Template talk:Mycomorphbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Mycomorphbox/doc)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Fungi (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi 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.
 NA  This template does not require a rating on the quality scale.


Whatever happened to Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates? pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Personally I don't care that much, the warning could be removed.Debivort 17:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
This conversation confused me at first, so let me just say for future generations that the issue was settled. Melchoir 02:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

woweee, this article messes up my browser (firefox baaaad. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 17:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Missing image[edit]

On Coprinus comatus, the Mycological characteristics template resolves to an image called Image:Saprotrophic ecology icon.png which does not exist.--MichaelMaggs 14:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Edibility unknown icon required[edit]

Hi, especially in Australia where many fungi have never been eaten there are quite a few which we don't know about. Would be good to make an 'Edibility unknown' icon. Difficult to do Wikipedia at work as it is insanely slow. cheers. Cas Liber 02:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool! now to add some boxes.................Cas Liber 08:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Isn't everything deadly or poisonous in Australia? ;) MoRsE 21:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

How to class the edibility of some fungi - eg Amanita citrina[edit]

Apparently this species is edible but tasteless, but its simialrity to dangerous species is problematic - class as 'inedible' or need a 'caution' icon? The same could apply to various ble staining boleti such as B luridus and B erythropus...Cas Liber 08:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need a caution icon, as all of these key features should be used with caution, and people have already brought up that the template comes too close to a disclaimer. As for the issue of whether it is inedible or edible, based on the quality of its taste - it seems this depends on subjective taste - so whether an edible inedible icon is used would fall to consensus? Debivort 20:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree. I was sorta playing devils advocate with some ideas but ultimately felt having a huge selection might just confuse things. I think most fungi that are classed as inedible are pretty unambiguous. Difficult as I have not eaten more than a dozen or so species...(and can't personally comment on why the Peppery Bolete is classed as edible and can be used as a peppery condiment while Boletus calopus is pretty well classed as inedible by all (apart from some siberian??)Cas Liber

Olive spore print icon in English required[edit]

On Boletus calopus, there is no icon shown for olive spore print. I s the best was to make an English page of the Swedish image?Cas Liber 06:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't know what the deal is - someone came and moved a few of the images to the Commons, deleted the ones on en.wiki. It is restored now. Debivort 07:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
There was a problem when I uploaded the swedish named images to Commons. I've now redesigned the template code in the swedish version so that it can accept english names. Therefore all of these images can be uploaded to commons (using their english names) without this template being broken. /Lokal_Profil 20:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Allergy icon[edit]

Hmm, don't have details in mind, but might be useful? Rich Farmbrough, 10:39 30 October 2006 (GMT).

Yeah, that'd be good. But shouldn't that already be (noticeably?) placed in the article? DarkestMoonlight (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

mycomorphbox version 2[edit]

Much improved - expandable vertical design, additional spore print colors, secondary characteristics, and zoomed in hymenium attachment icons. Debivort 07:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • revision as of 11-18: more stylish border, bigger font, less vertical and horizontal white space, narrower as well. Debivort 22:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Allergic icon? Why would we need that? Don't you know it is always the mushrooms fault when someone gets sick? To other food items people can get have an allergic reaction, but not to mushrooms, it is always the fungus's fault, right? ;0}

We should have a medicinal symbol though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Winkler (talkcontribs) 17:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


The template still uses Image:Infundibuliform cap icon.png, although the .svg version has been uploaded to Commons (commons:Image:Infundibuliform cap icon.svg). --Eleassar my talk 17:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Caution icon[edit]

I believe that this template would benefit from a "Caution" icon that could serve the function of both "this shroom causes alergic reactions in many people" and "this shroom has poisonous lookalikes". For example, in books like Peterson's Guides they use a three icon system of "Edible" "Not Recommended" and "Poisonous" where the "Not Recommended" icon serves the purpose I've just outlined.

Comments? The Thadman 21:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The second usage verges on a disclaimer, which we have steered away from... I'd be happy to see it used for the first usage. Debivort 01:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The text in the template ought to read "not recommended" I think - as "be careful" suggests that the things are necessarily edible, just with caution required. Debivort 01:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I've switched the text to "not recommended" and I've tested it out on Parasol mushroom and Shaggy parasol. --אמר Steve Caruso 04:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Great idea. There are plenty that fit in this category.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried to edit Laetiporus to change the edibility parameter in the mycomorphbox, but when I made it "caution", the box displayed "not recommended". I expected it to say something less negative, like maybe "caution"? It turns out that this mushroom can make you pretty sick, and the article says so, but the box says "edible" with a smiley face. A person who didn't read English so good might see the smiley face and chow down. It seems to me an additional category is needed so we can display something between "edible" and "not recommended", maybe "caution". I don't want it to read "not recommended"; so many people apparently eat it, and the article says so, that there would be a sort of credibility conflict. And "not recommended" is too weak for something that will make you sick; it sounds like it just turns your tongue blue or tastes like crap. "Caution" would give them pause without sending them packing. "Edible" is a dangerous half-truth in this case. --Milkbreath 11:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Even with the "not recommended" field we're really walking a line over Wikipedia:No_disclaimer_templates. Perhaps instead of "caution" we should put in a field for "allergic reactions"? Gimmie a sec... אמר Steve Caruso 04:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I did some fixes to the new allergic state code - and switched to the diamond caution icon. Looks ready to go. de Bivort 06:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Better, maybe. I'm still afraid that somebody who doesn't read English would be misled by the icons. Even I don't know what a brown lozenge signifies, and the smiley face followed by an exclamation point seems to say "Real good to eat." I think the "caution" icon alone would be better. Also, the link in "not recommended" goes to look-alikes, wich is no help in the case of Laetiporus, for instance. --Milkbreath 14:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes that was the original use for "caution" to note mushrooms that have very close lookalikes. As such I personally believe that the green unhappy face is a bit more...well.. communicative towards a warning of allergies. אמר Steve Caruso 19:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


I've noticed that we're using "smooth" as the default hymenium for mushrooms with a gleba, which is misleading. I've put together a gleba icon and I'll be uploading it soon and sticking it in with the mycobox. אמר Steve Caruso 17:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds very good. Debivort 18:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

purple-brown & purple-black spore print colors needed[edit]

This mycomorphbox thingie is very cool. You definitely need to purple-brown and purple-black as spore print colors. If you do this, then somebody could update psilocybe azurescens to have purple-black sprore print. erasurehead —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll probably get around to this later tonight. de Bivort 17:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Edibility icon colours[edit]

Is it really a good idea for the "poisonous" icon to be green and the "edible" icons to be yellow? The colours are much more visible, especially on high-resolution screens, than any other features of the icons. Colour coding systems that use green and yellow usually use them along with red, for "go/good/no danger" (green), "caution/intermediate/some danger" (yellow), "stop/bad/lots of danger" (red). This template's icons appear to be using an opposite system, for no immediately apparent reason. I know that the subject of including warnings in Wikipedia at all is somewhat controversial, but one reason for that is because of potential liability, and it seems to me that if we include warnings and display those warnings in the opposite of the common, widely accepted colour symbology, the liability issues multiply. What happens when someone eats the mushroom that had the "green for go" happy face in its Wikipedia article? 03:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Green in the face icon symbolizes sickliness - not an uncommon association. It's not a stop or start light. Also, the template does not provide warnings. It provides a fact "Mushroom X is poisonous" - interpret as you will. That said - if you'd like to propose an alternate set of icons, feel free. de Bivort 22:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I Think I'm going to take up that task, I think green to many people is associated with good and red with bad. I do see the logic behind a green sick face but just in the braoder scope of what green usually represents it's usually not associated with danger. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks like someone has already changed the color from green to purple, I think this resolves the issue as purple isn't considered a "safe" color like green. — raeky (talk | edits) 04:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Mycomorphbox[edit]

Template:Mycomorphbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Lampman (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Result was "keep." See: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 10#Template:Mycomorphbox. --Teratornis (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


Should this template add new categories to the articles in which it is transcluded, such as Category:Mushrooms of umbillicate shape and Category:Mushrooms with olive spore print? Would this be useful? – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be best to discuss the creation of these new categories on an appropriate WikiProject first. In general, though, I believe that adding categories like this automatically by template logic is discouraged because it makes it much harder to track down why exactly pages are getting included in certain cats. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

How to create a mycomorphbox[edit]

I just discovered the mycomorphbox for the first time at Agaricus bisporus. It's pretty cool, but it seems like having a prominent icon at the top of each one, linking to a how-to-make-one page is unusual for wikipedia. Would this icon be better used by linking to Mycology? Or at the least, the phrase "Mycological characteristics" should be hyperlinked to Mycology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balfa (talkcontribs) 21:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Mycological characteristics link[edit]

IMO the mycological charcateristics link should point to an article about whatever standard mushroom classification system the infobox uses instead of pointing to the main mycology article. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


The psychoactive icon should be a crazy face! -Craig Pemberton 06:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested tweak[edit]

I've never edited a template, so I'm reluctant to change this myself for fear of breaking 1000's of mmboxes across the wiki. Could I request someone tweak the template so that for spore print color, when two colors are specified (ie. using both sporePrintColor=cream and sporePrintColor2=yellow), the output is "spore print is cream to yellow" rather than "spore print is cream or yellow". Currently it gives the false impression that the color is either/or, rather than the continuum it really is. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

done! de Bivort 18:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Another requested tweak[edit]

Please change all instances of File:Offset cap icon.png to the newly-created File:Offset cap icon.svg. (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Edible after cooking icon?[edit]

'Edible when cooked' as an icon? or is it too many to choose from? Ruminating before adding... cheers Cas Liber 10:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

  • update - after four and a half years, there are more folks to discuss this now, so is this something worth considering. I recall some books having a stylised mushroom with parentheses around it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I would go for a generic "limited edibility" or "edible under conditions" icon, and I would design it as a variation of the edibility icon - e.g. the edibility icon with an added exclamation mark. Then I would name the conditions on a standardised place - i.e.: easy to locate for readers - in the article. That way it doesn't get much more complex for the viewer/reader and we can use it for all those mushrooms that need to be treated in some way or don't go well together with alcohol aso..--Natr (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

improvement of icon design[edit]

I will do some better icons, i.e. icons that

  • make most out of lowest resolutions (intuitive to read, low visual complexity, simple shapes, reduced to a symbol for one fact, ...)
  • have a high contrast and work well in black/white reproduction,
  • are scalable vector graphics and
  • only have eyecandy that doesn't hurt above goals.

Comments, constructive criticism, proposals (e.g. aspects I haven't thought of) appreciated--Natr (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Which are you proposing to replace? de Bivort 20:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
First the symbiosis icons.--Natr (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the cap shape icons are pretty good like they are; the hymeniumType icons I would also replace since they aren't svg and maybe not clear enough on first sight and don't work so well if reduced to black/white; the icons classifying the effect on the human organism look partially kindergarden and the psychoactive thing needs improvement to work well on low resolution and blac/white.--Natr (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
For the stipeCharacter icons I may be able to vectorise them and in the same process improve the contrast a bit (although the greyish look is nice..).--Natr (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Well - now I've got something - and I think it's an improvement, although most probably far from perfect...
Criticism, plz... I'm especially unsatisfied with the symbol for parasitic fungi. - Maybe somebody can find suggestions for improvement? - Anyway, it's vector graphics now, though should be easy(er) to change for whoever feels like...--Natr (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
They are too dark and well, contrasty for my tastes, but I designed the first round. de Bivort 03:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I also there is too much svg fundamentalism on the wikis. png is a fine format, especially when it allows shading. de Bivort 03:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Not so much the mycorrhizal icon, but the others I like very much, actually. I think they are beautiful - just not really useful as an icon for very small resolution. - And I would've liked to have the SVG sources... ;-) - I like to have the source code of images, it fits nicely with the idea of a constantly improving wiki and it just eases reuse and modifyability so much... (I didn't really understand the drawbacks you see with SVG in these cases..?)
As for the "contrasty" - that's an important feature here in my eyes. But I see your point with them being too dark and I hope I get some ideas to improve that - but without hurting the contrastiness, I'd say... - I just think that form clearly has to follow function here...
So my own thoughts on the improvement mainly revolve around the functionality of the images... - My new parasitic symbol - coldn't it possibly be clearer on first sight? Should I maybe choose a fungus form factor, that is more widely known? Are there too many features, can I reduce visual complexity further? aso.--Natr (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

changes to images[edit]

Hello. This comment is directed at Natr - would you mind posting your proposed new icons here on the talk page before replacing them in the template? When they are replaced directly it becomes very hard to do a side-by-side comparison without looking through the code of prior versions of the template. A lot of articles have used this template for a very long time, without significant controversy about the images or formatting, and it would be good to get consensus on changes before implementing them. I've posted about your changes at WP:FUNGI with the hope that some other editors will weigh in. de Bivort 01:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, seems a good idea. Here are the changes already done - old one (left) next to new one (right).--Natr (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
OK - what about the following changes: 1) to Parasitic, make the tree much less dark (let's say 50% dark instead of 80% or whatever it is now), so that the mushroom is the most prominent thing in the icon, and make the green of the plant more prominent, perhaps by drawing a full leaf, as I had done originally. 2) to Mycorrhizal, currently the tree is as prominent as the mushroom, how about a mini-pine tree rather than a big brown stump - so they're no longer so close to each other's scale. 3) I think parasitic is good, since the brown color theme is consistent, I would just tone down the dark brown-ness of the other ones. 4) Maybe the inedible one should be less green, and more yellow or gray. de Bivort 01:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The rest look great. Although, I have always thought a greenish sick icon was more appropriate than a purple one, but apparently this is an american cultural thing. de Bivort 01:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I've been going up with the brightness for Parasitic now - but it's actually the opposite of what you think: The darkness of the tree's trunk made it contrast to the shroom so it only made the shroom now stand out less from the trunk...
Green for sick would sure be nice if it wasn't widely agreed to be the color for "everything fine" and that's realy no-go here, I think. And red isn't a bad choice here - is it?
"Consistent color theme"? :-) Well, in order to get most with smallest resolutions we need contrast, I think. - So far I saw the "consisten"cy more as a flaw than as a useful feature... :-/
For the living trees I'll try to give the trunks the same colour on both images. If not having them dark (again) to contrast the fungus maybe I'll at least lower their saturation significantly. Then I could also go for yellow(ish) mushroom caps like yours - or maybe reddish - and also create uniformity there.
And for the small pine - I thought I've already chosen insanely unrealistic differences in scale, so maybe I've got to get used to idea first before my imagination can spit out something useful there.. ;-)
Let's see- I'll play around.
And of course I'll try to fix the greenish Inedible. - And: Great to have feedback here... :-)
Oh - and I just reverse engineered some vector versions of the stipe symbols and in the course fixed some illogical details - hope I didn't destroy intended features there...--Natr (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

More changes to images - professionalism[edit]

Hi there. I have some suggestions that I think would make the template look more professional.

  1. The "N.A." in "stipeCharacter" should be in a border, since everything else in the series is in a border.
  2. Since "hymeniumType", "whichGills", "stipeCharacter", and "sporePrintColor" are in borders, "capShape", "ecologicalType", and "howEdible" should also be in borders.
  3. "howEdible" images should be redone, so that they look like they're all part of the same series. Also, a little less googlyeyed would be nice.

Just some thoughts. Keep on churning out those FAs! Sven Manguard Wha? 23:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

great ideas. I support all the changes you outlined. Natr - any interest in adding in these changes too? Yeah, the edibility icons were always the least satisfying to me. The Simon and Schuster guide uses 2 forks for choice, 1 for edible. We could use that for inspiration. The only icon in the series I think is particularly good is the psychoactive icon, which gets the point across without being gaudy or cliche. de Bivort 00:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm uploading some options now. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea de Bivort. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Choice Edible Inedible Caution and Allergen Unknown Poison Deadly Psychoactive

shown at size. Wow these look nice. My suggestions would be to scale the skull to fill the box, like the "no" symbol in the poison icon. Maybe the X and the (!) should be full size too? de Bivort 07:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, we need an unknown icon too, if you want to make one. Could be modeled on the inedibles, but with a "?" is my suggestion. de Bivort 07:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
My internet went down for five days, so I'm just getting back to this. Let me see what I can do for you tomorrow. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I've uploaded a version for unknown, and updated two others to match stylistically. As for doing them large, large dosen't look as good. I'm having second thoughts about the two red fork images being that large, however I'm more likely to make the skull larger, as you suggested, than I am to make it smaller, where it won't be seen. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
New option for deadly uploaded over the old one. I don't like either one as much as the current plain skull though, now that I look at them at 32px size. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I think they are all great. I wouldn't change the red fork ones or the gray fork ones at all. But here's a question - most of the time the caution/allergen label is used, it's for a mushroom that is otherwise edible. So maybe instead of appearing over a gray fork, the exclamation mark should appear over a blue fork. Any thoughts on the psychoactive icon? de Bivort 15:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I could put a red fork over it (:D) Sven Manguard Wha? 03:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Done, and I made the brain green for humor's sake. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I like these and support adopting them wholesale, although I am umming and aahing about the red fork on the skull (I could live without it I think...?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the skull alone would certainly get the point across. I think blue is better for the brain, however, as it is evocative of the blue stain of psilocybin mushrooms. de Bivort 21:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Psychoactive is now blue again. I'm fine with using the current skull instead of the skull and fork for deadly. Are we ready to implement the changes? Sven Manguard Wha? 00:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah go for it. I like this colour for psychoactive too. Slightly prefer psychoactive without a fork - I don't think folks eating magic mushies use a fork, more just gagging the damn things down as quickly as possible due to the poor taste. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
If I touch that template, it's going to break, and take several hundred transclusions with it. Someone else needs to make the change. They can decide which version of the brain to use, I don't mind one way or the other. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The icons are now live - great job SvenManguard! I chose the inedible icon for the unpalatable option, by the way. de Bivort 05:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Great! The template documentation should also be updated, when you get the chance. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Only the icons changed, so nothing needs to be updated in the documentation. de Bivort 15:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Better linking[edit]

Please change from

   |mycorrhizal|parasitic|saprophytic|saprotrophic = [[{{{ecologicalType}}}|ecology is '''{{{ecologicalType}}}''']]
   |mycorrhizal|parasitic|saprophytic|saprotrophic = [[{{{ecologicalType2}}}| or '''{{{ecologicalType2}}}''']]


   |mycorrhizal|parasitic|saprophytic|saprotrophic = ecology is [[{{{ecologicalType}}}|'''{{{ecologicalType}}}''']]
   |mycorrhizal|parasitic|saprophytic|saprotrophic = or [[{{{ecologicalType2}}}|'''{{{ecologicalType2}}}''']]

Thanks. (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It would look weird for just the ecology characteristic to not be fully linked. Do you want to adjust the linking on all the characteristics? Do you know how they should look? — Bility (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good point yes, I think all the characteristics should be better linked. So, for example, in "hymenium attachment is irregular or not applicable", only hymenium should be linked. In "Spore print is cream - to yellow", only "spore print" should be linked, etc. Rationale: otherwise it's not obvious what the link points to: ecology? mycorrhizal? Spore print? Yellow? "Don't make me think!" :) Thanks (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I've made the proposed changes to the sandbox. See test cases for comparison. (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I also got rid of that nonstandard underline in "but not recommended". (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
DoneBility (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Spore print color parameter bug?[edit]

In Tylopilus tabacinus, I have parameters to specify a spore print color range from pinkish-brown to reddish-brown, but only the last parameter value displays. Can someone help? Sasata (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems that color was never coded in. Fixed now - thanks for the heads up. de Bivort 18:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Remove "inedible"[edit]

Inedible is not very good idea to have. Because one asks, why not? Is it poisonous? Then it should say so? Or does it just taste bad? For whatever reason that it is not edible, it should be listed (toxic, unpalatable, etc.). Inedible is thus not useful. (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It's standard in the mycological literature, and generally means woody, or too bitter to be palatable. de Bivort 23:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


Umbillicate is mispelled in the mycomorphbox, related .svg and .png images. There is only one 'L': Umbilicate. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. I changed the template, and uploaded a version of the file at wiki commons. That should do it. de Bivort 02:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Species Identification[edit]

Is it possible to aggregate the information from the templates into a table? In other words, can Wikipedia generate a list all the species and their features? This would be useful for identifying species if their name is not known. emok (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

To answer my own question, it looks like this sort of query is within the scope of the Wikidata project but is not possible yet. As the project develops it should be possible to create the sort of table I am looking for. In the meantime, I have requested for the Properties in this infobox to be added to Wikidata. emok (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


Was wondering if it would be possible to have yellow-brown added as a spore print color? (needed for Bothia). Sasata (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing - can you suggest an RGB value for it? Here's a web app for it if you need: http://www.colorpicker.com/. de Bivort 17:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
How about R 73.3, G 52.9, B 8.6? (from here) Sasata (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
done. de Bivort 23:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone able to create an olive-grey spore print colour? (For Pulveroboletus ravenelii) Iainstein (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Default width[edit]

Is it possible to change the default width of the template? For instance, on Boletus edulis, the Mycomorphbox is wider than {{Taxobox}}, but a lot of this is padded space between the label and respective information. As already discussed at Taxobox, encasing it as a module wouldn't necessarily be relevant, so would it be possible either to resize some of the space out to match either a default width (Taxobox seems pretty standard to my eye, but more informed template-writers may know otherwise) or simply to match the content width? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Allergic reactions bug[edit]

It appears as though if the howEdible field is left blank, it defaults to "edibility: can cause allergic reactions". This should probably be fixed.

Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gymnopilus_aurantiobrunneus

Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 00:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Allow non-hyphenated colors in sporePrintColor[edit]

The hyphenated colors are apparently being used as nouns, not as a modifiers. Per the MoS and common rules of hyphenation, they should not be hyphenated.

WP:HYPHEN: "Many compounds that are hyphenated when used attributively (adjectives before the nouns they qualify: a light-blue handbag, ... are usually not hyphenated when used predicatively (descriptive phrase separated from the noun: the handbag was light blue ..."

Note that the hyphen is only needed for "light-blue handbag" to prevent the reader from thinking that the handbag is both blue and light in weight; no such confusion is likely with "it has a reddish brown spore print", even though the compound is used attributively in that case. When hyphens are not needed, they should be omitted. I suggest adding the following colors; after that, articles that use the template can be adjusted to use the new, non-hyphenated colors.

Existing New
blackish-brown blackish brown
olive-brown olive brown
pinkish-brown pinkish brown
purple-black purplish black
purple-brown purplish brown
reddish-brown reddish brown
yellow-orange yellowish orange
yellow-brown yellowish brown

Chris the speller yack 19:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)