Talk:Biceps

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: image issues

message: 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.exactly
: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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: This is hilarious. It is a wonderful world (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

text: We did...four years ago. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hideous paragraph" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Missing details

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Because of your belief?  Perhaps your belief is incorrect.  Gray's Anatomy (p.387) says that the biceps is a muscle (singular).  --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: The correct term for the 'Biceps' is in fact Bicep. Bicep refers to the heads of the Bicep, being 2, not in actual fact of hus having 2 bicep. Name change.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.127.115 (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is incorrect.  The traditional medical term is biceps brachii musculus "two-headed muscle of the arm".  The form "bicep" is arecent invention created on the erroneous assumption that the terminal "-s" makes the plural.  In fact biceps is a singular form and is an adjective in the original Latin. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bicep 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Bicep-workout-muscles.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: has been adding tons of text to this and other articles.  All these contributions need some work before being included into their articles.  So, I drop the biceps imaging material here on the talk just in case someone would find this useful.  --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Say, isn't there a way of moving the footnotes for this text up? As it is now, they're at the bottom of the discussion page, looking disconnected. How do we get them up here to the text where they belong?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.185.2 (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imaging 

message: The biceps brachii muscle is the one that gave all muscles their name: it comes from the Latin musculus, "little mouse", because the appearance of the flexed biceps resembles the back of a mouse. The same phenomenon occurred in Greek, in which μῦς, mȳs, means both "mouse" and "muscle".
Does anyone have a source for this? Or is it just one of thousands of BS medical anecdotes? HMallison (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a medical anecdote.  The etymology appears in most major Latin dictionaries that include etymologies. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks - and that's secondary sources, and often one copies from the other... anything solid?HMallison (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Um..., Wikipedia requires that we use secondary sources, so researching further back would not be usable. Also, dismissing out of hand all dictionaries as not "solid" without even knowing which authors or publishers were involved seems mighty blithe to me. What, exactly, would you think of as "solid"?  Would an anecdote from an ancient scholar be better than research from a modern one? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  source for claim that mouse gives name to all muscles? 

message: Why is this image not in english? Should it not be removed due to not being the correct language for the article?
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biceps#/media/File:Flexi%C3%B3n_del_brazo.png)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.185.2 (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional images - Biceps and triceps 

message: Should there be a  at the top of the page here? Or would it be considered redundant since biceps femoris is in the disambiguation? Invinciblewalnut (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinguish with biceps femoris? 

message: How many times to grow biceps size?? 182.189.234.115 (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biceps