Talk:Lymphoma/Archive 1

External Links

I ordered the links somewhat to t more primary information towards the top. There is always going to be jockeying for top position as patients & loved ones will probably click the first link 95% of the time. Thus http://www.lymphoma-net.org/, which is a Roche sponsored commercial page has been at the top and does not contain primary information. Also, it is in small print at the bottom that it is NOT for people in the US although it does not carry an .eu top level domain name. Open to talk on this. Mikebar 08:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC) [1] The lymphoma and leukemia site. Just click the link.Turtleguy1134 (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

WF Classifications vs. WHO

The Working Formulation is outdated. Does anyone has a staightforward description of the WHO classification? JFW | T@lk 16:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the Working Formulation is outdated. However, we code our patients with SNOMED, which requires a WF diagnosis. Also, the National Cancer Institute of Canada compiles national statistics as HL and NHL. Otherwise, it would be impossible to follow historical incidence rates. In the US, the NIH still uses the HL vs NHL division. Under the NHL heading, they mention the WF and the REAL classifications (the REAL is the mother of the WHO).

Not only are we condemned to repeat history, we are also slaves of our history. For this reason, I give two diagnoses for each case: WF and WHO.

As for a straightforward description of the WHO classification, forget about it: there is nothing straighforward about it! The introduction of the 2001 book takes two pages to explain how their classification is complex, but so were the previous classifications. They finish with the promise of more complexity in the future. Frankly, it is not their fault: nature is much more complex than we wish.

Emmanuelm 18:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC

WHO Classification

There seems to be a much better list at the National Cancer Institute than the one we've got. It ties much better to the actual publication (the same 11 sections, in the same order). I'd like to replace that section in this article -- any objections? --Arcadian 01:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem. Perhaps we can also insert the relative incidence as published in this month's Blood here. JFW | T@lk 13:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I've made the update. I've included template links to a source that supports looking up information by ICD-O code, but it doesn't recognize all the codes on the page, so I'll look for a more flexible source. (And JFW -- your idea sounds like a good one, but I can't get access to that data.) --Arcadian 16:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No access to Blood? What kinda med school are ya in? JFW | T@lk 16:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't start until August 2006. --Arcadian 16:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Can Arcadian tell me why he/she included the leukemia classification to this lymphoma page? It is not even listed in the leukemia page! I vote for dividing the WHO classification into 4 parts in 4 distinct pages: leukemia, lymphoma, histocytic and mastocytic neoplasms. Only the relevant part of the classification should be listed in each page. Wiki links will lead to the other pages. Remember, Wikipedia is not a technical text, it is meant to be readable by all. Let me know what you think before I delete the non-lymphoma parts. Emmanuelm 14:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Emmanuelm, aren't you the person who added those other categories on 6 July 2005? --Arcadian 15:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Arcadian, I added only the lymphoma portion of the WHO classification, as shown on the page you link. You added the leukemias on Dec 29th. Would you mind moving the leukemia portion to the leukemia page? Emmanuelm 20:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and please note that I would be very comfortable with a "cross-coverage" of lymphocytic leukemias (both CLL and ALL) in both pages. My comment is really about myeloid, histiocytic and mast cell neoplasms who share no real relationship with lymphomas. Emmanuelm 20:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

To simplify the discussion, I have restored that section to your version from 6 July 2005, including the section you added on Histiocytic and Dendritic Cell Neoplasms. You may make any further edits you would like, and I will have no objection. --Arcadian 21:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The full list should be on hematological malignancy, and the lymphoma part can be copied over here. It would be defendable to list ALL and CLL here. They are neighbours of lymphoblastic lymphoma and small lymphocytic lymphoma and fall under the lymphoproliferative disorders. JFW | T@lk 21:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-sequitur?

The article says:

Because the lymphatic system is part of the body's immune system, patients with weakened immune system, such as from HIV infection or from certain drugs or medication, also have a higher incidence of lymphoma.

Why does belonging to the immune system lead to higher incidence of lymphoma? It would be better to either explain that connection or just start the phrase at "Patients with weakened etc...".

response

It's because having a weakened immune system leads to a weakened ability to kill cells that have gone off of their programming because the immune system is focused elsewhere. I get your point, it's not a non sequitur however. The article provides enough information for the person who has some knowledge of human biology already, but could be a little bit clearer for those who don't have such a founding.

Perhaps it could read: "As the lymphatic system is a part of the body's immune system, a weakened or compromised immune system such as is caused by, for example: HIV, steroids and infection, would lead to a higher than usual incidence of lymphoma in those people as the immune system's natural ability to suppress such cancer formation is weakened also."

What do you think? Fr33kMan 17:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

monocytes or lymphocytes in the Reticuloendothelial system?

According to this introduction, lymphocytes are participating in the Reticuloendothelial system, but according to the introduction on Reticuloendothelial system, the monocytes are participating in the Reticuloendothelial system. It is clear on Image:Illu_blood_cell_lineage.jpg that they aren't the same thing. So which one is present there? Perhaps both? Mikael Häggström 17:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I made some own research at [2] and [3] and found that: Histiocytes and monocytes, not histiocytes and lymphocytes, form the reticuloendothelial system. This page is now corrected. Mikael Häggström 07:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Histiocytic and dendritic cell neoplasms

are not lymphomas--this should be placed elsewhere

Genetics

There are alot of sources for genetics and lymphoma (although I am not saying it is purely genetics that causes lymphomas). We should expand this section. Mikebar 07:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are definite links for NHL, less so perhaps for Hodgkin's. The question is whether we should address the genetics here, or in the subarticles (non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin lymphoma). MastCell ^Talk 16:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Mostly genetics that cause it. I mean, mutations and cancer, can't you fell there is a link?Turtleguy1134 (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-malignant lymphoma?

Is a lymphoma malignant by definition. The linked German article is for "malignant lymphoma". The German "Lymphoma" article distinguishes between malignant and non-malignant types and then redirects accordingly. Is this a difference in the way the term is used in that country - or should the English article also include non-malignant forms? 172.173.51.149 07:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• All lymphomas are malignant. There were some lymphoid conditions that were not considered specifically malignant lumped in lymphoma but that has pretty much disappeared in the WHO model to my knowledge. Mikebar 13:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup. The term "malignant lymphoma" is still sometimes used in English, but it's redundant. MastCell ^Talk 16:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

External links

External links to patient support groups (especially online chat boards), blogs, and fundraising groups normally accepted on Wikipedia. Please read the external links policy and the specific rules for medical articles before adding more external links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's get rid of NHL

Quick opinion survey. How many here would support the downgrading/demotion of the "non-Hodgkin lymphoma" concept and nomenclature, limiting it to paragraphs discussing the Working Formulation? This implies shortening the long, obsolete but surprisingly active Non-Hodgkin lymphoma article, redirecting the readers to Lymphoma. Your opinion? (please be clear)

• I agree to downgrade the NHL concept, limiting it to historical discussions. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak disagreement. Average readers use NHL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree. I entirely sympathise with Emmanuelm's point, but WhatamIdoing is correct: virtually everyone uses NHL as a term, and it will be confusing to get rid of this. Using the same logic, one would get rid of "Cancer" as a single page. Better to keep the collective NHL page and educate from within.Jellytussle (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

comments

Please read my straw-poll vote as very weak disagreement, based entirely on the notion that Wikipedia reflects the world instead of leading it. Actually, Emmanuelm, the world's bad habit of talking about "NHL" as if it were a single disease is one of my pet peeves. You are entirely in the right of it. However, I think we need to reform the world before we change Wikipedia.

Having said that, if you want to (for example) substitute more precise language here and there, and if it "just happens" that the term NHL gets removed in the process, then I will support that effort. For example, I see no reason why ==Diagnosis, etiology, staging, prognosis, and treatment== couldn't point to more than two pages. I also see no reason why any information that is in the NHL page but is specific to (for example) T cell lymphomas couldn't be moved to the relevant article, even if that process happens to shorten the NHL article. (I favor moving the information to specific types of lymphomas instead of trying to unify it here: surely if you have Diffuse large B cell lymphoma, then you don't much care about the prognosis for "lymphomas in general" any more than you care about "lymphomas in general, except for Hodgkins".)

If, several years from now, NHL ends up as a redirect to Lymphoma, then you will get no complaint from me. However, if we do this now, and especially if we do this all at once, then (given the state of the world's stubborn and underinformed use of NHL) I think we'll have a whole lot of people unhappy with us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

WIAD, you are right but you are also forgetting the primary function of an encyclopedia, including WP, which is to educate. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

JellyTussle, currently the article states under "Causes": Age/sex. The likelihood of getting non-Hodgkin's lymphoma increases with age. Burkitt's lymphoma is NHL; need I say more? As it stands, the article is misleading and it is our responsibility to correct this. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that NHL needs to discuss only the fact that lymphomas were previously divided between Hodgkin's and NHL on the basis of histological features (Reed-Sternberg cells). Now that immunohistochemistry allows us to subtype cells to a great level of detail, the old classification is not only unnecessary but also mixes high- and low-grade diseases with utterly different epidemiologies, risk factors and prognoses. JFW | T@lk 21:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

NHL redirected to Lymphoma

Arcadian, in a bold move, completely deleted Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and redirected it here. As stated above, I agree something needed to be done, but feel a completed deletion is too much: too many people, especially statisticians, still use NHL in 2008. I'll see if I can fix this. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

EATL genetics

Why is the EATL genetics info on this page? Does that information apply to all 43 kinds of lymphoma? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, be bold, change it yourself. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Treatment

Hello, I just found out that someone close to me has lymphoma. I don't know what kind it is, but are the treatments so radically different? I just want to know about the treatments for it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.100.219 (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Hello,I am immunize (talk · contribs).The treatment and prognosis of lymphoma differs vastly according to what histology,stage,and type of lymphoma the patient has.If he/she has hodgkin disease,treatment may be radiation alone or chemotherapy and radiation for early stage hodgkin disease,while combination chemotherapy is typically needed for advanced disease.Non hodgkin lymphoma treatment typically consists of chemotherapy.Prognosis for hodgkin disease is good in most cases,with a variable prognosis for non-hodgkin lymphoma.If you have any questions,feel free to ask on my talk page.Immunize (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Depends.Turtleguy1134 (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Remember that any information that you recieve on Wikipedias medically-related articles is not to be taken as medical advice. Immunize (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Assessment

I'm not convinced that this article lives up to the B-class standards that were promulgated during the summer. I think that C-class is more descriptive. I would like to see it expanded. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Article unclear

I was under the impression that lymphoma was a disease;however, rather than describing it as a disease, this C-quality page begins defining the fluid. That is poor explanation. Some of us try and educate ourselves with this site, and it becomes very difficult when an article is badly written. Perhaps an actual professional should write this article.

09.28.2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.215.137 (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Spam

I'm sure you've all noticed the recent efforts of the new editor to promote a specific lymphoma-related charity. I assume that the editor is probably an employee or fundraising volunteer. I've been meaning to say for months now that the "charities" subsection of ==External links== is just spambait. We can't list them all -- there are dozens of good, legitimate charities in this area -- and it's not really fair to pick our favorites. Furthermore, the point is to provide information, not "please donate!" or "look, charities exist!" links. I firmly believe that our readers are smart enough to "Ask Mr Google" if they want to find an appropriate charity.

Would anyone mind if we just remove all the general lymphoma-related charity links (but not those pointing to a particularly informative page that just happens to be hosted by a charity)? This would also make this article follow the pattern set at Leukemia, which lists no charities. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be an excellent idea. Teapotgeorge^Talk 18:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the "charities" links. If a charity has a page with detailed information (i.e., something that would be useful for a student writing an essay, not "Look! We exist!"), then I have no objection to including those sorts of links. To comply with WP:ELNO #1 and WP:MEDMOS, such a page would need to contain more details than the "ideal" Wikipedia article on this subject would have. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, We are from the Lymphoma Research Foundation. Is there any reason why you are removing links from wikipedia that link to our website lymphoma.org? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.138.114 (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a promotional tool for your organisation [as worthy as it is] nor is it a directory of mere links. You have a potential conflict of interest too. Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Teapotgeorge^Talk 21:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Now if there were a page on their website that (1) had detailed information about lymphoma on it AND (2) that information was not included in this article AND (3) that information was of interest to the "general reader" (as opposed to primarily patients or physicians) AND (4) that information was different from what the other links provided, then that specific page could probably be justified under Wikipedia's complicated anti-spam guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to provide resources that include a wealth of information. www.lymphoma.org has detailed information about lymphoma. have you even looked at the site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.138.114 (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edit history suggests you are more concerned with promoting your organisation than you are with improving Wikipedia. Teapotgeorge^Talk 16:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a web directory. The wealth of information is supposed to be in the article itself (the part above the references), not in the links to other websites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at www.lymphoma.org. Whatamidoing was correct in deleting it. I couldn't find any useful information there. It's basically generic patient handout stuff. They mention monoclonal antibodies but they don't identify the monoclonal antibodies. Even apart from the sponsorship of the site, it doesn't have enough useful information to be worth linking to. --Nbauman (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Gross!!!!!!!!!! Dumaka (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Get used to it. We do not censor for people with a weak stomach. JFW | T@lk 06:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

NOT gross.Turtleguy1134 (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC) What is it? A lymph node under a microscope???Turtleguy1134 (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Familial risk

This is a really preliminary report, but there is now evidence that first-degree relatives of lymphoma patients have an increased risk, but this is dependent on the subtype: doi:10.1111/j.1365-2141.2009.07721.x JFW | T@lk 06:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

JD, this is most probably true (every disease is genetic, right?) but it does not belong in this general article. Every disease should be discussed separately. I just made a few deletions to this effect. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Extremely poor article

For a very important disease, this article is very poor. In fact, I feel it may need a complete rewrite it is so poor. In particular the lack of a section on prognosis, the poor and overly long introduction, the section on "Diagnosis, etiology, staging, prognosis, and treatment" that does not mention diagnosis, staging, etiology, or prognosis, only mentioning treatment. Immunize (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The section seems to be correct as far as it goes (which isn't very far). Diagnosis, etiology, staging, prognosis, and treatment "depend on the specific form of lymphoma".

However, I think that a major expansion would be appropriate. One of the challenges will be making statements that apply to all forms of lymphoma, but I suggest that you get a couple of really top-notch sources, like oncology textbooks, and follow their lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Although it is true that diagnosis, treatment, etiology, and staging do depend on the specific form of lymphoma, I think it would be appropriate to provide an overview on the treatment, staging, etiology, and diagnosis of at least the common forms of lymphoma. Immunize (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

So do I, but the relevant question is: Do you have any good sources for it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Can books or medical journals be cited? If they can be, than I think I may have a good source available. Immunize (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Books and medical journals are often excellent sources. If you want to share the ISBNs of particular books, then I can look them up and give you a more specific response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Immunize, the spirit of Wikipedia is not to complain about someone else's work, but to fix it yourself. Be bold and add sources yourself! Emmanuelm (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the "low grade" and "high grade" language needs to be removed from this section. That language is taken directly from the obsolete Working Formulation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Immunize (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Althugh I do feel that the article recently underwent a significant improvement (with the addition of citations to the treatment section, in particular), I still am not happy with the condition of the artile, mainly because I feel we need to do additional cleanup, and (measured) expansion. Immunize (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I was looking through the needs copy-edit list for mainstream topics and wound up here. The prose is jargony and generally unapproachable, there's no history per se except some mention in the lead, and major topics are missing, for example, research into vaccines for lymphoma. Needs more help that copy-editing can cure, I'm afraid. :-( PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is so-so. It is quite complete, but I could add some more info.Turtleguy1134 (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

See also

I also really do not understand the see also section. It appears to be a list that attempts to list all forms of lymphoma. I feel it should be trimmed down to something more appropriate, and anticipate trimming it down significantly. Immunize (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Generally, we don't put things under ==See also== if they are linked in the text (which is likely here, since this article lists [or should] all the forms of lymphoma) or in the navbox. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, on the general status of the article, I feel that the introduction is to long, and that the overall tone of the article is not optimal, and have tagged the article as such. I feel that some of the information currently in the intro should be distributed throughout the article in the appropriate section. Immunize (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Lymphatic cells

Lymphatic cell is a redlink in the first sentence. Will someone who knows the definition indulge me in a description? Should this be a redirect to lymphocyte? Is there any kind of non-lymphocyte cell that actually produces a lymphoma? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

rm tags not under discussion here

{{Articleissues|article=y|tone=April 2010|copyedit=October 2009|expand=January 2010}}

The lede looks OK, and it's principally a dictionary node for lymphatic cancer articles.

72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I can change it.Turtleguy1134 (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

REAL Classification

I don't know enough about this topic to say whether the added section was necessary or whether the information was correct, so I didn't want to remove it or try to fix it myself, but it's a formatting nightmare! Someone needs to take a look at that. Skpearman (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to edit

It is proposed that Lymphoma be part of the trial of a new template; see the green strip at the top of Pain where it has been in place for a couple of months. The purpose of this project is to encourage readers to edit, while equipping them with the basic tools. If you perceive a problem with this, or have any suggestions for improvement, please discuss at the project talk page --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

Indeed the label rightly points to the article as 'too technical'. I have tried to simplify the article slightly but a lot more needs to be done. The green template is good. But user participation is required for modification of such an important article.-Diptanshu^Talk 17:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Text missing

"or genehellotics, and it made no .jpg See here]"--Hodeken (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. MALT has no CD5 CD10

Hello, MALT lymphoma aka Extranodal marginal zone lymphoma is CD5- & CD10- (Robbins basic pathology, 8th edition, p448-449). The "-" means "negative": not present. So, the table under "comparison" should be corrected: "CD5, CD10" should be deleted from "MALT lymphoma". --Alaa Azzouqa (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Table entry is still not corrected. - Rod57 (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Which of the 16 subtypes are or can be indolent

This article gives one example indolent lymphoma. What are the others ? The phrases indolent lymphoma and indolent non-hodgkin lymphoma are used elsewhere but what do they refer to ? (WP does have Indolent follicular lymphoma but not Indolent lymphoma). - Rod57 (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Waldenström's macroglobulinemia says it is an indolent lymphoma. - Rod57 (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Viral lymphomagenesis

Certain viruses appear to drive lymphoma. This is what's known: doi:10.1111/bjh.12788 JFW | T@lk 14:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Keeping the lead simple

This content "The main class are malignant neoplasms (that is, cancer) of the lymphocytes, a type of white blood cell that belongs to both the lymph and the blood and pervades both. Thus lymphomas and leukemias are both tumors of the hematopoietic and lymphoid tissues, and lymphomas and lymphoid leukemias are closely related, to the point that some of them are unitary disease entities that can be called by either name (for example, adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma)"

Belong more in the body of the article than the lead. We should try to keep the lead simplier. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

You were right. I put that info in the body and also moved the etymology there too. Thanks. Quercus solaris (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

ref

Unable to verify "Lymphomas may be cancerous (95%) or noncancerous (5%)." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Large B-cell lymphoma arising in HHV8-associated multicentric Castleman's disease

This article is about a very specific type of lymphoma and likely doesn't warrant its own article. Compassionate727 (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Not particularly helpful for various practical reasons, including familiarity with this suggested recipient article. Topic is linked from here, and full merger incorporation here would be disproportionate. Article is already tagged for expansion which would be a more encyclopedic approach. Will leave merger tag for now. Aim to expand article when able, and consider detag merger then. FeatherPluma (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a subarticle and I see no reason not to leave it as such. There are many subtype of lymphoma and we should likely have articles on most of them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I trust you guys know what you're talking about. I was just patrolling when I came across it. I thought maybe it was a stub because the article was about too specific a type of lymphoma, the obvious solution being to merge it with this. Compassionate727 (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not an unreasonable suggestion. But with dozens of subtypes (about 70) that would make this article too large IMO. And we have dozens of articles on other specific types. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding some content as time permits. I agree it's a stub at this point, but there is probably enough literature to expand and make a proper article of it. Altho I do not favor merger, I will leave the merger tag / conversation open for now, because that is not altogether unreasonable. Nonetheless, I propose to detag the merger discussion in aprx 10 days if no further input. FeatherPluma (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Detagged after expansion. FeatherPluma (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)