Talk:Blood type/Archive 1

message: Reorganising the redirects to point to the new categories now.
Please, if you change anything on this page REMEMBER TO CHECK "WHAT LINKS HERE" and correct links to subcategories on this page if you change the organisation.
Thanks, and best of luck to all editors who help with this rather complicated article yet still in need of much much more detail (especially with regards to the different blood type systems and what they actually are - there is currently no information at all.
--Chaosfeary 10:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirects (Bombay phenotype, O negative, etc)

message: "When a type AB parent has a type O child, or when one type A and one type O parent produce a type AB child, it is sometimes mistakenly assumed that the child MUST be illegitimate."
Why would that be mistaken? Doesn't it follow from the article that this inheritances must be impossible? Are there other mechanisms that would change the inheritance rule? - Marcika 14:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone doesn't elaborate the "h" protein (which is modified to become "A" or "B") they will test as type O by routine testing, even though they may have inherited an "A" or "B" gene from their parents. See Bombay phenotype. Very popular phenomenon in soap operas, not so much so in real life. - Nunh-huh 21:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also a rare mutation called cis-AB whereby an AB child can inherit both A and B from one parent: Hummel, K.; Badet, J.; Bauermeister, W.; et. al: Inheritance of cis-AB in three generations (family Lam.). Vox Sang. 33: 290-298, 1977. PubMed ID : 919419 apers0n 18:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inheritance AB --> 0 

message: The page seems to use "blood group" and "blood type" interchangeably. Is this intentional? If so, it should be explained before "blood group" is used for the first time. Fpahl 09:19, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "group" and "type" used as synonyms 

message: What is the process used to learn the blood type?  I came to this topic for such a discussion and didn't.  Only the intro gave a clue with "substances (carbohydrates and proteins) on the cell membrane" -- Sy / (talk) 21:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most often you would use a latex agglutination test. It detects antigen in a sample using antibody bound to a bead or other visible material.  A positive reaction causes the beads to clump together. The bead clumps can be seen with the naked eye. A negative reaction leaves the latex beads in solution and looks milky.  If beads coated with anti-"A" antibody cause clumping, you have the "A" gene; if beads coated with anti-"B" antibody cause clumping, you have the "B" gene.  A "type and crossmatch" used before transfusion is a more detailed and comprehensive test. - <unknown user> 21:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: The simple way to learn one's blood type is to give blood - let's add this to the article. My blood donor card, which I carry in my wallet, lists my blood type. -Elvey 20:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Learning one's blood type 

message: Under "Social significance" the article states:
:In the United States, few African Americans donate blood, resulting in a shortage of U-negative and Duffy-negative blood for African American patients.
However, the U-negative type is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, and Duffy-negative only briefly mentioned (and its significance to African-Americans remains unexplained). neckro 01:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  U-negative 

message: What is the evolutionary purpose of blood types? Why did they evolve and what purpose do they serve for us? --203.26.206.129 12:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's anyone's guess. Some blood types give a slightly decreased risk of thrombosis (type O), which may explain why this essentially "truncated" form is so prevalent. If you come accross any useful information, could you insert it in the article? JFW | T@lk 23:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolution

message: The article says Evolutionary biologists theorize that the A allele evolved earliest, followed by O and then B. Does anyone know the source of this claim? The UK blood service's website says that it is O which is the oldest, followed by A then B. Who is right? MyNameIsClare talk 1 July 2005 11:13 (UTC)
Chimps have dominant A and a little O, and gorillas dominant B with a little O. Humans have supposedly evolved from a common ancestor, and we have over 95% identity with the chimp genome... So A being the "oldest" is extremely likely. O is a mutation.
--Ody 20:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the articles on Human evolutionary genetics and Convergent evolution. --apers0n 09:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earliest Blood Group? 

message: === Proposal to split Japan's Blood Type Theories of Personality ===
I propose that the Japan's Blood Type Theories of Personality section should be split into another article.  It is independently notable, and a notable article of this length shouldn't be embedded in another article.  Also, this theory is widely considered to be pseudoscience outside of Japan, and does not belong with an article that is predominantly medical/scientific interest. The Hokkaido Crow 06:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no preferred blood type in Japan, it's situational.  On the surface, it's all about gauging compatibility between people.  Below the surface, it's a way to justify preconceived conclusions about a person or group of people.  From direct observation, it seems to me that the traits the Japanese like to ascribe to "Type O" also coincide with traits that they ascribe to stereotypes of Westerners.  Well, やっぱり ... looks like "Type O" is more common in Westerners than Japanese.  211.128.87.99 07:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Anyone's guess, but quite likely. If you can offer a source, it may be worthy of inclusion in the article. JFW | T@lk 23:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: From what I've learned about Japanese culture and my own personal deductions, I would say that the Japanese Blood Type Theory is the founding reason why video games often list blood types in character stats. Because most Japanese people know the personality traits assigned to each blood type, companies put them in character stats in order to inform people of the character's personality in a shortened way.Spacegirl92 06:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  JFW | T@lk 06:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Japan's blood type theory of personality

message: I propose that the Japan's Blood Type Theories of Personality section should be split into another article.  It is independently notable, and a notable article of this length shouldn't be embedded in another article.  Also, this theory is widely considered to be pseudoscience outside of Japan, and does not belong with an article that is predominantly medical/scientific interest. The Hokkaido Crow 06:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to split Japan's Blood Type Theories of Personality 

message: I removed the section stating that Japan researched blood type because "Western scientists were using blood type information as a sign of Asian inferiority because B type is common among asians and animals" (paraphrase).  After exhaustive searching, I am prepared to say that this is probably an urban legend.  Google turns up nothing more detailed than this... certainly no names of these Western scientists or Western countries in which they supposedly studied.  This assertion should stay out of the article until someone can find an original source for it.  The Hokkaido Crow 07:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivation of Japanese blood type research 

message: In Japan, a popular belief is that personality is related to blood type. From the preponderance of some blood type in a population, "experts" claim to be able to deduce the character of that population. The "experts" also believe that they can calculate how well the blood types of different people match. A Japanese employer could therefore aim to get a proper mix of blood types among their personnel. Am i correct to assume Japanese prefer blood type B? I just assumed that because blood tpye B is more common in Asia.
:There's no preferred blood type in Japan, it's situational.  On the surface, it's all about gauging compatibility between people.  Below the surface, it's a way to justify preconceived conclusions about a person or group of people.  From direct observation, it seems to me that the traits the Japanese like to ascribe to "Type O" also coincide with traits that they ascribe to stereotypes of Westerners.  Well, やっぱり ... looks like "Type O" is more common in Westerners than Japanese.  211.128.87.99 07:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious which blood type do japanese prefer? 

message: Is this why Japanese video games like Street Fighter will often list blood type in character stats? Kent Wang 20:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone's guess, but quite likely. If you can offer a source, it may be worthy of inclusion in the article. JFW | T@lk 23:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: From what I've learned about Japanese culture and my own personal deductions, I would say that the Japanese Blood Type Theory is the founding reason why video games often list blood types in character stats. Because most Japanese people know the personality traits assigned to each blood type, companies put them in character stats in order to inform people of the character's personality in a shortened way.Spacegirl92 06:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese video games 

message: It turns out there are more factors including antibodies that can make a donor incompatible with a recipient. Although antigen-wise O- is universal, it would be irresponsible for a doctor to ever perform a transfusion without testing/crossmatching for compatibility...unless it's an extreme emergency or something. Worth mentioning?
http://www.bloodbook.com/compat.html
http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?objectid=AB16D400-5BEC-4C6E-8DFE285852B1692A
http://www.crestwoodmedcenter.com/CustomPage.asp?PageName=Lab%20-%20Bloodbanking
: JFW | T@lk 06:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universal Donors? 

message: With the talk of inheriting blood types, I would be inclined to link this article to somewhere in the genetics category.  Please give feedback as to whether you think this should be done.  If I get enough positive feedback, I will add the link.
CanadaGirl
:Be bold. I've added it now. JFW | T@lk 15:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New category? 

message: What would happen if I received a transfusion from someone who had an incompatible blood type? Are we talking the blood just won't "take" and my kidneys would remove it, or are we talking an instant, painful death? It's addressed briefly in the introduction, but is that all there is to it? (EDIT: I should add that this is just morbid curiosity)
:It depends on the nature of the incompatibility, but an Arh- patient receiving Brh+ may develop a severe reaction with acute haemolysis, respiratory failure and renal failure. Whether this is particularly painful I don't know (thankfully this is rare), but you are correct that the clinical pattern of transfusion reaction should be mentioned somewhere (or at blood transfusion). JFW | T@lk 16:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps is should also be present but in more detail on the blood transfusion page, which is well developed.  A list of types of transfusion reaction is on the blood transfusion article. Snowman 18:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incompatibility 

message: I tried to do some cleaning up, but immediately realised that the old format was a lot better. I don't think we need subsections on every one of the ABO system. It clutters and distracts. Most of this information can be explained briefly in some prose and then elaborated in clear tables. For example, a table could state that a person with AB can receive all types, that RBCs express both A and B, and that the world prevalence is 4%.
It would be wrong to classify Kell, Kidd etc as "blood types". They are part of a person's extended RBC antigen pattern, which is identified as part of blood transfusion screening. They are not alternatives to ABO. Someone can be A Rh+ve and be positive or negative for Kell at the same time. The only problem is that in people negative for these epitopes, administration of a batch of positive blood will give rise to antibodies which may complicate further transfusions.
 is commended for the work on the article, but I think we need to decide together what improvements can be made. JFW | T@lk 23:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have looked endlessly for the Decastrello & Spurli reference. It seems to be unavailable online. Does anyone know the full reference? JFW | T@lk 00:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: Calling again for the Decastrello & Spurli reference. I've scoured Google endlessly, but it seems impossible to find the reference. JFW | T@lk 13:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps some of this (and the references) could go on the artile page. Snowman 16:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Added history to external links on Blood Type page, also references and external link to ABO page --apers0n 06:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decastrello & Spurli 

message: I took this out becuase while basically correct it is not to do with blood types in the generally used sense.  (There are another 140 or so Haemoglobin variants mostly of no significance, if one wanted to get into that).
"The autosomal recessive disorder sickle-cell anemia (so named because it causes red blood cells to become flatter and sickle-shaped) is found primarily in people of African descent; while this condition causes significant health problems, the same gene also gives resistance to malaria. This resistance is a dominant trait, so somebody who inherits only one copy of the sickle-cell gene enjoys better resistance to malaria without the problems of anemia. This offers carriers an evolutionary advantage in malaria-prone areas, an example of heterozygote advantage.
"  
Goood article, people, rambles a little perhaps. Midgley 19:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haemoglobin S is an example of an hemoglobinopathy and it is not a blood group. Snowman 18:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haemoglobin S not a blood type 

message: I'm not a geneticist, but the tables in Blood_type#Rh_factor_frequency and Blood_type#Inheritance_2 seem to disagree. If Rh- is recessive and the incidence of the Rh- allele is 3% (0.03) in the African population, shouldn't the occurrence of Rh- blood should be (0.03)2 = 0.0009 = 0.09% rather than the 0.9% stated in the table? Similarly, shouldn't an allele frequency of 1% in the non-African, non-European population translate to a factor frequency of 0.01% rather than the 0.1% stated? The European figure looks right, though; allele frequency = 40% = 0.4, 0.42 = 0.16 = 16% as stated.
I'm guessing somebody did these calculations in their head and just lost a decimal place; it's easy enough to do when working with percentages. Would be much obliged if somebody could check and correct either myself or the article. --Calair 23:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your logic, but what if Rh neg people are grouped in villages. Snowman 13:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That could account for it in theory, but I'd be surprised if inter-group mixing was low enough to allow for those numbers in practice; since both disagree with the theoretical answer by a factor of exactly 10, I think a calculation error is the most likely explanation. --Calair 02:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actual blood group frequency (some approximations) and not theoretical calculation now used in table. Snowman 18:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad data in Rh frequency tables?

message: If O allele is recessive, how did type O came to be the most frequent?
:Because it's common enough that a lot of people inherit two copies of it. If the incidence of O allele is ~ 65%, then the chance that you'll get two copies of it is 0.65 x 0.65 ~ 40%, so we have roughly 40% type O, with the rest split between A, B, and AB.
: If A, B, and O alleles were all equally common (33% each), we'd expect to see only 11% of the population with O, 33% with A, 33% with B, and 22% with AB - but as it happens, O is significantly more common than A or B. A recessive allele that's common enough can still become the most frequently expressed. --Calair 02:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  prevalence of blood types 

message: Should this page blood type be merged with the the page Rhesus factor? Snowman 17:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose merge. There's lots more to say about Rhesus factor than what's currently in that article. --David Iberri (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the present time there more on this page than the Rhesus factor artical page. Snowman 13:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Rhesus factor 

message: How should HDN be included on this page?
Wiki HDN, Rh disease and ABO HDN pages have evolved quite a lot over the last 3 months. Snowman 18:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Essentials of HDN reworded and shortened on blood type page, but linked to wiki HDN pages. Snowman 14:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hemolytic disease of the newborn 

message: How should blood compatibility be represented on this page?
Perhaps some of the contents on the blood type article page in the section headed "Compatability" would be better placed on the blood transfusion page.
The article page on blood transfusion is well developed. Snowman 14:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood transfusion 

message: I think there is an error in "plasma compatibility chart".
See the french "groupe sanguin"
--194.206.242.93 19:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I swapped the 'donor' and 'recipient' labels around, which should fix that table & is more consistent with the previous one. The section still needs cleanup, though (some of the stuff below those tables has been transplanted from elsewhere, and now points back at its own section). --Calair 00:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error ??

message: It seems to me than wiki tables are more difficult that html tables.  Can anyone iron out some of the structural irregularities in the compatibility tables? Snowman 13:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki tables 

message: I have reordered the columns at the first "Distribution of main Blood types" table; I think it makes more sense if it displays first the X+ blood types, then the X- blood types, instead of decreasing frequencies (especially if someone later adds another country's stats). ctgPi 04:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood type frequencies 

message: Does rare blood types need to be included into this section? or should it be place on its own?
With rare blood types I mean the 600 know antigen besides ABO and Rhesus e.g U-, RzRz, jK (a- b-), Di (b-), Dr (a-), Kp (b-) in order for some one how has the following blood type to understand what it is?: O Rh-,D-C-E-c+e+,M+S-,Le(a-),K-,Fy(a+b),Jk(a+b-)CMV- ??
:Ideally, I think there ought to be a separate subpage for each of the 26 well-characterised blood group systems, with overview information on the main page. All of the blood types in the example fall into one of these, and are not regarded as rare blood types. The final CMV- is not a blood type, but indicates the fact that the person in question does not have antibodies against cytomegalovirus. --vibo56 talk 15:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad you mention overall organisation.  I think that there is probably too much clumped onto this page.  The 26 blood groups (and the rear groups) could have there own pages.  The blood type page would become a core page with links to all the other blood groups and blood group related topic pages. Some people prefere a lot of information clumped onto one page.  However, my vote is for separate pages.  Any more votes?  Snowman 15:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rare blood types 

message: It's nice to have such a well-designed page to start with for MCOTW! Excellent work! I think that Snowman's thoughts above are right on. This could be a nice portal-esque page into the wide world of transfusion medicine. It's certainly likely to be the place that most laypeople would look when searching for information about a wide variety of blood type related information. I think that this article would do well to use the summary style which is popular on large subjects undergoing featured article consideration. 
*Organization - I think that the lead is too long, too involved, and not in lay terms. I think that changing the structure to one more reminiscent of the medicine template (ie history last) would be somewhat beneficial, though I think that information about the ABO/Rh groups should be at the top because they represent the most common introductions to blood type. Much of the ABO blood group and Rhesus information could be off-loaded into separate articles and ABO delinked from this page. Creation of individual antigen pages would be nice - I've created a list of human blood group systems but will await comments before replacing the list currently in the article. Bombay phenotype and McLeod phenotype could go on their respective system pages and/or could have their own pages created. I think that compatibility and human diseases (such as HDN) should stay on this page, though separate articles could also go into more depth. I think that transfusion medicine should be expanded and the platelet/FFP information should be placed there. 
These are just my preliminary thoughts and I'd love to hear what everyone else (especially those who have done so much good work here!) thinks. I'll hopefully help out a little in the next few days, but will be away from civilization throughout the month of July and hope to come back to a featured article! InvictaHOG
:*Regarding the list of blood types you created: It's no longer in sync with the main article, and contains a couple of errors. I suggest that we avoid the redlinks, and create the links when someone writes an article on a particular blood group system. --vibo56 talk 23:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi .. I don't think that each of the systems needs a separate article, there is too many of them and there is not so many literature on all of them. Maybe we could add short descriptions to the list, I mean for the systems that are not so common. ackoz  21:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's lots of literature on the clinically relevant systems. As far as I know, all but one of the numbered systems have had their genes cloned. I certainly agree that ABO and Rh should be made separate pages, and have been thinking of starting these, but haven't gotten any further than to print out some recent review papers on ABO and Rh. It wouldn't hurt to have a separate subpage for each of the  26, as well as a page for high-frequency antigens, and a page for low-frequency antigens. --vibo56 talk 22:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that each antigen system should have its own page. Especially as their functions become better understood, there will be a lot to include. I have synced the list with the main page and would be appreciative if you'd point out the errors so they can be fixed! Lists such as the one currently on the page do not fly at FAC and using the separate page is at least one way to go. I prefer to make redlinks when I feel that an article should be created. I think that all of the antigens should be created, so I think that it makes sense to link them now instead of having to go back later! I think that a separate page for the "minor blood group antigens" in addition to the list also makes sense. InvictaHOG 02:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the errors, please see my comment below. --vibo56 talk 11:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts about organization, the way forward 

message: Something that is missing from the article is the distribution of blood types around the world. See also http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_3.htm --WS 21:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that was too quick there is already a table with some of this information in the article. A map would be nice though. --WS 21:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dont think we can use them. ackoz  22:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Distribution of blood types

message: In creating the template, I've set up a few other new pages for anyone who would like to share their expertise. I created a transfusion reaction page which is pretty stubby but should discuss the common reactions and should be plugged into the "request for expansion" on the transfusion page when done. I've created Transfusion-related immunomodulation to round out the red links associated with that. There are still multiple antigen systems to work on, but I've added Kell, Kx antigen, and Kidd antigen. And then there's this article. I think that it will improve when we can draw on the supporting pages. We still need really nice ABO and Rhesus factor pages. Others have mentioned writing them so I'll hold off for now. However, I think that they will be key to allowing work on this particular page to go forward with summary style, etc. The Bombay information needs to be moved off onto an ABO page. We need to meticulously reference all of the statements that remain. I think that we should expand the clinical importance section of the article and maybe discuss acquired changes in blood type/antigens in a small section. InvictaHOG 03:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know how was waiting for who, but I have move Rh system and ABO system to own pages to move things along.  I am not sure where history of Rh and ABO systems will go.  Links and redirects need attention.  Snowman 12:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have summarised the history in the ABO and Rhesus sections and moved the whole of each section to the relevant pages as there is a link to those pages at the head of each section. apers0n 08:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Bombay phenotype: the following now redirect to ABO_blood_group_system#Bombay_phenotype: Bombay blood; Bombay Blood; Bombay blood type; Bombay Blood Type; Bombay Blood type; Bombay blood Type; Bombay Phenotype; Bombay phenotype; Substance H.  apers0n 09:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  New page: Hh antigen system. The above redirects now point to that page. apers0n 16:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: These sentences have been on the page unquestioned for a long time and I do not known who contributed them; I appreciate your thoroughness.  Are they facts or not facts? Snowman 08:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "The intro states that the ISBT recognises 26 systems. The table lists 29. Something is wrong here. Number 3 and 28 appear to refer to the same system. Moreover, Issit and Anstee (Applied blood group serology 4th edition, Montgomery Scientific publications, 1998) state that "The Ii collection does not satisfy the criteria established by the ISBT working party for designation as a blood group system" (page 277). The ISBT working party insists that there has to be absolute genetic independence, before enumerating a new blood group system. When such evidence is absent, the term antigen collection is used. Thus, Ii is an antigen collection, and not a blood type system. Regarding GIL, I'm not sure about whether independence is established, but since the gene has been cloned and the human genome has been sequenced, this should be knowable. 62.16.189.71 19:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "Looking at the ISBT website again it says: "Blood group collections (Table 3): genetically-, biochemically-, or serologically-related sets of antigens, which do not fulfill the criteria for system status"  includes I and Glob, although these are also listed on table 1 (Blood group systems) - updated 2004. Is this a contradiction? --apers0n 06:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: A transfusion reaction page does igsist and link made to it in box. Snowman 13:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the entire article needs a thorough referencing. This should certainly be done prior to peer review. I'm not personally a fan of "trivia" sections in articles and would probably favor excision or incorporation of them in most cases. InvictaHOG 09:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Developing other pages 

message: The page on antigen tables from the iccbba website  has moved again, and couldn't find anything in archive org, so the reference now just points to the iccbba main page. --apers0n 05:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link 

message: Can Rhesus D Pos and Rhesus D Neg be added?  Or is this an idea for a new svg.  It might be informative to see visually that although RhD antigens (if Rh D positive) are present on RBC's there is normally no antibodies, (and that if they do occur they are usaully, but not always IgG).  The Rhesus part can go on the rhesus page, the ABO part can go on the ABO page (I have just made a link on the ABO page - the svg looks fine there) and a combined image can go on the blood type page.  Or does this sound too complicated?  This expanded svg can go in ABO & Rh section of the blood type page.  Snowman 09:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll work on several different ways to present it and see what looks best. Probably over the next week, since I'm in a stretch here of overnight shifts. InvictaHOG 03:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just finished a cold agglutinin svg and will work on a few others as time permits. InvictaHOG 05:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With different headings and caption this svg would also work on the agglutination (biology) artical page.  It would also work on the blood groups page with yet different headings and caption in the compatibility section.  I do not known how to edit the headings of the svg.  Snowman 10:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I can do it if you let me know - I didn't know if you'd prefer to have an IgG/Coombs type on the agglutination page or if you'd rather have one side with and one side without IgM (either of which would be easy!). I'm almost done with the ABO and Bombay antigen diagram (I am done but want to sit on it for a few days) InvictaHOG 14:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point; agglutination (biology) would include both IgG Coombs type agglutination and IgM agglutination.  There is a schematic on the Coombs page. Snowman 08:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABO_blood_type.svg 

message: found that some Duffy negative children have been infected by P. Vivax. The wording in the article, which mentions Fy- as protective should ideally reflect these new findings. --apers0n 18:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duffy antigen and malaria 

message: I wanted to know about Blood Subgroups. I infer from this article that a person from AB group can accept blood of AB group.  I'm A1B+ve.  Does that mean I can accept blood from A2B as well?  Vyas b 18:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In principle the subgroups of A have the same antigenicity and are therefore compatible, but transfusion based purely on ABO group is only done in an emergency. Should the A subgroup issue be added to this article or the cross-matching article? --apers0n 19:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that A1B can be mistaken for B blood group and this is a problem.  A1 is less antigenic than A2. Snowman 00:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that the most obvious place for A1 and A2 is on the ABO blood group page. Snowman 11:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AB / A1B / A2B 

message: How are you supposed to know what blood type you are? Do you just look at the descriptions and if the one fits you, you call it your 'blood type'? Or do you have to go to a doctor and ask? 75.17.15.0 01:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to have a blood test. In future you may wish to consider asking the friendly people at the science reference desk who are very helpful and informative (and will answer your question much faster!)Mmoneypenny 10:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How are you supposed to know...?

message: Although evidence exists that type B is comparatively common in Jewish populations, It has not been possible to find enough references for the following statement relating specifically to research in Nazi Germany on type B and personal characteristics, so it has been removed from the article:
*In Nazi Germany research was done to associate B blood type with inferior personal characteristics.[citation needed] Type B blood was relatively common among German Jewish populations. This research has since been discredited.
One reference relating to the discrediting of the research:
--apers0n 06:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference for type B in Nazi Germany 

message: A good article has the following attributes.
1. It is well written. 
::Reasonably clear.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. 
::There was a citation needed tag in the misc section, but I fixed that.
3. It is broad in its coverage.
::It covers the subject well.
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. 
::I don't think it is biased in any way.
5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. 
::it is stable.
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
::Good figures.
Further suggestions
The sections on transfusion and immune responses to blood incompatibility seemed slightly repetitious. Most of the material in the Misc section should either be deleted or incorporated into the rest of the text.
GA pass, congratulations, good work. TimVickers 20:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the paragraphs in the Misc section moved to main text of the page, 2 paragraphs to a new "See also" section, and one paragraph to ABO page. No information lost. Snowman 16:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: What is the justification for attaching more importance to the ABO blood group system than the Rhesus group system?  This statement could either be justified in terms of what the importance relates to, i.e.
* "The most important of these in relation to blood transfusion is the ABO blood group system and the second most important is the Rhesus blood group system." or rephrased to:
* "The most well-known of these are the ABO blood group system and the Rhesus blood group system." 
--apers0n 15:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see you point of view and I will change the wording back. I thought that in a general sense that ABO is more important than Rh. Snowman 15:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relative importance of ABO and Rhesus 

message: Did we establish what the U blood group was or what U-negative means? Snowman 15:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  U-negative  

message: This sentence obviously has a typo (or several), but I'm not completely certain about the correct fix: "The most significant blood groups arise from antigens the the ABO blood group system and the Rhesus blood group system." Skarkkai 22:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a clumsy sentence and it needed fixing. I have rewritten it. Snowman 22:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A "the the" typo 

message: Shouldn't there be a section on how and when humans discovered that there are different blood types?--PoidLover 20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome to add to the history. Snowman 14:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery 

message: Would there be any objection to having donor-types and recipient-types displayed in the same order for this table?  This would more clearly emphasize self-compatibility (i.e. the filled principle diagonal), as in the following:
:
 Red blood cell compatibility tableBLOOD TYPES and COMPATIBILITY BLOODBOOK.COM
Recipient blood type	Donor red blood cells must be:	Donor red blood cells must be:	Donor red blood cells must be:	Donor red blood cells must be:	Donor red blood cells must be:	Donor red blood cells must be:	Donor red blood cells must be:	Donor red blood cells must be:
O-                  	O-                            	                              	                              	                              	                              	                              	                              	
O+                  	O-                            	O+                            	                              	                              	                              	                              	                              	
A-                  	O-                            	                              	A-                            	                              	                              	                              	                              	
A+                  	O-                            	O+                            	A-                            	A+                            	                              	                              	                              	
B-                  	O-                            	                              	                              	                              	B-                            	                              	                              	
B+                  	O-                            	O+                            	                              	                              	B-                            	B+                            	                              	
AB-                 	O-                            	                              	A-                            	                              	B-                            	                              	AB-                           	
AB+                 	O-                            	O+                            	A-                            	A+                            	B-                            	B+                            	AB-                           	AB+
--DWIII 13:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very good. On the article page I have changed "-" to "neg" and "+" to "pos", as is used in many blood banks. Snowman 23:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red blood cell compatibility table (proposal) 

message: The 'Table of ABO and Rh distribution by nation' does not say what year this information was obtained.
:I agree, this could be improved.  Each line has a reference, but few give the date of the reference on the article page. Snowman 08:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Year missing for chart 

message: 2nd paragraph: The ABO blood group system and the Rhesus blood group system are more likely to cause harmful immunological reactions than the other blood group systems.
As a matter of English grammar, systems don't cause reactions, only incompatible systems.  Also, the "other blood group systems" aren't cited.  I propose:
:Errors during transfusions involving the ABO blood group system and the Rhesus blood group system are more likely to cause harmful immunological reactions than the other 27 blood group systems.  --Lexein 18:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected.  Are there any more like that? Snowman 14:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing sentence 

message: people of which blood type can safely receive A negative blood?
and why? Types of blood
196.208.5.127 15:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the blood compatibility table on the article page. Snowman 23:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  blood types 

message: Is it just me, or is it quite difficult to understand what half this article is talking about?  In my opinion, it is way too wordy, and uses too many technical terms without explaining them well enough. Psythik (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article gets my vote as "Hardest to Follow" in all of Wikipedia 

message: I'm probably the biggest 'make lead sections longer' Nazi on Wikipedia, but this article's intro seems a little bit long for me. 4 paragraphs would be okay, but I think 5 substantial paras are too many except in exceptional circumstances, and this isn't that long an article (much of it is tables). Richard001 (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reorganized the page keeping much of the information as before. The introduction is now much shorter. It is a complicated subject, so perhaps four paragraphs are justified in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: Both of my parents have O+ blood, but I have O- and don't know why. I never had a transplant or a different immune system. Is it possible that my blood used to be O+ but became O- after I had damaged myself in the past?71.90.23.222 (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: each of your parents has two copies of the Rh gene, one (+) and one (-).  A child is Rh (+) if he inherits either one or two (+) genes. You'd expect three quarters of your children's parents to be Rh (+), and one quarter to be (-). You just happen to be one of the children who inherited the (-) copy from both parents. You were O- when you were born, and have been ever since. - Nunh-huh 23:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Does Blood Type Vary On Its Own?

message: Unless the other non ABO blood groups like MN are included this article's name becomes improper. Please include, at least, a list of the other grops.sarindam7 (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See the section "Other blood group systems" and linked page, Snowman (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Where Are The Other Blood-Groups

message: Forgive my ignorance, because I am from this major, but I heard somewhere about other especial blood types, such as KpAB... There isnt much info about it on the web, but it would be nice to have it added here, if verified. 
See the list on this website: 
--Bruno Braga (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Kidd antigen system (also known as Jk antigen); see Kidd system. Snowman (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How about rare blood types

message: I'm wondering if one person who has been transplanted a bone marrow, then his blood type will be changed.
Then what will happen if he or she give birth to a child?
(assuming the two parents has changed the blood style for the bone marrow transplantion)
Will the child follow the blood type as he or she has, or 
follow the blood type he or she has become to have?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjboy007 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The child will inherit from the parent just as if the parent had never had a bone marrow transplant. The transplant doesn't change anything about the genes that will be passed to the child. - Nunh-huh 23:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's always being a question about the distribution of blood type for me..Anyone helps? 

message: "ABO and Rh distribution by country" In the case of france, the source being given is a VERY simple page of a hospital website in monaco. Nothing to do with stats for France, please do something about this, see if INSEE has something about blood type and rhesus, or remove it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.158.196 (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dodgy statistics 

message: This article is the frequent target of bad edits by IPs, changing "positive" to "negative", "AB" to "O", etc. This is probably vandalism; it may also just be a lack of understanding of the subject matter. I've temporarily protected the article against such IP edits. - Nunh-huh 14:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP vandalism 

message: Probably a typo but the figure for USA B+ should be 8.5% not 18.5%  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmwut5 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Values in table now match source. - Nunh-huh 12:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABO and Rh distribution by country for USA is incorrect 

message: A+ 34%
A- 4%
B+ 17%
B- 2%
O+ 32%
O- 3%
AB+  7%
AB-  1%
The page stating this is: http://www.mdais.org/362/
It is the Red Magen David organization's. The national rescue service, and the organization which manages the blood bank of Israel. I haven't found a version of this page in English.
- SurDin (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood type distibution in Israel(Can be added to the main page) 

message: I assume other mammals have blood types too, but this focusses only on humans. LukeSurl t c 21:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human only? 

message: This image is incorrect.  The sugar moiety binds to the cell thru the GlcNac, not the fucose.  Can the author correct it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly Katula (talk • contribs) 22:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Mistake, second image with sugar moieties 

message: With regards to the table of blood group distribution!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.87.182 (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kashmir is not a nation!