Talk:Biceps (disambiguation)

Disambiguation necessary?

Is it necessary for this to be a disambiguation page? The article says the biceps femoris meaning is less common than Biceps brachii muscle. Wmahan . 23:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exercises

I'm inclined to think the section on exercises ought to be made a separate article, with a link from this article. At biceps brachii muscle there are links to articles on several exercises; the new article should link to those and vice versa. Michael Hardy 23:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...in fact, I notice that this is labelled a disamibiguation page. The "exercises" section is clearly inappropriate for a disambiguation page. Michael Hardy 23:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replace page with Redirect to Biceps brachii muscle

Biceps (disambiguation) currently redirects to this page (Biceps) which is a disambiguation page.

I would like to propose Biceps to redirect to Biceps brachii muscle as this page has over 26433 views this month, whereas the other two pages on the disambiguation page, Biceps femoris muscle and Biceps (prosody), have only 8449 & 270 (respectively). Biceps brachii muscle would of course link to the new disambiguation page at Biceps (disambiguation) using a {{Redirect}} template. Captain n00dle ^T/_C 00:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support We're guessing that three out of four readers are looking for Biceps brachii muscle? That sounds like (barely) enough to support the rearrangement of titles that you propose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think this a clear application of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There we are guided to make the ambiguous term (biceps) a redirect to the article (Biceps brachii muscle) where it is "much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer". I am sure that 3:1 over all other uses qualifies as "much more". --RexxS (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]