Currently only have discussed core temperature. The others are more complicated when dealing with serious underlying conditions.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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?

LookingGlass (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This template is on a number of pages. As such I think this extra detail is excessive. Also not sure why you commented out the "The difference between fever and hyperthermia"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Thank you

LookingGlass (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request that range for "normal temperature" is changed to 35.3-37.7°C in accordance to findings in recently published observational cohort study in British Medical Journal. In addition the current reference from Kornecki et al is a correspondence with author and not an original article.

Study in BMJ: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29237616 Archetypedr (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current source is too weak to support the present text. I do find the suggested source stronger, although it is still a primary source (a single, albeit large, study). Nevertheless I have reservations:

• Why shouldn't we consider "normal" by default those temperatures between the highest value considered hypothermia (35.0 °C) and the lowest value considered fever/hyperthermia (37.5 °C). If temperatures in this range are not considered normal, what are they considered as?
• Why should we use the 99% range found by the source (35.3–37.7 °C) rather than the 95% range (35.7–37.3 °C )? Who decides which is "normal"? I couldn't find anywhere that the source actually applied that epithet to a particular range. --RexxS (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: @Doc James: the reason to use the higher confidence interval is the p.f. obvious one—in using the higher CI, 99% of the samples of the interval estimate will contain the true population parameter (versus only 95%). The only issue appears to be that this is a primary source, and so I would say state both, cite both, and indicate the primary source as primary. Alternatively, cite the 99%, and add a <ref>-type note with the second value and its source. Bottom line, we say what the experts say, we do not choose between equally reliable experts. See also new note on the editing restrictions. 2601:246:C700:19D:FDCE:2831:1D8A:B7CC (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison's says "In a neutral temperature environment, the human metabolic rate produces more heat than is necessary to maintain the core body temperature in the range of 36.5–37.5°C (97.7–99.5°F)." Applies to newborns as well per [2] This ref also supports.[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have this template protected ensures issues remain in place (for instance, the incompleteness of the citations contributed by the template). What precisely is the reasoning behind this continuing decision? 2601:246:C700:19D:FDCE:2831:1D8A:B7CC (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of editors did not understand that a fever is defined as greater than >37.5 by some >38 by others, and 38.3 by still others. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please edit the Marx citation to have the page number appear in {{rp|xx}} markup style following the <ref> markup. Otherwise, as is, you force articles that further cite Marx to have redundant citations of this reference (because the appearing citation is useful for only this one place). At the same time, the citation can be completed, per usual standards, with publisher location, url, and access-date. Thanks, cheers. 2601:246:C700:19D:FDCE:2831:1D8A:B7CC (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 2601:246:C700:19D:FDCE:2831:1D8A:B7CC (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big fan of the "rp" template. Using a separate reference for different page numbers of a book is not really a problem IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do the same as asked in the last edit request, for any other book-type references in this templates (i.e., Prior, Grunau, and Sharma citations). Thank you. 2601:246:C700:19D:FDCE:2831:1D8A:B7CC (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 2601:246:C700:19D:FDCE:2831:1D8A:B7CC (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please move all citations in this template into whatever format @Doc James: and other interested parties consider the most standard format for medical articles, so that articles in which this template appears can then comply with that format, and so all citations in the article can be uniform. As it stands right now—by way of example—the most standard format in use for medical articles presents author lists as "Smith AB, Jones C, ...", which is not at all how this editorially locked-down reflist has been composed. As such, all articles in which this appears are forced to adopt the aberrant template style to be uniform, or to carry more than one style. Cheers, thanks. 2601:246:C700:19D:FDCE:2831:1D8A:B7CC (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 2601:246:C700:19D:FDCE:2831:1D8A:B7CC (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the format that the ref toolbar gives. I do not care if they are adjusted as long as the cite templates are used. Not sure what standard format is recommended. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: The cites are presented in this template according to the standard Template:Cite book formatting. I see no issue on pages where this template is transcluded with the presentation of page numbers. See, for example, Fever where the template produces the list with sources that include page numbers. If editors wish to cite Marx or any of the other books listed in other articles they can use the same cite book template. Editors that cannot simply copy-paste from this template because it is semi-protected can use the reference in the format given to find the original sources. Anyone wanting to use those sources in other articles should be verifying them anyway. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]