Talk:List of muscles of the human body
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. | |
| Unassessed | rated as Unassessed-Class on the assessment scale | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
Note: Various muscle lists have different sets of names: the muscle names listed appear in at least two of the three sources cited. Some of these names may be multiple names for the same muscle, and there may well be many muscles or other names missed out from this list.
Contributors with medical knowledge are invited to fix this, and contribute articles for individual muscles. The Anome 15:40 21 May 2003 (UTC)
Isn't it true that you cannot copyright an alphabetic list (as in the first part of this article), but you CAN copyright an organized category scheme (as in the second part of this article), since it adds value and someone's original opinions to the list of objects? Gray's Anatomy is still being published, and they'd probably hold the rights to using their system of grouping and organizing the muscular system. GUllman 17:25 21 May 2003 (UTC)
- There are probably not many absurdities that the copyright laws of, uh, some North American country would not allow - still I believe that such a category scheme may not be copyrightable. After all, it reflects anatomical facts that have mostly been known for centuries. Although every anatomy book may present the facts (groups of muscles) in a slightly different way, the facts themselves are determined by biology, not by human thinking. It is a matter of discovery, not invention. Kosebamse 17:38 21 May 2003 (UTC)
I guess I was thinking of compilation copyright... The 3-way fact checking acts as an error check, so only generally accepted names get into the list, and should also eliminate any idiosyncratic copyrightable "creative expression" from the output, if the sources are independent. I know about Feist v. Rural, but that may not apply everywhere. The category scheme is from an out-of-copyright edition of Gray's Anatomy. The Anome
- Which raises the question whether such a scheme, if it were copyrighted, would remain so if still used in more recent editions. I just don´t know. Kosebamse 17:55 21 May 2003 (UTC)
Re: point of having muscle in the title
Is there a need to have the word muscle in the wiki? Most of these words are unambiguous. I reckon that teres major muscle, or just teres major is better. Tristanb
- I've removed muscle from inside the wikis. Tristanb 23:16 23 May 2003 (UTC)
-
- ANy reason why 'muscle' was put back? -- Tarquin 09:44 28 May 2003 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes. Please see the recent discussion at User talk:Kosebamse. Cheers, Kosebamse 12:49 28 May 2003 (UTC)
-
-
- Ah. thanks. I'll quote that here for future reference. -- Tarquin 13:00 28 May 2003 (UTC)
There is, to my knowledge, only one human muscle whose proper anatomical name is single-worded (the platysma, but I may have overlooked some others). Of course you could refer to any other muscle as, say, "the biceps", and that is often done in clinical slang, but it is just that: slang. In a textbook or lexicon, you would always find it as "biceps brachii muscle" or in Latin, "musculus biceps brachii". Some muscles are known in common language by single-word names, such as the biceps or a few others that are of relevance to athletes, such as the serratus. This is, however, where confusion starts, as there is indeed another biceps, the biceps femoris, and there are two different serratus muscles. IMO the clean solution would be to have entries for such popular things as "biceps" under single-word names, but these must then redirect to a page with the proper anatomical name (which is BTW "biceps brachii muscle", not "biceps brachii (muscle)" as I am sure some would suggest). Less popular things should stay unter their anatomical names and not require any redirects.
Apparently missing are muscles of the male and female reproductive systems, especially the myometrium (uterine muscle), as well as other nonskeletal muscles such as the arrector pili.
"ABDOMEN", under "muscles of the trunk" does not point to the article on the -human- abdomen. I can't figure out how to correct this myself. 84.12.83.249 20:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Seventh-Monkey
- Good catch. This is now fixed (the link is changed from abdomen to human abdomen. --Arcadian 21:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't quite know how. But could someone change these 'info' boxes so they have a larger easier to read font? I have a 20" LCD monitor, and they are almost unreadable with 20/20 vision.
[edit] Does anyone have one of those human muscle images
Where they show most of the human muscles in one picture? Because I was looking for that one picture when I came to this article. Would be a nice addition to this article. -Iopq 13:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
