Talk:Streptococcus agalactiae

message: * It would be entirely possible to make sure that both terms refer to the same article using a redirect and both terms could be used as part of the internal title ie: "Group B strep, also known as Streptococcus agalactiae, are..." The friendliness to non-medical folks can be ensured in this way. The only compelling reason to have two pages is if there actually IS a difference between the two subjects. If they are the same then having two pages creates the misleading idea that they are different. Merging is not to "save a tree", both articles would still be active, one would just redirect to the new merged article. Since so much of the information on GBS is going to be seen on SA I think a merger is in fact indicated. 
* Now that there is a separate page about GBS pathogenesis, I think it is worth re-opening the merger discussion. We have two pages for the same thing, both are of stub quality why edit them both up to higher quality with the same information  when a little explanation that the terms are synonymous and a redirect would clarify all of this. Should we really have two Wikipedias one for the specialist and one for the non-specialist? Everyone should just write clearly enough and explain themselves well enough so that all can understand.
* I am not so what to say sure about the Serephine comment. That would be the ONLY legitimate reason in my mind to keep the articles separate. However, the discussion on this page seems to have reached a consensus that I also agree to, namely that strep B and strep agalactiae are synonyms. 
* The other problem is that almost the entire article if not the whole article on group B strep is lifted VERBATIM from the CDC website and is not new material. Since its from the government it isn't copyrightable but it is still not appropriate to wholesale copy other pages to Wikipedia. A link is a more appropriate way to include a whole page. 
CharlusIngus 07:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: The terms are indeed used synonymously, also by scientists in the field such as myself. GBS is a somewhat dated term, and the continued use of it in scientific literature and clinical practice is in part tradition but also pays homage to Dr. Rebecca Lancefield who classified many different streptococcal species according to which group carbohydrate antigen they displayed on their surface. The same thing goes for group A Strep (GAS) and Streptococcus pyogenes, as well as other examples. The article by Quentin et al cited above (1) does indeed use the two terms interchangeably, although I understand how it can be misunderstood in the introduction section. Thus, a merger is appropriate.
--Janulczyk 14:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I sent this discussion off in a strange direction. Everyone considers them to be synonyms, myself included. (I can see why you might not from my poorly worded post.) The S. agalactiae article says they're synonyms. GBS says they're synonyms. Case closed. GBS is the name used in a obstetrics, and is the focus of a major public health campaign. That is the reason I started the article. Having two articles that refer to each other is user friendly for the public. I'm working on a new way to classify various articles that are shared by developmental biology, obstetrics, and popular culture.  Could we delay making a final decision on this until after the first of the year? My three children are home from college and I won't have much time to work on my proposal until then. Thanks--FloNight 15:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: This article has apparently also been suggested for merging. In my opinion the entry as such is a misnomer, and may add confusion to the terminology. GBS and S. agalactiae are the two names used for the species, clinically and scientifically. Beta strep likely refers to test results from a clinical microbiology laboratory, and I would consider it jargon. It is inappropriate in the sense that it refers to beta-haemolytic streptococci, which includes another very important species - group A streptococcus. The term is thus of a higher order, and not a species name. Beta haemolysis could be discussed under a haemolysis entry, alongside with alfa- and gamma-hemolysis and examples of typical species that exhibit this laboratory phenomenon. No offense.
--Janulczyk 16:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beta strep 

message: I noticed that Group A streptococcal infection is separated from Streptococcus pyogenes.  The former goes into the clinical aspects while the latter discusses the characteristics of the bacterium.   Perhaps the same could be done with these two articles? --Uthbrian (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think the best option would be to move Group B Streptococcus to Group B streptococcal infection and keep Streptococcus agalactiae as it is. --WS 17:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That's a possibility. Perhaps it gets more intuitive like that. Still, I'd suggest some text shuffling in that case. For instance the GBS article, 2nd paragraph, contains a more scientifically correct definition of the species, while it may be on the technical side for someone just interested in the infection(s). At the same time, S. agalactiae mentions the specific conditions afflicting the neonate, while the GBS article focuses on screening and disease prevention, from an obstetrics/midwifery point-of-view. Personally, I'd prefer one, longer entry (merge), with subheadings for the various topics. Either way, if I find the time I could expand the microbiology part significantly, and add some clinical stuff, too, on GBS disease in adults and neonatal infection. After the holidays, though. --Janulczyk 14:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I second the notion that GBS infection (the clinical angle) and S. agalactiae (the causative organism) should follow the GAS / S. pyogenes model. MarcoTolo 05:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating Streptococcus agalactiae from its infection 

message: Typically I feel it is best practice to have both an article on a disease and the organism that causes the disease. Thus we have HIV and AIDS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge of Group B Strep Infection

message: Where does the name come from?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.47.136.243 (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I added some info on that to the page. Sorry I'm a bit late! Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name