Talk:Finger/Archive 1

The photo

Is the photo really necessary? I mean, is there anyone who comes to this page and doesn't know what a finger looks like? It just made me laugh as it was so redundant - I had a few examples to hand --Huffers 20:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no harm in having a photo, but the current photo(s) are pretty useless -- they show an entire hand, without identifying which bits are the fingers. chrismear 21:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is odd the lead photo shows a ring on the finger. Would be more appropriate if the hand was bare. Oh Snap (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. The issue is about effective communication and also identification. In terms of effective communication, the ring on the left ring finger conveys symbolic information to the reader that is extraneous and distracting. In Western cultures, a ring worn on the left hand's ring finger is a symbol that says the wearer is married or engaged to be married. Readers also expect to be able to identify with the depiction of things they are already familiar. A picture of a married Caucasian hand offends this expectation of identity. The main picture ought to be one that an overwhelming majority of people can identify with. The idea is that the main picture should be uninteresting. Because most readers know what a finger is, the photo's primary purpose is to provide visual completeness to the article. It ought not attract any more attention or thought from the average reader than a glance and the subconscious "yep, that's a finger." They should not be thinking (consciously or not) things like "why is there a ring there?" or "that finger looks nothing like that of most people I know." The point is that the main picture for an article is one of the major components that influence the reader's perception of the entire article because it is what they see first. If the picture conveys information that is not relevant to the bulk of the article or if it causes the reader to become sidetracked or if it alienates the reader to some extent, it negatively impacts the article's ability to convey information on a specific topic, which is an article's primary purpose. SidShakal (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed:

3. One quick and dirty way is to compare your index finger to your ring finger with your hand flat. If your ring finger is longer, then you have high testosterone. So here it is in the wikipedia as proof.

I seem to recall that this is an urban legend. Even if true, is it really information that belongs in this particular article? -- April 22:09 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

It's true, and yes Crusadeonilliteracy 19:47, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I disagree. If it's true, give a cite. Mr. Billion 03:20, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Details are disputed but ring finger length is affected by hormonal exposure in the womb, which also plays a role in many other things later in life, such as facial hair. See Digit ratio for some info, which maybe could be linked from this page.

The grace of the fingers is not sacrificed to their dexterity..Hmmmm.. Does grace count as POV? Alun

Is this just a fancy way of saying that fingers are strong despite being skinny?

Fingertip regeneration

The following text was moved from an HTML comment in the article itself. - dcljr (talk)

Exactly what is meant by "fingertip"? How much of the fingertip? Just the skin? Does the fingerprint regenerate along with it? This information should be included. Mr. Billion 03:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

9 fingers??

According to the dictionary, the word finger has a history that suggests that it is one of 5. This means it becomes a misnomer when there are 9, as indicated on a link on this article that talks about having 9 fingers. What would the term be to indicate one of 9 the way finger indicates one of 5?? Georgia guy 18:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need to include a hand with a wedding band???

Non-sequitur?

The article states:

Each of these joints is covered with articular cartilage. Articular cartilage is the smooth spongy material that covers the end of bones that make up a joint. The cartilage allows the bones to slide easily against one another as the joint moves through its range of motion.

Another important example of this capacity is in the ability to read Braille. Additionally...

Er, wait. What? What "capacity" are we talking about and/or what was the first "example" of that capacity? - dcljr (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having received no replies, I've rearranged/reworded the section to better reflect what I think it's trying to say. - dcljr (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counting on the fingers

From personal experience, it seems that Americans count starting with the index finger for "one", continuing with the other fingers to the pinky for "four", and ending with the thumb for "five". Europeans start with the thumb for "one", and end with the pinky for "five". I don't know if this is true or not, but haven't been able to find corroberation, and even if I did, I wouldn't know where to put this factioid. Would this be a good place? Bunthorne 06:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I always start with my thumb (I'm British). So Americans have to go back to the beginning and create a circuit to finish, whereas us europeans prefer a linear pattern? One of those interesting but totally useless pieces of information!!!Alun 17:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we do it that way (or I do, anyway, the American one) because my thumb keeps the other fingers down, when I don't need them. It just seems easier.

British start with the thumb? That seems so weird to my american mind; that's for a thumbs-up or hitchhiking or something, it doesn't represent the number one to me in the slightest.

Note, however, that in American sign language, the pointer is 1, the pointer and middle are 2, the thumb, pointer, and middle are 3, and the pointer, middle, ring, and pinky are 4. This is because 6-9 are formed by connecting the thumb and one finger. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 12:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thumb

Everyone believes that the thumb is not a finger, but I think differently, just because it is farther away than the other fingers. I think that a finger has three bones. The index finger, the middle finger, the ring finger and the pinky have three very visible phalanges ,but the thumb has three phalanges too but two are very visible like the others. But a third is not as visible as the others, but it still exists. It allows the thumb to go back like the other fingers.

85.168.29.13 13:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I think the article could be improved with an image of a hand without a ring or other physical additions (systemic bias comes to mind); photo is great otherwise. ~ PseudoSudo 15:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

This text and material from here [1] are copies. I wonder if the commercial site lifted the text from Wikipedia or the other way around?

There are three bones in each finger called the proximal phalanx, the medial phalanx and the distal phalanx. Each finger has three joints. The first joint is where the finger joins the hand. This joint is where the bones that form the palm of the hand, the metacarpals, join with the first bone of the finger, called the proximal phalanx. The bone protruding from this joint when the fist is clenched is commonly referred to as the knuckle. The second joint is the proximal interphalangeal joint, sometimes called the PIP joint for short. The last joint of the finger is called the distal interphalangeal joint, or DIP. Each of these joints is covered with articular bones. Articular bone is the smooth spongy material that covers the end of bones that make up a joint. The articular bone allows the bones to slide easily against one another as the joint moves through its range of motion.u all donno nuthin u fucken peps"

--Vuo 19:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last few sentences are the same as the first? Should this be changed? El Carnemago 00:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

It looks great, but the ring carries unnecessary cultural bias. Can we please have an one with no ring? Thank you. 83.67.217.254 13:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snapping fingers

As far as I can search, I can not find a page about snapping your fingers, and the finger talk page seems as good a place as any. Snapping your fingers is a common occurence, and is used almost worldwide. I am surprised that no page has been made yet.

- Zeke

It's at Finger snapping. chrismear 21:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phinger?

All the 'f's have been replaced with 'ph's. - RompingGoat 00:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All changes by Eakaphray Udeday (well, well), now fixed - Nigosh 08:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

While I don't believe the image is totally necessary since images are used to serve the purpose of identifying the subject and helping to give a clearer image of it, Most who read this will already know what fingers are. If they don't know then the image is totally unhelpful because it does not specify which part of the picture are the fingers. The image is of a hand and wrist as well as fingers. I think the fingers should be circled to identify them more clearly. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thumb

It has long been disputed whether the thumb is or is not, in fact, a finger.

What part of the definition of "finger" excludes the thumb? Seems to me that the only reason for this "dispute" is that the thumb has been given a specific name that does not actually include the word "finger", which in my view isn't enough to disqualify it as one. 87.114.192.75 13:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thumb is not a finger. The thumb is a digit/phalange as are the others. However, what seperates the thumb is the location and number of joints/knuckles that make up the thumb. Thus, the thumb is not a finger.

And what does the anonymous contributor base this on? The thumb has a specific location, yes, but so do all the other digits. The thumb has specific muscles to move it around, but so do other digits (abductor and opponens digiti minimi for the little finger and extensor indicis for the index finger). Is the thumb's lacking of a phalanx enough to exclude it from being a finger? At any rate, the article is presently ambiguous on the matter. The introductory section seems to vaguely imply that there are four fingers plus the thumb, while the "Fingers" section includes the thumb as a finger. - Quirk (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki conflict: please help

There currently is an interwiki conflict, as in many languages there is no specific one-word translation for "finger", but a word for "digit" (which is now described in the article digit (anatomy)). I corrected those interwikis that I could understand and confirm for myself as meaning "digit", not "finger"; I am almost sure that some other wrong interwikis are still here. Please, if you know a language listed in interwiki section, check if it leads to "finger", not "digit", and replace with a correct one, if needed. --Maxxicum (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

finger

hey guys just a doubt but... are most of the fingers just skin and bones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jirovidicama (talk • contribs) 03:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finger Ratio

The article mentions finger ratio and that some guy published a book about it, but it doesn't exactly explain what the important issue with finger ratio is. Can somebody expand on this? I have no idea what's important about finger ratio... 216.68.167.94 (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section on Finger Ratio. Research either deserves it's own page, where balanced analysis can be made or a section which describes the research in more detail. In it's previous form it was nothing more than a plug for a book - the reference not even a dissection of material, but simply a book review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.165.125 (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing vocabulary ?

knuckles. --Jerome Potts (talk) 05:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

incoming 4chan raid

4chan's /b/ board is planning a "raid" on this page, http://boards.4chan.org/b/res/315476679 see this thread. I'm assuming theyll move onto other articles or choose another one soon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.173.231.217 (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many fingers, after all

Some English speakers may consider the thumb to be a type of finger, leading to the conclusion that humans have five fingers on each hand. Others may consider the term 'finger' to apply only to those four digits that are medial to the thumb, leading to the conclusion that humans have four fingers on each hand:

I double-checked with dictionaries, and the above is not what they say. The dictionaries say something like "One of the five digits of the hand, especially one other than the thumb." or "one of the five end parts of the hand, sometimes excluding the thumb". the key difference is that dictionaries say that in certain contexts (I guess when the distinction is important) we have 8 fingers, in others we have 10. A quick google check (for "all eight fingers" and "all ten fingers") seems to confirm: when I want to play guitar, I have 8 fingers, but when I learn typing I have all 10 of them. In other words, the "Some English speakers" text smacks someone's interpretation, rather than fact. Therefore I would like to see a reliable reference about "some English speakers" included. `'mikka 20:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

going back to indo-european linguistics are we? I this really necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.130.137 (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

surface anatomy??

hi, I'm wondering why the anatomy sections only covers internal anatomy and not surface anatomy. I specifically wish to know what the part of the finger is just before my nail. it's more delicate skin than the rest of my hand so I'm certain there must be a name for it and maybe even internet articles specifically about it. Drag-5 (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pruned fingers

what is the condition of the skin of fingers and the hand that causes it to prune when in water for long periods of time--voodoom 07:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC) It isn't a condition. It happens to every human on the face of the earth. Skin has a protective oil on it to protect it from dirt, microorganisms, all that harmful stuff out there. When skin gets soaked in water, it temporarily loses its protective oil, allowing water in that swells the skin up. McBenjamin (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute

Ping to Mchangizi and Flyer22; Mchangizi, thanks for creating an account and I hope this is one of many future edits. Is it possible we can reach a compromise and/or discuss the issue at hand here? --LT910001 (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finger locking

There is a redirect from finger locking to this article, on which no explanation can be found. I assume it means the capability of some people to flex just the distal phalanges of one or more fingers while the other joints remain extended?80.134.64.194 (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2015

This edit request to Finger has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Vishalinho (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Hand has five fingers.[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 07:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed

The claim that in English, only the 4 digits are considered fingers is unsourced. Honestly, it would probably be better to remove the claim, as sources on both sides could easily be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.130.219.209 (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbing image

The hand has been greyed out to emphasize the fingers. However, this looks like as if someone has a skin disease. I felt uncomfortable looking at it. Please consider changing the picture. --2.245.213.17 (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being bigoted against Grey-Handed peoples. 72.223.107.29 (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there are people with grey hands but normal fingers, especially when the division is so neat that it seems unnatural. This has nothing to do with bigotry. Stop inventing diseases. --92.75.213.144 (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user who accused the other user of bigotry is doing so in jest, an example of the recent trend in certain online messageboard circles of jokingly accusing someone of bigotry towards an esoteric, often fictional demographic. Additionally, by losing patience with someone who uses this type of humour, and believing that it is being said in earnest ("Stop inventing diseases"), one is also contributing to the confusion and erroneous belief that "political correctness" is harming social interaction. This individual, or group confusion, may sometimes be a desired reaction by the joking party, making it in such cases a deliberate "false-flag". 78.247.84.27 (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2019

This edit request to Finger has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would appericate it if you let me edit this article. Thanks. Oh, and stay popular. 71.80.105.202 (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Edit requests are requests to make specific, precise changes to an article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tone doesn't befit Wikipedia

The last sentence of the introduction ("It’s not immediately obvious, but once you notice it, you’ll see it everywhere.") is tonally weird and should be removed.

137.226.57.103 (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just nipped the entire sentence in the bud. It does not belong here. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request to correct grammar/typo errors and reword

Hello, I see this page is fully protected but I'm looking at a sentence with a pretty glaring grammatical error.

Under the Skin subsection of the section Anatomy, it reads,

"This makes the fingers commonly used sensory probes to ascertain properties of objects encountered in the world, making them are prone to injury."

It should read something like "This makes the fingers commonly used AS sensory probes to ascertain properties of objects encountered in the world, making them MORE prone to injury"

I would personally say,

"Consequentially, as the fingers are commonly used as sensory probes to ascertain properties of objects, they are more prone to injury"

Thanks

Austinef (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skin

Aside from the genitals, the fingertips possess the highest concentration of touch receptors and thermoreceptors among all areas of the human skin, [citation needed] making them extremely sensitive to temperature, pressure, vibration, texture and moisture. Recent studies suggest fingers can feel nano-scale wrinkles on a seemingly smooth surface, a level of sensitivity not previously recorded. This makes the fingers commonly used sensory probes to ascertain properties of objects encountered in the world, making them prone to injury.

The pulp of a finger is the fleshy mass on the palmar aspect of the extremity of the finger.

This has probably been addressed, as this is what the subsection currently reads, as of 19:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Qwerfjkl talk 10:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link

Can someone link "organ", "digit", and "limb"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.131.228 (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biology

How do your fingers feel 196.188.226.126 (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Small 51.252.107.183 (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]