I have added the subcategories of hypothermia to this template as:
1. they are cited on a page the template appears in: Hypothermia and
2. the references for them on that page appear to be identical with that given on this template for the temperature at which hypothermia is deemed to generally begin.
The changes have not manifested on the page Hypothermia for some reason ... yet?
IMHO it is generally best when taking purely personal exception to anything to deal directly with the person concerned to resolve the matter BEFORE simply wading in with your editing axe, but each to their own I suppose. Perhaps your sig sinifies your status as a Doctor of Medicine, but in any case ironically there is something of the white coat in the approach you have taken.
I deleted the comment concerened as it has no meaning. The note made/makes no sense as it stood. It is hard to make out the intent of the original author (you?), but it appears that, despite the punctuation, it is not labelling/titling a note (i.e being used in the form of a noun) and pointing at something that provides aditional information but is rather used more like a verb (in the imperative tense) i.e to draw attention to something. However that something is not self-evident. What is this mechanism the note refers? Why does the comparison provide some sort of underlying factor to this mechanism whatever it is? Why is any of this critical to the template? If you understand what the "note" is attempting to say please clarify. What is it that the reader is being encouraged to note? Try to be cooperative and constructive with your edits.
Although I can readily accept that you personally consider the additional information I provided to be too detailed, that is, as you say, merely your personal opinion. Your personal opinion is not the issue for wiki readers as wiki is not a stage for you to publish your work but a cooperative endeavour. Your personal opinion that the information I contributed (after having been forced to find it elsewhere by the omission) was too detailed, is not the same as the information in point of fact BEING too detailed. Please be specific as to WHY in your opinion the information regarding the subcategories of hyperthermia would be excessive here. When you say too detailed, in what sense is it too detailed? It amounted to FOUR WORDS and seven numbers!
Perhaps you would also be so kind as to help remedy the issue at the Hyperthermia page i.e to provide the categories you have now deleted from there, as they are what is pertinent to that article at least (and NOT all the other temperatures!.
You may, perhaps, grasp my inability to understand why the additional information on temperature classification should also be excluded from the other pages. It seems generally useful to me.
- You will note that the temperature for fever and hyperthermia are the same. Some people might wonder why thus the note. This not was added by User:WhatamIdoing
- This template is on a bunch of pages. The details you added are only really applicable to hypothermia. Thus removed  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I oppose having four separate lines, aka "half the entire template", dedicated to hypothermia here. That very detailed information belongs in the article, not in a simple little navbox.
- As for the note, it explains to people why exactly the same numbers really are different things. For details on the mechanisms, they'll need to read the articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)