the names of the two "heads" of the single muscle. (caput is Latin for "head"). --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

Why on earth is this article not called "Biceps brachii"? It is currently a redirect, but surely the word muscle is not needed in the article title. I have not been so bold as to move the article myself; normally I am bold, but there are a lot of articles that link here, and perhaps there is some policy on anatomical articles that I am not aware of. Could someone enlighten me or perhaps simply move this to Biceps brachii? Leevclarke (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The word "muscle" appears in the titles of all muscle articles for consistency. There are several muscles that would otherwise require awkward disambiguation, so the decision was made to name all muscle articles with "muscle" as the final component of the name. This is also grammatically correct because biceps brachii means "two-headed of the arm", which lacks a noun. The full and correct scientific name for the muscle is musculus biceps brachii. So the name of the article is correct. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

HI PEOPLES :) <3-heart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.152.190 (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)