Talk:Human blood group systems

Physiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to blood.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This 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.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives (index)

1

Article -> List?

Should this page be made into a List? I feel that Blood type provides sufficient Background (history, content, explanations etc.) to the reader for this article only to be a list that complements the Blood type article. Otherwise, we would just repeat all content written in Blood type article in own subheadings here. That seems unnecessary. Thoughts on this? --Treetear (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that seems like a good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - Blood type seems the right place for the broader explanation. CharlesSpencer (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, now that more prose has been added to the article since the comments above. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

contradictory?

As of today there is a "contradictory" flag after the approximate number of minor blood groups. Why is that there without any further discussion? Which article does this contradict?
77.138.224.125 (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I presume it's because the "200+ minor blood groups" number contradicts Blood type "across the 36 blood groups, over 340 different blood-group antigens have been found,", and Rh blood group system "the Rh blood group system is one of thirty-five known human blood group systems," and a number of other locations. It seems like it should clarify that these numbers refer to "major blood groups", and the "200+" number refers to both major and minor blood groups, if that is true. AMWJ (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Augustine

Right now the wikilink for Augustine group links to Augustine of Hippo. Don’t see how that’s relevant, unless he discovered/had that blood type. 97.116.94.89 (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Information inconsistent with Blood type

"38 major human systems are identified as of August 2019"

at line 11 is inconsistent with

"As of 2019, a total of 41 human blood group systems are recognized by the International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT)" at line 15 of the latter article.

I'm requesting help with updating this info in both articles —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 19:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CrafterNova - both pages are outdated, it's 43 now. I've updated the articles. Spicy (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ;) —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 03:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Blood Group System 'Er'

In case people haven't seen this:

"Scientists Have Discovered a New Set of Blood Groups". Wired. 4 Oct 2022. Retrieved 6 Oct 2022.

- PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 07:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]