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
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]
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]
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]
"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.
Please stop changing Rh to Rhesus. Rh is the official and correct term as per the ISBT. The term 'Rhesus' is incorrect and antiquated. If Rhesus has to be mentioned at all it should be a reference to the historical and incorrect use. Eg 'previously known as Rhesus'. 2A01:4B00:D206:8000:45AC:B66E:D597:87BB (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
