Talk:Infectious disease (medical specialty)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Recent move[edit]

The page was moved from Infectious disease (medical specialty) to Infectious medicine. I do not believe the move was indicated, as the sources call the specialty "Infectious disease", not "infectious medicine". It should probably be moved back. Yobol (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The MeSH D055552 heading is "Infectious Disease Medicine". Aside from the caps, it would seem apt. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't "seem apt" to me. In 34 years of practicing medicine I have never used the term "infectious medicine", nor have I heard anyone else use it. There are no infectious medicines that I'm aware of, only infectious diseases. "Infectious disease medicine" does not equal "infectious medicine", and will serve only to confuse. Move it back. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 03:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, because respiratory medicine is medicine that breathes? -- CFCF 馃崒 (email) 04:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I was unclear. The MeSH heading seems apt, more so than either the old or the new article title. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Let's look at the three options:
I could go on, but you get the picture. Almost every major medical English speaking body calls it "infectious disease" (in US) or "infectious disseases" (British English).
  • "Infectious disease medicine": A google search of the phrase in parantheses shows almost all of the pages that contain this phrase preferentially calls the specialty "infectious disease" only, either in the title or in the text.
From the above, the reliable sources uses the phrase "infectious disease", not "infectious medicine" or "infectious disease medicine". This page should be moved back to the previous title. Yobol (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)\
If you take a longer time looking through the results you will find more countries use the term as well, but I'm not disagreeing with you that a different term could/should be used, but the previous title ensured we had 0 readers in the last 90 days, I don't see why you are against trying to find another title. There is policy that regards titles in parenthesis to be poor practice: WP:MEDMOS. -- CFCF 馃崒 (email) 19:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
So, let me see if I have the logic straight: The previous title hasn't attracted any recent readers -- so let's change it to a title that is used far less often, and by no one outside of Scandinavia who actually practices the specialty. Is this your reasoning? Are we now changing article titles in an attempt to boost readership? If the "Relativity" article didn't attract any readers for awhile, would you change it to "Banana" to see what might happen? WP should use the name used by the vast majority of reliable sources, not to mention the subject itself. Yobol has adequately summarized that situation above. Nobody, so far, agrees with your move. Please move it back. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The policy reason is wp:NATURAL. Variations can as always be handled by redirects where needed, as from "Infectious diseases medicine", "Infectious diseases and tropical medicine", "Infectious disease and tropical medicine" etc? It really is not a Big Deal. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Except that the current title is clearly the wrong title, and is not even used by native English speakers. If we're going to use a name for the subspecialty, why don't we use the name every single major medical source uses to call it, rather than a made up one that is used by only non-native English speakers? While it was not by any stretch of the imagination popular, the number of page views was >> zero, so I'm not sure where CFCF is getting their stats. In the end, it may not be a Big DealTM, but it is clear that one outcome is the correct outcome here, and if we're going to do something, let's do it right. Yobol (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

That is completely wrong. If you actually look through the pages I linked you'll find the term used by the NHS at least here. I'm not adverse to another title, but restoring the original one is wrong and claiming that the current one isn't a correct term is completely wrong. (Also wasn't working properly when I checked it, so sorry for that). -- CFCF 馃崒 (email) 22:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

One English speaking hospital vs the vast majority of the highest quality English speaking sources? Come on. I see no argument against the fact that the term "Infectious disease" is the one used by the overwhelming majority of sources as the actual name of the specialty. This appears like post hoc justification of the decision to move rather than a careful analysis of the sources, and letting the sources dictate what the title should be. 00:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


Does anyone dispute that the term "infectious disease" is, by far, the most common term for the name of the specialty as used by the reliable sources that describe it? Yobol (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
No. -- CFCF 馃崒 (email) 05:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Then why aren't we using it as the title for the page about the specialty? Yobol (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, why aren't we? Is this just stubbornness? We all make mistakes; let's all just agree that this was an understandable but bad idea, and change it back. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Because we never had that title at this article from the beginning. That title is a redirect to Infection. -- CFCF 馃崒 (email) 13:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
This is getting more convoluted by the day. The first post (above) says that the original title -- the one you changed to "infectious medicine" -- was "Infectious disease (medical specialty)". Are you saying that that is not correct? What we are suggesting is that "Infectious disease (medical specialty)" is the correct title for the article. Could we make that so, please? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I like "infectious disease specialist". It keeps the common term within medicine and adds a bit of common usage / sense. I tell patients that I have "consulted the infectious disease specilist" not i have consulted infectious disease as the latter just makes them confused. Doc James (talkcontribsemail) 19:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    • But I guess if we want to keep it consistent with other ologies rather than about the person within the ology we need something else. Might be an okay compromise though. Doc James (talkcontribsemail) 19:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm all for compromises when there is a need, but I don't see the need here. No one disputes that "infectious disease" is, by far, the most common term used by reliable sources and physicians -- and ID docs themselves -- to refer to the specialty. That should be the title of the article. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Doc James that most readers will be confused by us using the term infectious disease for the speciality, and using either Infectious disease medicine or Infectious disease specialist is in my view preferable. Also I will point out I do not think I have been unreasonable anywhere in the discussion for not moving the article back, I can not move the article back to the title where it was before, only an administrator can do that (I do not agree that things should work this way, but they do). Neither was I unreasonable when I stated the term "infectious medicine" existed, I never promoted its use over the other terms, only stating that it was a valid term. -- CFCF 馃崒 (email) 19:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree that "infectious medicine" is a valid term, if by "valid" you mean "in widespread usage"; but that is irrelevant, since we all seem to agree that the one title we do not want is that one. And I don't see why readers would be "confused by us using the term infectious disease for the name of the speciality" -- because that IS the name of the specialty! If you are okay with the choice of "infectious disease specialist", what is wrong with the original title, "Infectious disease (medical specialty)", which leaves no confusion as to the specialty's name? I don't recall anyone accusing you of being unreasonable -- although I did wonder why you chose to unilaterally move the article and then seek discussion, rather than vice versa -- but I do think we should make a choice, and then get some administrative help in making the change -- because clearly, the present title is confusing to anyone outside of Scandinavia. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC for appropriate title of this page[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
move back to Infectious disease (medical specialty). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

What is the most appropriate title for this page, which is the page discussing the medical specialty?


  • Move back to "Infectious disease (medical specialty)". "Infectious medicine" is not widely used in native speaking English countries. As per the following sources, the term "infectious disease" is the most widely used term for the name of the specialty, so it needs to be moved back.
  • support its "infectious disease" that constitutes a better article title--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: the UK source actually states "infectious disease and tropical medicine". In my experience, i.e not a reliable source, there is no such specialty in the UK. Sometimes there are academics who study "tropical medicine", but in secondary care there is no such service. If anyone is feeling like some research, it would be very interesting to see some sources from countries other than the US to get a more global picture. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to "infectious diseases" (plural). Even in the USA, "infectious diseases" seems to be the accepted term. Heaven knows why it had to be moved. JFW | T@lk 20:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to infectious disease specialist as it decreases the confusion with infectious disease Doc James (talkcontribsemail) 10:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. In the UK, "Infectious diseases" is the most common name for the specialty. I accept that other countries might use the singular. "Infectious medicine" sounds like it is a treatment that involves actively delivering an infection—perhaps phage therapy. Axl [Talk] 11:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support move to infectious disease specialist per Doc James. -- CFCF 馃崒 (email) 20:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • [[[Infectious disease specialist]] seems to be the least convoluted and simplest title, so I support a move there. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. Please see below. The article is about the specialty, not the specialist. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 02:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Can I add exclamation points? I know I.D. sounds funny relative to other medical specialties, but it is the correct name. Specialist(s) can be talked about within the context of the specialty, as per usual. "Infectious diseases" are not the same as "Infectious Disease (medical specialty)", which is why the use of a parenthetical is crucial. Alaynestone (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Infection disease medicine as my first choice, and infection disease (medical specialty) as my second. Alternatively, if you see the subject as being bigger than "physicians with a particular legal status", then you can move the page to Infectology and thereby make it perfectly clear that it's about the study of infectious diseases and not about employment prospects. I agree with JFW and others that it's inappropriate to have a "branch of medicine" article named after a job title. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Move back to "Infectious disease (medical specialty)". "Infectious medicine" is not widely used in native speaking English countries. The article is about the medical specialty as per the first comment.
  Bfpage |leave a message  08:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


Query Who would be looking for Infectious disease (non-medical specialty)? Why not just Infectious disease specialist? it is simpler, more natural without the parentheses, and more commonly used (in publication titles) than Infectious disease medicine per this vice this. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

good point--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Because the article is about the specialty, not the specialist. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. I support (yet again) the original title, "Infectious disease (medical specialty)", for all the reasons I have already given, plus those enumerated by Yobol (above). The article is indeed about the field itself, which is why "infectious disease specialist" is a less accurate title. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree, every other specialty has the title about the specialty (the field of study), not the specialist (the person working in that field). Yobol (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Who would be looking for Infectious disease (non-medical specialty)? Anyone who wants to find out what an infectious disease is. But I know what you mean. We can't really do Infectious disease (medicine), because that would be ambiguous. (Imagine that the cardiologists had a similarly awkward name: Would you expect "Heart disease (medicine)" go to Heart disease or to Heart disease (medical specialty)?) Why not "Infectious disease (specialty)?" We could probably do that, although it's not my favorite. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Point taken. Infectious disease (specialty) seems reasonable, and a significant improvemnt over the current title. Yobol (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment/Query According to the article on Infection, "The branch of medicine that focuses on infections is called infectiology." There are no citations, but this also has some of usage. The article seems to focus more on the treatment and management, where the term infectiology seems to relate more to the study. However, this is termed a "branch of medicine". I note this article is a stub, and none exists for infectiology. Should this article, then, be titled infectiology, or should the Infection page be changed for consistency, and this article expanded to also include the study of infection (aka infectiology)? -- Forridean (T/C) 03:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Infectionology seems to be a term used mostly by non-English speaking websites. We should probably change the infection page to direct mention of the study of infections to wherever we decide is the appropriate title of this page. Yobol (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
In 34 years of practicing medicine, I have never once heard either of those terms ("infectiology" or "infectionology") until today. And speaking of deciding the appropriate title of this article, could we do it, already? The discussion has been open for over a month. I vote, once again, for Infectious disease (medical specialty), which was the proper title all along per WP:COMMONNAME, etc, etc, etc. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree, it is time. There seems to be enough consensus, but more importantly, there seems to be an overwhelming number of authoritative sources that support the proposed title. Thanks for the insight on "infectiology" -- it was a totally new term to me as well (though I do not practice medicine). Let's rename this page, and I'll update the Infection page to point to this one. -- Forridean (T/C) 21:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Peer Review for Alankiangucsf[edit]

Great edits! Below are some of my thoughts and recommendations:

1) Introduction paragraph:

- Very reader friendly. Good summary.

2) Scope

- 1st paragraph: might be helpful to clarify the meaning of 鈥渇ever of unknown origin鈥 and describe more in detail about the steps of workup (finding source, source control, etc)

- 2nd paragraph: nice point about how ID specialists may improve patient outcome in the inpatient. Might be nice to just put in there that in some hospitals, ID specialists get an automatic consult due to shown improved outcomes (ie. MRSA in blood culture)

- Are there any other chronic infections besides HIV/AIDS or forms of immunodeficiencies that are managed by ID specialists? Might be helpful to include some more examples.

3) History

- Really interesting point! Might be interesting to add how the field has evolved over time from travel and tropical medicine to inpatient and outpatient medicine.

4) Investigation

- Might be useful to mention in very general terms the bugs they look for (bacteria, viruses, parasites) and which tests are used for which category of bugs

5) Treatments

- Concise, easy to understand paragraph.

6) Training

- Might be nice to specify the official name for the ID boards and also it鈥檇 be interesting to know the percentage of MDs who choose to specialize in ID

- Might also be interesting to look into what the qualification criteria are in other major countries


Concise, very easy to read, overall nice introduction to infectious disease as a medical specialty. Definitely tailored to your intended audience. Nicely organized with subheadings. Might be interesting to expand in the History and Training sections (see above). Great job overall! 鈥 Preceding unsigned comment added by Yiciz89 (talkcontribs) 01:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Infectious disease (medical specialty). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.鈥InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)