Last modified on 18 February 2015, at 08:57

Template talk:Convert to SVG


Topics from 2012Edit

Suggestion for new parameter value: glyphEdit

Seems better than other parameters to specify [Unicode] character glyphs. Whole categories are to be tagged. -- sarang사랑.svg사랑 07:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Are there a lot of these? Do you have some examples? Rd232 (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for new parametersEdit

{{edit request}} Some users have added hundreds of tempaltes with two new parameters: "military" and "Distinctive Unit Insignia". These are now in Category:Other images that should use vector graphics. It would imho be useful to add these parameters to the template. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done what's wrong with the existing military insignia parameter? Rd232 (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
99% of the images in Category:Other images that should use vector graphics are ribbons. There already is a subcategory Category:Ribbon images that should use vector graphics under Category:Military insignia images that should use vector graphics. A parameter "ribbon" that sorts files into that subcategory might be useful, since there already are 900+ ribbon-images tagged with {{SVG}} and probably a lot more that are not yet. Razorbliss (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
"might" be useful? Why? Rd232 (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, in my opinion these ribbons are not really "military insignia". Also, there are a lot of them and they look pretty much all the same, and differ a lot from the current images in this category. And since this template is targetted to svg authors, thats a good reason to put them into one place. Razorbliss (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I seem to have missed this reply, sorry - I would have done it in response to that. Well, it contributed to my implementing a later request. Rd232 (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There are now 780 files in the cat that have a noexisting parameters. This state of affairs needs to be changed. I suggested a possible solution which I considered to be the easiest one. I don't mind other solutions but I'm not the one to implement them. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added these two parameters as synonyms of "military insignia" (|military|Distinctive Unit Insignia=military insignia). I think that should cover it; let me know if it doesn't. Rd232 (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

VectordataEdit

Another special 2. paramter (from german) would be a source link of vector data, because in the german wiki this images are processed at the fastest. s. from User:Leyo [1] There can also all images be mapped into two categories. -- πϵρήλιο 23:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you wondering why this takes ages? Answer: There is no concrete implementation suggestion. -- RE rillke questions? 21:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done I managed to work out what this was about from the German WP template, and it seems useful, so I've copied that approach. Rd232 (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for new parameter value: ribbonEdit

There is already a subcategory Ribbon im... of the category Military ins..., containig about 20 files (at the moment it is misspelled, "Image" instead of "image", but as soon as the new parameter value is established I shall repair that).
The coding below can be copied to replace the current template coding; as another improvement, knowing users may indroduce new subcategories dynamically without need to immediate admin intervention.

{{Autotranslate|1={{{1|}}}|2={{{2|}}}|3={{{3|}}}|4={{{4|}}}|5={{{5|}}}|6={{{6|}}}|7={{{vectordata|}}}|base=Convert to SVG}}{{{category|{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|File|Category=[[Category:{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{#switch:{{lc:{{{1}}}}}
|chart=graph
|music=musical notation
|military|Distinctive Unit Insignia=military insignia
|alphabet|architecture|art|biology|chemical|chemistry|circuit|coat of arms|diagram|emblem|flag|graph|icon|logo|map|math|military insignia|musical notation|physical|ribbon|symbol|signature|sport|technology|text={{{1}}}
|#default={{#ifexist:Category:{{{1}}} images that should use vector graphics|{{{1}}}|other}}}}}} images that should use vector graphics|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}}{{#if: {{{vectordata|}}} | {{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:6}} | [[Category:Images that should use vector graphics (non-SVG vector data available)]] }} }}<noinclude>
{{Documentation}}
</noinclude>

sarang사랑.svg사랑 12:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done. Though I'm not sure what you mean by users introducing subcategories. Rd232 (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Arguments for a 2nd parameterEdit

It might be useful to expand the template with a 2nd parameter, with the effect that e.g. {{SVG|fractal|math}} will behave as

  • when the category "Fractal images that should..." exists, the file is categorized there
  • the 2nd parameter specifies the default for the case that the first category intention does not exist – not yet, or not anymore.

When this idea is supposed, I can care for the expansion. sarang사랑.svg사랑 10:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

LinksEdit

There should be a link for the words "vector graphics" for people who have no idea what they are. --99.38.244.81 21:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Done for English. Rd232 (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

New redirect parameter?Edit

{{edit request}}

Would it be possible to treat instantiations of {{SVG|musical}} as {{SVG|musical notation}}? See [2]. It Is Me Here t / c 14:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Looks like it's been done, there is a {{#switch:}} inside the template that does exactly that. odder (talk)

Topics from 2013Edit

Vectorising images no longer welcome?Edit

As replies to my question about updating pages which use the raster version of an image to an SVG version on Commons:Help_desk#Automatically_update_pages_using_images_subsequently_vectorised, I received the replies below. I take it then that vectorising images is no longer welcome. In that case, the template should be modified to state that this process is no longer wanted, to avoid editors wasting their time as I have. cmglee (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

(Edit): There's a tool that does this at COM:CDC, but it explicitly asks people not to submit requests to change files to SVG, so I'm not sure that there is a legitimate automatic tool for this, really. It Is Me Here t / c 20:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
If there's an actual problem with the raster version, you could file a COM:DR for it. Developing a consensus "X should be replaced by Y because X is crap" seems like a valid reason to replace X with Y by whatever technical means are available (and is supported by COM:D). I assume the "don't just file raster->svg updates" is because current consensus is that "superseded by better" isn't automatically a valid reason (again COM:D), not because the bot isn't able to do so and not because it should never be done in specific consensus cases. DMacks (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
(See the Help desk discussion for a useful comment.) --AVRS (talk) 09:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Clear up categoriesEdit

Right now the categories purpose and their distinctions are very unclear. This should be improved to ensure images are correctly sorted into the available categories. A few examples:

  • physical isn't even correctly described by the documentation. How should users know how to use it?
  • symbol and icon are very hard to differentiate.
  • technology could mean anything. Its too common to be good category in my opinion
  • chemical vs. chemistry: Do we really need two categories here?
  • graph: Graphs could be considered math sometimes they are physical or chemical/chemistry. This should be distinguished clearer. (Especially since a mathematical graph is much more probable to be vectorized when put into math instead of the common graph.

-- Patrick87 (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

chemical vs. chemistry: Yes, these two categories are needed, because for chemical structures a specific piece of software is needed. --Leyo 07:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Vectordata parameterEdit

Hi all,

I'd propose we remove the "non-SVG" part in documentation and categorization (just use Category:Images that should use vector graphics (vector data available) instead of Category:Images that should use vector graphics (non-SVG vector data available)).

The reason is that often there are very similar graphics (e.g localized versions) already available as SVG vector graphics. The vectordata parameter would be perfectly suitable to cover also these cases. Right now I could imagine people are not using this parameter when there is vector data that needed only small modifications and put only {{Convert to SVG}} without parameters, therefore often duplicate work is done.

Regards, --Patrick87 (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Any objections? Otherwise I'll just change it and request an edit. --Patrick87 (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

{{editrequest}} Since no one seems to have any objections please update the template code with

{{Autotranslate|1={{{1|}}}|2={{{2|}}}|3={{{3|}}}|4={{{4|}}}|5={{{5|}}}|6={{{6|}}}|7={{{vectordata|}}}|base=Convert to SVG}}<!--
-->{{{category|{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:File}}|{{ns:Category}}=[[Category:{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{#switch:{{lc:{{{1}}}}}
|chart=graph
|music=musical notation
|military|Distinctive Unit Insignia=military insignia
|physical=physics
|alphabet|architecture|art|biology|chemical|chemistry|circuit|coat of arms|diagram|emblem|flag|graph|icon|logo|map|math|military insignia|musical notation|physics|realistic|ribbon|symbol|signature|sport|technology|text={{{1}}}
|#default={{#ifexist:Category:{{{1}}} images that should use vector graphics|{{{1}}}|other}}}}}} images that should use vector graphics|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{vectordata|}}}|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:File}}|[[Category:Images that should use vector graphics (vector data available)]]}}}}<noinclude>
{{Documentation}}
</noinclude>

It will change

  • "Non-SVG vector data available" to just "vector data available",
  • additionally I renamed the "physical" category to just "physics" (as that's how it's used anyway) and
  • I created a new "realistic" category for those images the "physical" category was intended for once (images of realistic physical objects).

I'll update the documentation accordingly and fix the sorting of those few "realistic" images in "physical" category as soon as the edit request is fulfilled. Regards, --Patrick87 (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Perhelion (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Killiondude (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I updated the documentation, created the new categories and redirected the old ones. Additionally I tried to clean up the former "physical" category a bit. --Patrick87 (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Topics from 2014Edit

Recommend change links of Commons:Media for cleanup to its subsectionEdit

The link of Commons:Media for cleanup in this template should redirect to its subsection PNG or JPEG images that should be SVG to provide better and quicker understanding for readers. --Aflyhorse (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge "SVG/notify" with "Please use SVG"Edit

I mean Template:SVG/notify and Template:Please use SVG can be easy merged⁈ Any suggestion? User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 11:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Recommendation for positioning of this templateEdit

What do you mean would be the right place on the file-page for this template? Would be a standard procedure recommendable? User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 15:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Somewhere after file description were most maintenance templates should go. --Patrick87 (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Patrick87: Yes, this stays also so in the template description. But then tell this also this guy (he does this on several files).[3] User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 21:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
OMG, not Fry1989 again… I'm afraid trying to argue with him is a pointless waste of time, but if you need a second/third opinion feel free to ping me again or direct him to my talk page. --Patrick87 (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@Patrick87: Ok, then I would give these "dilemma" more public and give it to the VP. User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 11:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought the place to put it is before the file description -- similar to placing an article maintenance tag on the top of an article -- that way it is more likely to be seen and to be acted on, whereas just putting it at the end of the description it gets lost amidst everything else. So I think the diff above is correct. Jheald (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support top. Too many stupid people can't be bothered to scroll down the page so they add the template a second time. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support for top, as there’s where maintanance categories usually go — under the notion that they are temporary and should thus be in the most proeminent locations, before the description; an uncluttered file page would mean a file needing no cleanup, ideally. -- Tuválkin 22:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry guys: Your points are valid, but don't really apply here. Since {{Convert to SVG}} doesn't really qualify as a temporary maintenance template but is basically a categorization template which can sit on file description pages for years, the correct placement is somewhere below the file description. If you put the template on top, you're only making file description pages even more confusing for re-users (one of the reasons why the glorious MediaViewer was created). We should present the casual user with the most relevant information, not some static maintenance/categorization template he does not take any advantage from. Experienced users who are actually helping out in creating new SVGs know their business anyway and know where to look, so they don't need the template at the top. --Patrick87 (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Your comment shows the insanity of commons quite nicely. I have repeatedly been told how utterly and worldchangingly important it is that every file that is eligible for conversion be tagged and eventually converted. Now you comment here insinuating that the conversion really is not all that important and particularly the casual reader does not need not know that she is using a file with an inappropriate file format.
Albeit it is exactly the other way round. Especially for the casual user it is important that the template is shown at the top so that she knows that she is using an inferior file and that commons strives to deliver a file with a more appropriate file format. Btw there are other maintenance tags that stay on file pages for years. So if this is your prime criteria you should start to move them down the page as well. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Exactly… many maintenance templates sit unnecessarily on the top of the page for years. All I want is some common sense here:
  • If I have a perfectly fine PNG image with sufficient resolution for practically all use cases, there's no need for a hurry to convert it to SVG. It does not make sense to put the template at the top, thereby shifting the relevant file description and license information further down the page and giving the casual reader (as you write) the impression that he/she was looking at an inferior version of the image (when in fact the quality is just fine).
  • If I have a low-res, hand-drawn JPG file with many compression artifacts that should be converted to SVG as soon as possible, it's only logical to put the template on top of the page to get the work done as fast as possible.
The main problem here is that many people (for reasons I don't understand yet) put the {{Convert to SVG}} template on almost every raster graphics they encounter, even if it is in a perfectly fine quality that is more than sufficient for all Wikimedia projects and also enough for 99.9 % of other imaginable re-use cases. We really don't have to "sell" our images below value – I think we all know that most of us are perfectionists here! --Patrick87 (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
"many people (for reasons I don't understand yet) put the {{Convert to SVG}} template on almost every raster graphics" because this is the inoffical policy and if you remove these silly tags you are called a vandal and threatend with blocking. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's sure as hell no policy (not even an inofficial one) but only behavior of certain individuals amongst us. From your comment I actually get that you're not fond of the template at all? Why did you mention you'd prefer to have it even placed on top then earlier in this discussion? --Patrick87 (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: This is not a tag like {{refimprove}} or {{npd}} saying that something is wrong with the file itself. Nothing is wrong with files having this tag on their filedesc pages, it just indicates that another file should be uploaded.    FDMS  4    19:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question Okay, can we make some kind of RfC to made a more binding voting decision for this⁈ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 01:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Commons is not de.WP and therefore (unfortunately IMO) does not have any real MB equivalent (a RFC is not a vote). You might start a RFC, but if there's no participation, there will be no consensus. I personally wouldn't do that, and instead consider "don't change the position of this template unless you are the file's uploader" the outcome of this discussion.    FDMS  4    01:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

There are scores of templates that superfluously are put at the top of the page like valid/invalidSVG, translation possible, camera/object location, etc. I really don't understand why you have a particular problem with template. And yes the policy is that with these files there is something intrinsically wrong being that they are in the wrong format. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 07:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay then (we don't want a RfC) made the placement to the top. It is also completely unrealistic (IMHO) to made an individual decision, because nobody has the time to check every file-history who made the relevant edit (I am also against this annoying Uploader-rules as in the Rename-rules).
Anyway before @Docu: Can you please explain this edit, I can't find this here. Or some other, as Docu, who made the docu edit seems inactive. User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 12:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Problem: Meaningfulness of (individual) categorizationEdit

As mentioned here, there is a problem with this. So we need more clear a instruction/guideline to handle this. Here the pasted/moved relevant text from the previous discussion:

I mean there is a fundamental problem with sorting of the SVG tag. So I suggest to made this problem more public. The risk is very high that this will be lead to a meaningless over-categorization. As Sarang had also proposed to made this sort system (more like in the German WP) more useful.Template talk:Convert to SVG#Arguments for a 2nd parameter User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 12:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not just "over categorisation", it's also inappropriate categorisation. Someone seems to have not thought through who uses these 'need vectorisation' categories. Recently there was a 'family tree' chart of some branch of homo sapiens or some-such. This ended up as being categorised as {{svg biology}}. Whilst technically it is biology relevant, but as far as vectorisation goes it is more accurate to put it into the diagrams category as that is the sort of graphist required to convert it. Some graphist won't go near, say, anatomical or coat of arms stuff, and just concentrate on diagrams etc. Then there are some graphists who won't stray from biological topics. Obviously there are lots of in-between graphists too, but where do you think you'll find the likely sort of editor who is going to take the 'job'? So when doing these categorisations please bear in mind who's more likely to take the job rather than being totally pedantic about its categorisation. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I've known the problem now concerning the "sport map" category. I changed the parameters of the script, but they were not actualized immediately. So when I opened the category page I've seen the buttons for the previous parameters. Meanwhile the script actualized the parameters but the page looked the same, so I didn't get what I saw and some files were mistakenly categorized to "Sport map images that should use vector graphics‎". Karlfk (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Then what'll be the solution? Should I use that script? And what should I observe? Karlfk (talk) 10:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 10:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure what the question is here? From my look at the discussion the are at least three different issues apparent:
  1. Excessive use of {{Convert to SVG}} (sometimes even with automated tools) potentially leading to unnecessary and at times even useless overcategorization.
  2. Problems with the specificity of the categories we already have which makes it difficult to create useful categorization.
  3. Requests to expand the template to actually allow the introduction for even more categories.
Each issue is somehow linked to the previous (e.g. I f we had useful categories, we'd not need customization capabilities in the template, and if we'd not use the template excessively the whole categorization thing would probably not be an issue to start with). Therefore I think we should work off this list item by item instead of lumping together all those issues which will surely result in a lot of pointless discussion without useful result... --Patrick87 (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Topics from 2015Edit

Too many redirectsEdit

{{Convert to SVG}} ( prot. 74 524 times) is redirected by

Redirect 2015-02-11 now
{{ConvertToSVG}} prot. 1 042×
{{ConverttoSVG}} 56×
{{Convert to svg}} 1 084×
{{ToSVG}} 1 074× 0× but is filled up again by Closeapple
{{To SVG}} 108×
{{To svg}} 41×
{{2svg}} 34×
{{SVG}} prot. 19 405× 00 recommended shortcut
{{Svg}} prot. 5 755×
{{ShouldBeSVG}} 1 153× ~0×
{{Shouldbesvg}} 176×
{{Should be svg}} 491×
{{Should be SVG}} 901×
{{ShouldbeSVG}} 24×
{{Should Be SVG}}
{{SVG version needed}}
{{Vector version needed}}
{{SVG needed}}
{{Svg needed}}
{{In SVG konvertieren}} 141×
{{Vectorize}} 80×

It seems a bit too much, like at {{vva}}. sarang사랑 11:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

+1 Yes fully my opinion, I use a script (which need to scan all of the names) and I would be very gladly to delete some. I would do an collecting DR for minimum 50% of them. User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 14:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be possible to eliminate every one of the above with simple VFC tasks. The not (or almost not) used redirects can be done first, then some of the others. The last six ones are transcluded 224 times, which makes them first candidates for DR. The six "should be" (2746 transclusions) are next. The first nine redirects should be checked which names are useful; anyway every one transcluded less than 109 times can be eliminated, with the remaining five others we can discuss whether they are needed variations.
When I calculate it correctly the main template is transcluded 42 935 times directly, via redirects another 31 589 times. In my opinion, "Convert to SVG" is good to use, if any abbreviation should be than {{C2SVG}} would please me; all the variations for misspelled names are bogus. sarang사랑 19:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I see you are a man of action. Probably you can also do an mass DR to this? User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  12:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that most of the redirects listed are useless, but {{ToSVG}} and {{SVG}} should be kept, as they are shortcuts much simpler to write and remember, like {{PR}}, {{SD}}, etc. Thibaut120094 (talk) 09:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
{{SVG}} (and {{svg}}) will remain, as you can see, but 18 other redirects are in deletion sarang사랑 09:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you insist... But I think in the meantime, you should keep the redirect of the templates transcluded on protected files. Thibaut120094 (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm against deleting any of these without a DR that fully reveals how much use these templates have had, despite the mass-edit run by Sarang. (I've mentioned this to Sarang at User talk:Sarang#ToSVG and other templates because Sarang seems to be doing mass-edits without an explanatory edit summary and then marking templates for speedy, and reverting people who attempt to restore the templates in the meantime.) Also keep in mind that these are maintenance templates that are removed when the problem is fixed, so they get far more actual use over time than whatever the instant numbers are from day to day. I still use {{ToSVG}}; just because some people use bots and Twinkle for all their tagging, doesn't mean the rest of us do: Some of us do type this stuff out when we're editing a page for other reasons, and "ToSVG" is easier than "Convert to SVG" (which I typed twice in one message in the last hour). --Closeapple (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry when I upset other people. Some users agreed that 21 redirects are an unwanted proliferation. Changing a redirect against another one does not restrict the rights of anybody, nor reduce anyones ability to make all edits.
Shortcuts are a fine possibility to avoid tedious typing. "Convert to SVG" with 14 characters is sure too long, and a good abbreviation will help. IMHO just "SVG" is rather too short, especially without context it does not specify enough what it is for. But it is short, it is well established, it can be used. The other redirect "svg" without upper case is easier to type, but in my opinion the acronym SVG should not be in lower case. At the name "ToSVG" I am missing the "Convert", I would prefer "CtoSVG" or "C2SVG", and no other redirect.
But I do not intend to fight against some well established and loved redirects; if all your passion concentrates on {{ToSVG}}, you are accustomed to it and do not want to change your habit it may be kept. At least until nobody starts a correct DR discussion. . sarang사랑 07:00, Valentine's day 2015 (UTC)
{{ToSVG}} is now listed again as useful. It's a nice mnemonic name, while the shorter {{SVG}} is seriously flawed, this could mean something else starting with a forgotten "User" in {{User SVG}} or some not yet determined top level domain or three-letter language code in need of a template. Good riddance for the rest of this zoo, thanks. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I have not in mind to initiate a crusade or to fight against windmills. Everything can be discussed, and I do not insist that my opinion is the best one. My best wishes 新年快樂 for the New Year sarang사랑 08:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Column not well sortableEdit

Column not well sortable: The column "#" is not well sortable--Kopiersperre (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kopiersperre: This is an Mediawiki bug, I don't know about to fix this. But you can use as workaround the "category" column for the same. Maybe try ask in a technical forum for this. User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  11:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Return to "Convert to SVG" page.