Talk:Orthopedic surgery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Seattle Harborview[edit]

The mention of Harborview Hospital in Seattle was such that it did not link to the corresponding article. I have reworded it. I hope that's ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC) rggdhhy


"Particularly important for injured athletes was the use of arthroscopic tools by Dr. Watanabe of Japan"

Watanabe is a very common name in Japan. Replace "Watanabe" with "Brown" or "Smith" and read that sentence again. Sounds ambiguous, no?

Dr. Kirschner did wires as in K or Kirschner wires. IM rodding was pioneered by Dr. Kutchner (? SP) of Germany and Dr. Rush of Meridian Mississippi.

Correct spelling of the IM rod pioneer is Kunschner. He started using IM rods before world war II but German soldiers injured during that war recovered much quicker than Allied soldiers. As a result treatment with "K nails" became more popular in North America. However, traction treatment for fractured femurs was still the standard until 1970's when locked intramedullary rods inserted without opening up the fracture was popularised by Dr Winquist in Seattle. A great orthopaedic pioneer not mentioned in this account is Dr Ilizarov whose work with external fixators revolutionized the treatment of non-union and malunion of fractures. Myles Clough MD (user Mylesclough)Sept 20th 2005

Myles, could you update this article accordingly? This is of major historical interest and definitly worthy of inclusion. A historical overview of the orthopedic field, e.g. the AO rules, K wires, Pauwels and Garden... JFW | T@lk 17:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that Pauwels and Garden should be discussed with reference to hip fracture and AO contributions, K wires etc in bone fracture --Mylesclough 00:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

OK JFW | T@lk 17:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that there was no wikipedia entry for Hipocrates (?spelling) or for medical indications, both of which deserve an entry IMHO Reconstructive surgery bounces to Plastic surgery. Orthopods think of Reconstructive Surgery as joint replacement and other bone reconstruction. It is a separate subject. --Mylesclough 05:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hippocrates is a good page. Medical indication indeed has not been written; you are free to change indication from a redirect into a disambig.
As for reconstructive surgery, this is indeed a good point. Again, you may wish to change the redirect into a stub (or even a full page) to emphasise that reconstructive surgery is germane to all branches of surgery. JFW | T@lk 07:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I have either got into or created a muddle over reconstructive surgery. I wrote a short article describing orthopaedic reconstructive surgery then created a reconstructive surgery (disambiguation) page. I had thought that the creation of a disambiguation page would automatically mean that all links would land on it. At the moment the page is held up on the database somewhere so I cannot test that. After I had done all that I thought it would bave been much simpler to create a new page Reconstructive Surgery (Orthopedics) and leave Reconstructive surgery to the Plastic surgery guys. Please advise --Mylesclough 06:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It's okay now, although in the future the page may develop seperate sections for the plastic and orthopedic forms of reconstruction. If you think the principles of reconstructive orthopedics are radically different, you may choose to start reconstructive surgery (orthopedics), but now it's still okay. JFW | T@lk 17:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not totally OK because reconstructive surgery lands on my new page not on the disambiguation page - which I cannot now find. I suspect that I didn't know how to establish a disambiguation page correctly. The result is that all the links from Plastic surgery subjects which were originally redirected from reconstructive surgery to plastics now land on the new page. They can get through to Plastics so this page is in a sense a disambiguation page but not in official form. Sorry --Mylesclough 21:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I have collected some images from the Orthopaedic Trauma Association site and am planning to put them on the page about hip fractures. They have a statement on their site "To encourage the use of this compendium of fractures, reproduction of the figures and use of the classification is possible without the need to request permission from the OTA or publisher." I explored the Wikipedia Help page about uploading images and was bemused by all the different copyright options etc. Can you give me a quick run down about this specific situation and one in which I personally get permission from the copyright holder to post an image on Wikipedia. --Mylesclough 23:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


--> SPELLING QUESTION: WHY IS THIS WORD SPELLED Orthopaedic AND Orthopedic AT SEEMINGLY RANDOM TIMES, BOTH IN THE ARTICLE, AND IN THE DISCUSSION OF THE ARTICLE??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Testing123abc (talkcontribs) 24 December 2005 jayda has a big pp — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


Orthopaedics and most other surgical subjects have at least two aspects which would benefit from a standardized approach. One subject is the conditions that may be treated surgically and the other is an account of the operation (procedure) that a surgeon might perform. To help us get organized I propose the following template for orthopaedic procedures viz
Name of Procedure;
Pre-Operative Work-up;
Post-Operative Rehabilitation;
Timecourse of recovery;
Risks and Complications;
I have used this template for Knee replacement and would appreciate comments.

A template for conditions might be one that is common to all medical conditions not just orthopaedic ones. However, because the key issue in potentially surgical conditions is the question of operative indications I think that a specifically surgical template for conditions is justifiable and might be
Pathogenesis and predisposing factors
Natural History/Untreated Prognosis
Clinical Features
Non-Operative Treatment
Risks of Non-Operative Treatment
Prognosis following Non-Operative Treatment
Operative Treatment (Note that each operations should have its own wiki entry)
Risks of Operative Treatment
Prognosis Post Operation

Comments? Provisionally I have copied the template to the talk page of all the orthopaedic stub pages I could find.--Mylesclough 05:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Spelling (requested move)[edit]

Given what this article says in the terminology section, that the spelling "orthopaedic" is prefered by the AAOS and most academic organizations, I think that we should favor that spelling in both the name and the content of this article. And that's a pretty strong argument in itself before you even start to also consider transatlantic spellings. What do you think? I'd like to edit and move the page accordingly, but I'll wait a couple days first to see if anyone objects here. Arbitrary username 17:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I see nobody has commented on this yet, so here's what I plan to do. I'll wait another day or two, and unless I see obvious disapproval, I'll standardize the usage within the article to "orthopaedic" (currently it's a random mixture of the two spellings). If that passes a further day or two without having generated controversy meantime, then I'll request administrator assistance in renaming the page (which will require removing the existing redirect). If you have opinions, then please speak up. Arbitrary username 17:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Still silence here. Okay, now standardizing on "orthopaedic" in article. Let's see if anyone objects. Arbitrary username 16:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Have now listed on WP:RM. Arbitrary username 20:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
What you have discovered is that no-one is actively watching this page. Coming from WP:RM I have some doubts. "Orthopedic" is common enough in American usage that I suspect that this Anglo-Americanism again combined with Anglophile snobbery. Septentrionalis 20:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd support moving this article to "orthopaedic". For whatever reason, even in the United States, the "ae" spelling is quite predominant, especially among orthopaedic surgeons (see, for example, professional societies such as the AAOS). I normally don't favor moves of this sort, but there are a handful of instances (such as at Archaeology of the Americas) where the "Americanized" version is not that prevalent, even here in the US. — Knowledge Seeker 22:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I oppose this move. Wikipedia policy is clear on spelling: When an article doesn't deal with a "national" topic, the original spelling used in the article (in the title, and in the article itself), should be kept, provided the spelling is not incorrect. Orthopedic is not incorrect, so it should be kept. I understand your motivation, and I might be inclined to agree if orthopedic were a weird or rare spelling, but googling /orthopedic site:edu/ and comparing that with /orthopaedic site:edu/ makes it clear that orthopedic is not at all an odd spelling. Indeed, given that many of the hits from the "edu" Google switch are from foreigners putting up their research papers on American Web sites, it's clear that orthopedic is not just an acceptable spelling, but is the preferred spelling in the U.S. Webster's confirms this. Indeed, "orthopedic" is nearly as popular in countries like Germany and Sweden as "orthopaedic" is! (See: /... site:de/, / BrianinStockholm 2006.05.30, 06:40 (UTC)

Two in favour, one against, and this is not the typical British-vs-American case, so... Moved. —Nightstallion (?) 10:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

When I have a moment (probably tomorrow), I'll fix any double redirects and similar issues relating to the move (specifically, the related category name), unless anyone gets there first. Arbitrary username 11:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

?! I count two opinions expressed in favor, two against. This move needs to be undone, and more time given to the matter. Please don't make any other changes until the move is reverted. BrianinStockholm 11:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Most administrators are anti-Americans of one stripe or another. The policy on spelling is, in practice, make it British/Commonwealth whenever possible. This Night Stallion person is just adhering to the de facto policy. Outrageous, yes, but no one here seems to care. Too bad.
Please assume good faith. I suspect Nightstallion will realize his error -- what I in any event believe is an error -- and revert it. That's not to say there's not a lot of anti-American bias in Wikipedia. There is; and there's also a bit of anti-British bias. To be expected. Best, BrianinStockholm 11:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Fine, I won't make any other changes until this discussion has run its course. Though I think that to say "until the move is reverted" does rather seem to be prejudging the result. Arbitrary username 11:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. :) Sorry. But it seemed so obvious to me that the move was made incorrectly that I assumed it would immediately be reverted. BrianinStockholm 12:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Spelling again - need more people's views[edit]

What seems to have happened regarding the spelling is now unfortunately messy. There is contention about whether Nightstallion made the right decision or not. I agree that simply based on the math Nightstallion's decision was questionable, but then again Knowledge Seeker is (or has been) a physician in the US (see earlier versions of user page e.g. [1]) so ought to have more idea than most about what it's actually called in US English, and Nightstallion could legitimately have given weight to this. But whichever way one might interpret the discussion so far, hopefully we all agree that it has only involved a small number of people, and I think that if there is disagreement it would be beneficial to attract more people to the discussion so as to result in a decision which will be more readily accepted as consensus. This is particularly important as the spelling appears in a number of places, and editing without consensus is liable to lead to inconsistencies, which I really think we ought to strive to avoid. These places are:

  • the text within the article
  • the name of the article
  • the name of the category
  • (maybe others?)

What is the best way to involve more people? I see that there is the RfC process, but it gives me the impression of being generally used for issues which have become rather heated, and I think it would be a great shame to categorize this essentially amicable disagreement in that way, so it would be nice to use something rather more informal to invite people to visit this talk page. I am going to post a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Other suggestions very welcome.

Arbitrary username 13:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You (Arb. username) and I are both fairly new here, so this might be the blind leading the blind, but my impression is that it's policy to be very careful about involving other people. "Getting out the vote," for example, is against policy, I'm pretty sure (can't find a link to that part of policy right now). I agree it would help to have more people involved, but I lean more strongly than before towards thinking the article (and spelling in category name) should be left as is (after my revert of Nightstallion's move, that is). This represents a big change. One thing, though: you refer to a notion of what it's "actually called in US English." We don't need experts for that. We know that both are acceptable. And, speaking as a linguist, I'd be willing to bet that, if anything, the -ped- spelling is gaining the upper hand, since English (all dialects) are moving in the direction of reducing ae to e. Regardless, the orthopedics is definitely a correct spelling. That's not at issue. BrianinStockholm 14:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Just a comment that I assume there is a difference between "getting out the vote" (i.e. inviting specific groups of people who are likely to support a particular POV), and widening the readership in a neutral way. At least, I sure hope there is! Anyway, you'll obviously realize that I disagree with your reversion of the move, but pending wider discussion I'll merely state it here because I don't think it would help anyone for us to get into a cycle of reversions. Regards, Arbitrary username 14:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, widening the readership in a neutral way would probably be fine. For the record: I believe in ruthless adherence to principle, so I'll revert my own revert of NS's revert if sentiment moves in that direction! Although, technically, I'm not sure what the operative principle is here, with the vote "officially" being closed, and the person who "took the pulse" having admitted he might have been wrong (to the extent that he suggested it would be OK for me to revert his change....) Complicated! Is the situation precisely as it would have been if no change had been made at all? If so, you'd need to call a new vote, but that itself, might be against policy, for obvious reasons (John Kerry can't call for a new election next week).... :-/ BrianinStockholm 15:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Yes, I am (still) a resident physician (I still have the category listed on my user page). I don't have a strong preference to either spelling, but overall, as I mentioned above, I prefer orthopaedic in this case, though I am American and normally use American spellings. While American and British spellings should not be lightly switched, I don't think this is a simple American vs. British issue. Orthopedic is certainly less common in American English than orthopaedic, but see for instance its Merriam-Webster entry, compared to the one, say, for gynaecology, which is listed as a British variant. Undoubtedly both spellings are "correct". My personal philosophy in naming and spelling, both on Wikipedia and in real life, tends to give more credence to respected authorities or professional societies than to overall surveys of usage. Since my perception is many orthopaedic surgeons in the United States tend to use the ae spelling and professional societies like the AAOS use it, my preference is for that spelling. That said, there are many who use the e spelling and perhaps it will become more well-established with time (I am not a linguist and cannot pass judgment on this). Which spelling is ultimately used is not very important to me. I think it would be very appropriate to seek feedback (I'd recommend the clinical medicine WikiProject. — Knowledge Seeker 03:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Just thought I'd pop my head up. A long time ago I read something about spelling with respect to english dialect variations - I'm not sure if it was a Wikipaedia policy or simply a suggestion, but it seemed quite sensible at the time - so here it is: Go with the spelling you use regionally, as long as it's correct (ie in a dictionary). Most people are aware that different english dialects have differing use of dipthongs and tend to allow for that in online searching. I'm training in orthopaedic surgery and so I routinely use both spellings , for example, in Medline searches etc. As long as there is consistency in the article it shouldn't really matter which spelling is used. And if you create an article who's name has recognised alternate spellings, create redirects in consideration of others who may want the information. That's it! Happy wiki-ing Mattopaedia 05:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I work in the field, though not in the US, and my general preference is Orthopaedics. BrianinStockholm's points are well taken - as a liguist you would probably know better than I about the general trends for language going from "-paed-" to "-ped-". However, like Knowledge Seeker, I find that even many US Orthopaedics experts prefer the -paed- spelling, and my feeling for the field is that this spelling is still prefered overall.

I would point out that majority of the orthopaedics journals ( use the -paed- spelling. Thus I heartily endorse a switch back. Aaron 16:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The article should at least be consistent in its spelling. And what's with the "also spelled … se below" bit? I couldn't find anything below about it. (Ok, I found it after searching, but I still find that comment confusing.) 21:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I realise this discussion was ages ago, but I was on this Wikipedia page and think it's pretty bizarre that "orthopedic" is the spelling used... Surely it should be "orthopaedic" given this was the original spelling, and is how it is spelt in English outside of the USA? I'm also not sure about the original logic used by reading that discussion. Simply because whoever bothered to make the article first using "orthopedic" means that it must be used for all eternity because technically "it isn't incorrect"?

I have changed the spelling in this article to 'orthopaedic' is almost every instance except when in references to publications entitled under the American spelling. I have done this to reflect that the vast majority of readers will be located in areas where 'orthopaedic' is the almost universally accepted term and in addition I have taken into consideration that numerous American journals and publications, some listed in the article itself, choose to use the spelling 'orthopaedic'. Thedaveformula (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:ENGVAR, once one spelling type has been established, we generally do not change it. I have therefore changed ti back. Yobol (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Thedaveformula, from what I can tell, "Orthopaedics" is NOT the original spelling if the word was coined by M. Andre because he spelled it the French way, Orthopedie, and soon after British classicists adopted the more erudite latinate spelling with ae. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not like this Americanised spelling in this article and I do not like that the changes I made have been undone, this is unfair. It doesn't matter where the root came from. Wikipedia should be presenting subjects in their contemporary usage for a modern audience and therefore the matter regarding spelling rests on what most accurately serves the education of those reading it. The vast majority of people, including prominent institutions within the USA, are using the spelling 'Orthopaedics' and therefore it is my submission that it is in this way it should be spelt in this article. The fact that it was spelled "Orthopedie" in the French context is not a reason to spell it "orthopedics" because language changes and this article should reflect that change by using the version of the word as written by the majority of people in the world. To change it to 'orthopedics' is American exceptionalism and even American elitism which I find to be counterproductive and rather arrogant. I will be intending on changing it back, in due course, but I will read what others have to say in the meantime. @Yobol: I reject the argument that the spelling cannot be changed as I do not regard the matter to be one of established conclusion. --Thedaveformula (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

There needn't be any debate on this; WP:ENGVAR is pretty clear. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Even the AMERICANS within the field itself are saying it's ORTHOPAEDICS. What matters to you more: accurately representing the truth or adhering to some rule that says 'the first person who came up with the spelling gets to decide what it is and there's no debating it'? Now we've got a situation where a child may have to do some research for school on a branch of science and comes back with an American spelling of Orthopaedics despite the fact that they live in Australia, the UK, or anywhere in the world where American English is not used. This is ludicrous. How about we put this matter to the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons? Yes, note the spelling in 'Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons'. This is unbelievable, you're selling out to some rule that forfeits the truth and you're saying it can't be changed. Well it can be changed if it takes me twenty years. I'm going to stop editing this article and take this matter a level higher. I'm going to win this case. --Thedaveformula (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Fill your boots, then. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I took the matter to the board for consultation but could not convince the majority. I maintain I am right on this issue however I am will contribute to improving this page using the American spelling because I believe the subject matter itself deserves attention inspite of the spelling. I walk away from this spelling debate with my head held high but will not walk away from Wikipedia because I believe I have much to contribute. Thedaveformula (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


Is there anything that can be done to discourage linkspam (unnecessary external links) from this subject area? I find it mildly annoying that this page keeps needing to be reverted. Dr Aaron 22:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am currently exploring options. The spammer is using a dynamic IP, so it is difficult to block them that way. We could put partial protection on this page, but this particular spammer is hitting a number of other pages. Until my latest attempt goes through, the best we can do is keep an eye on the changes and keep thwarting him. --Mdwyer 00:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Goodley's comments[edit]

An important brief digression is essential here: The hidden consternation implicit in the above description of orthopedics is that this vast area of medicine, most of which is non-surgical, is viewed herein through minds dominantly predisposed to surgical approaches. That reality expresses medicine's Fundamental Flaw, from which the Pain Pandemic - the countless who unnecessarily persist in pain and impairment – emanates. Future historians may well call this last century a time of unnecessarily perpetuated pain. In contrast, comparable specialties such as neurology and neurosurgery; internal medicine and general surgery conjointly emerged balanced, dynamic and mutually respectful. But for a number of reasons, this did not happen in orthopedics. This story began about a century and a half ago when during one of medicine's low intellectual ebbs clinical biomechanics of the musculoskeletal system through hands-on examination and treatment was repudiated, skills that require special palpatory training and manipulative reasoning. Thus, osteopathy reluctantly emerged and then chiropractic to which traditionalism reacted with reflexive antagonism instead of reflecting and performing a "systems analysis" to study what had gone wrong. The medical scene became a war zone of confusion that continues to confound (realized or not) everywhere that Westernized medicine is practiced. Eventually, Orthopaedic Medicine developed as a discipline within medicine. Its scope includes caring for the commonest of conditions, the “aches and pains” that orthopedic surgeons willingly admit disinterests them. Unquestionably, Orthopaedic Medicine’s "Father" is Dr. James Cyriax, deceased, a British physician, author of the Textbook of Orthopaedic Medicine I & II. Unfortunately, "Jimmie" fell victim to his greatness and eventually concluded that if he could conceive of assembling such an encyclopedia of knowledge - and develop extraordinarily powerful fundamental tools for clinical examination -then all of his reasoning must have been of the same stature. It wasn't true, and he became deservedly controversial. The story is long one and requires its own space. (This statement is initially necessary because, in some minds, this controversy colors the major issue. It should not. While Dr. Cyriax was the first to begin codifying the discipline, his work does not circumscribe it.) It will be highly desirable for the purposes of Wikipedia if an Orthopaedic Medicine section be established for the full elicitation of this critically important discipline whose guidelines fulfill the requirements of a specialty. In essence, the musculoskeletal system (it can be more accurately but more complexly, described) can also be viewed as a machine where the joints, the ligaments etc. have equivalents. While problems of alignment may be expressed as pain and dysfunction, or squeaks, the effective approaches are similar, and restorative rebalancing becomes first obligation. I phrase, 'the task of the musculoskeletal clinician is to restore appropriate motion. All the rest is commentary.' The necessity is to follow all clues that are evident and commensurate with the patient's complaint. The traditional orthopedic examination is too coarse to distinguish the subtle abnormalities that traditionalism did not historically accept because "they" were doing such things. The realization is essential that the final book on the orthopaedic clinical examination has not been written. As one example of a cause for self-perpetuating therapeutic failure: the spine came to be clinically examined as if it were like a spring, with a unitary motion. The fact, of course, is that the vertebral column is a complex, multi-articulated structure whose small individual movements are normally reflexively coordinated into movements that appear to be unitary. That stated, the primary purpose of this digression is completed at this time. With respect and gratitude for the reader's attention, you are now returned to the orthopedic surgical perspectives. Contributed by Paul H. Goodley, M.D.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please get a user account. You will have more rights and be taken more seriously. Your comments above are interesting, but are not written in a style suitable for the article. They can be discussed here, and if anything usable is developed, it can be added to the article a little bit at a time. -- Fyslee 13:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced tag[edit]

I just noticed that this whole page got tagged as {unreferenced} - I think such a tag should be accompanied by a more detailed explanation on the talk page. In addition, there are lots of referenced elements to this page so such a tag might be better placed before a specific section rather than the whole page.

As such, I reverted the {unreferenced} tag. Dr Aaron 06:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Questionable edits to "History" section[edit]

By this edit an anon IP removed a big chunk of the "History" section, with what remained being obviously garbled (ending in mid-sentence, for example). The deleted material included what appeared to be some commercial puffery but also much valid information. I'm going to restore the entire deleted text and then review the part that seems dubious to me. Goodguy2 (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The addition I thought dubious was touting, in glowing terms, the work of Thomas Meredith. I thought it might be worth including, given that Meredith had an article, but that turns out to be a completely different person. The contemporary Thomas Meredith was indeed issued a patent for "Method of forming a composite bone material implant" ([2]) but it doesn't seem to have been widely discussed and doesn't merit inclusion in the article, unless someone can find sources indicating its importance. I'm removing that passage. Goodguy2 (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


Does orthopaedic surgery mean the surgery is on children, or is the word just there by historical coincidence? ƕ (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Questionable edit to "Joint replacement" section[edit]

While I do not doubt the contributions that Dr Chitranjan Singh Ranawat has made in the field of orthopedics, I am not sure how inserting his name in a sentence would add value to the article. After Googling his name, this is the best description that I could find [3]. Iiamjon (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Salary information[edit]

Anyone else think that we should just remove info from salary surveys completely from this article? Of course, if we include such information, we're going to use reliable sources rather than sites like --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, remove until a reliable source is found. Yobol (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Two disjoint language groups[edit]

There appears to be two separate clusters of languages on this topic (see below). Although they have different titles, their contents have mostly overlapping coverage. The languages that appear in both clusters (es, it) make inconsistent choices of coverage under the two titles. There is no clear rationale for this split. These two clusters should be merged. From past discussion it appears that this article was previously titled Orthopaedics or Orthopedics, which should be the preferred name.

orthopedic surgery (Q15218776) 
   ar جراحة العظام
   ca Cirurgia ortopèdica
   ckb نەشتەرگەریی ئۆرتۆپێدیک
   da Ortopædkirurgi
   en Orthopedic surgery
   es Cirugía ortopédica
   it Chirurgia ortopedica
   mk Ортопедска хиругија
   no Ortopedisk kirurgi 
orthopedics (Q216685) 
   be Артапедыя
   bg Ортопедия
   cs Ortopedie
   de Orthopädie
   el Ορθοπεδική
   eo Ortopedio
   es Ortopedia
   et Ortopeedia
   eu Ortopedia
   fa ارتوپدی
   fi Ortopedia
   fr Orthopédie
   ga Ortaipéide
   he אורתופדיה
   hi विकलांग शल्यचिकित्सा
   hr Ortopedija
   hy Օրթոպեդիա
   id Bedah ortopedi
   io Ortopedio
   it Ortopedia
   ja 整形外科学
   ka ორთოპედია
   kn ಮೂಳೆ ಶಸ್ತ್ರಚಿಕಿತ್ಸೆ
   ko 정형외과
   ky Ортопедия
   lt Ortopedija
   lv Ortopēdija
   ne हाडजोर्नी शल्यचिकित्सा
   nl Orthopedie
   no Ortopedi
   pi हाडजोर्नी शल्यचिकित्सा
   pl Ortopedia
   pt Ortopedia
   ro Ortopedie și traumatologie
   ru Ортопедия
   sa हाडजोर्नी शल्यचिकित्सा
   scn Mèdicu di l'ossa
   sh Ortopedija
   sk Ortopédia
   sl Ortopedija
   so Addimo-yaqaan
   sr Ortopedija
   sv Ortopedi
   te కీళ్ళ సంబంధిత శస్త్రచికిత్స
   th ศัลยศาสตร์ออร์โทพีดิกส์
   tr Ortopedi
   uk Ортопедія
   zh 骨科  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC) 


Closing as there seems to be an agreement that 2 is either preferred or acceptable. Jerod Lycett (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I just came across this article. I couldn't care less what it's named, but the fact that it uses both spellings throughout is really really odd on here. As such I see three options:

  1. Keep as is
  2. Keep name, and change all uses to Orthopedic
  3. Move and change all uses to Orthopaedic

I'm in favor of either 2 or 3, obviously. I've done this as an RFC to get it wide, and included it in style to have that group on here. Jerod Lycett (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


I believe leaving it as is is confusing and is the worse option. Jerod Lycett (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jerodlycett: I think the policy WP:ART1VAR might have an answer to this. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
@I dream of horses: - Hmmmmm.... WP:ART1VAR suggests we should pick option 2 or 3, right? Do you have a preference for 2 or 3? NickCT (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jerodlycett: I'd agree with NickCT below; however, ultimately whether two or three will end up going to consensus, I think. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 14:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
@I dream of horses and Jerodlycett: - Actually, I'm wondering whether we should just make the change. Looks like this was last discussed in 2011. Also looks like we have a local consensus of three editors here. I'd motion that we close this RfC and move to make the change if there are no dissenting voices in the next 24hr. NickCT (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
@NickCT and I dream of horses:I agree, in that case we should do 2 if we don't get dissent by 14:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC) Jerod Lycett (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Prefer 2. 3 is OK. Not 1. - I think I'd opt for 2 over 3 here. I'd point to WP:COMMONNAME to support this (yes, I know commonname is for article titles, but I think it applies in principle to this discussion). After a cursory simple search engine test, "orthopedic" appears to be the more common usage. That said, it looks like both usages are fairly common, so I don't 3 would be a bad resolution here. NickCT (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • 2 or 3 Consistency is paramount for any future FA candidacies. Fdssdf (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • 3 prefered, 2 ok like fdssdf said. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • 2 preferred, 3 OK A google books search finds more results for Orthopedic, And more modern results for orthopedic. Similar for google scholar. The article originated as orthopedic. There seems to be no good reason to change away from Orthopedic. Also the article uses Americanized spelling ("popularized", "utilizing", "standardized", "organization" & "hospitalizations") which would tend to point to Orthopedic. All that being said I have no problem with either option but inconsistency should be removed. Just as a note for whoever implements this, a simple find replace will not be sufficient as organisation names will need their spellings preserved. SPACKlick (talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 13 July 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Good arguments were put forward on both sides of the issue, but there is no consensus for the proposed title. No such user (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

14:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Orthopedic surgeryOrthopaedic surgery – Per WP:COMMONALITY; there is no WP:ENGVAR issue at stake, since orthopaedic institutions and publications in North America also prefer the ae spelling (an uncommon situation). That spelling is thus the actual WP:COMMONNAME in genuinely reliable sources; the e spelling is primarily used in news journalism and in signage, both of which focus on brevity above all. More detailed rationale below.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 11:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


  • Oppose. Either variant is probably fine, but the current title is probably better. Google Books is actually an excellent way to answer the question: How is this word spelled in reliable English-language sources? Which is really what we're after here - not just how do experts refer to something in their own world. And Google Books shows that orthopedic is used at more than a 2:1 ratio over orthopaedic.

    And WP:COMMONALITY cuts both ways. While ae is certainly found in a healthy minority of American books, e is found in a similarly healthy minority of British books. (Sorry rest of world - that's all that Google Books lets me zone in on.) Google Scholar prefers ae to e by less than 2:1, with a smaller corpus. And following JAMA and NEJM is hardly "dumbing down" anything.

    We already have the more common spelling, and a spelling that is universally recognized. This one ain't broke. Dohn joe (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support: if there is no reason to adopt a US spelling (which, clearly, is not even standard in the US), go for this. The ae spelling is universal, ie used all over the world, whilst the e is not. –Sb2001 talk page 14:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. The American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons,[4] spell it that way, so this means that like aluminium, it is recognised with that spelling in professional scientific circles on a worldwide basis, and hence it is a special case of WP:ENGVAR, which is not just a continental split, but there is a version with more academic and scientific commonality attached, hence we should use that.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Both spellings appear to be perfectly acceptable and in wide use, and while some evidence shows that "Orthopaedic" is more common, "Orthopedic" is more common in others, notably Google Books ([5] vs. [6]) and Google News ([7] vs. [8]). This clearly isn't an WP:ENGVAR or WP:COMMONALITY issue since both spellings are found on both sides of the Atlantic. The article was created using "Orthopedic" so WP:RETAIN carries weight here.[9]--Cúchullain t/c 14:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion[edit]

The 2016 discussion was irregular; the standard process for settling article title questions is WP:RM, and we do it this way because RM attracts analysis and input from more than just the "regulars" at a particular article. This is particularly important for compliance with the naming criteria; the very reason RM exists is that the regulars at innumerable articles often prefer titles that conflict with article title policy, a continual WP:CONLEVEL problem.

I've reopened this as a proper RM discussion, because:

  1. WP:COMMONALITY strongly suggests to use the ae spelling, which is universally recognized in English.
  2. It is the more common spelling (WP:COMMONNAME) in English, world-wide, in sources that are actually reliable on the subject (WP:RS, WP:V).
  3. There is no WP:ENGVAR argument to make; US institutions and publications that actually focus on this discipline also prefer that spelling.
  4. This is a special case, not comparable to paediatric/pediatric, encyclopaedia/encyclopedia or foetus/fetus, because the actually reliable American sources also lean toward the digraph, an uncommon situation.
  5. Google Books (heavily relied upon in the 2016 discussion) is not a source, and is full of false positives (especially in the form of unreliable publications). Even where it provides some useable information, it has to be used and interpreted very carefully, with cognizance of biases, especially in cases like this – many publications "dumb down" spellings for an American audience, and the US produces a) more books than anywhere else, and b) more low-end books than reliable sources. (NB: I say this an American.)
  6. The "just-e" spelling is primarily used in news journalism and hospital wall signage, both mediums that prioritize for compression over other concerns. WP is not written in news style, as a matter of policy. While WP does care about concision, it is not chief among the naming criteria, and as a Wikipedia matter is one of excess wording, and rarely pursued down to the single-character level, and not without very good reason.
  7. Nearly a year has passed since the above poorly-attended discussion, with only five respondents to the original poster. @SPACKlick, NickCT, I dream of horses, Fdssdf, Iazyges, and Jerodlycett: pinged for their additional input. (Previous discussion was way back in 2006.)

 — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.