Codename Lisa ᱵᱮᱵᱷᱟᱨᱤᱭᱟᱜ ᱮᱱᱮᱢᱠᱩ

᱒᱓ ᱯᱷᱮᱵᱽᱨᱩᱣᱟᱨᱤ ᱒᱐᱑᱘

• ᱑᱒:᱔᱔᱑᱒:᱔᱔, ᱒᱓ ᱯᱷᱮᱵᱽᱨᱩᱣᱟᱨᱤ ᱒᱐᱑᱘ ᱡᱩᱫᱟᱹ ᱱᱟᱜᱟᱢ −᱕᱔ ᱢᱳᱰᱩᱞ:URL Per talk page request. I studied the syntax carefully. Looks like it is alright after all. Since two eyes have seen this, I assume it is okay to commit it to the production version.

᱑ ᱡᱩᱞᱟᱭ ᱒᱐᱑᱗

• ᱑᱓:᱓᱐᱑᱓:᱓᱐, ᱑ ᱡᱩᱞᱟᱭ ᱒᱐᱑᱗ ᱡᱩᱫᱟᱹ ᱱᱟᱜᱟᱢ +᱔᱙᱕ ᱢᱳᱰᱩᱞ:URL Deploying the fixed code from the sandbox. See Template talk:Official website#Problem_with_Template:.27_used_in_website_description for details.

᱓᱐ ᱡᱩᱱ ᱒᱐᱑᱗

• ᱐᱖:᱐᱕᱐᱖:᱐᱕, ᱓᱐ ᱡᱩᱱ ᱒᱐᱑᱗ ᱡᱩᱫᱟᱹ ᱱᱟᱜᱟᱢ −᱑᱓᱓ ᱢᱳᱰᱩᱞ:URL Reverted good faith edits by Ahecht (talk): Your test case is unsatisfactory. It is not a bar-all case.

᱑᱒ ᱢᱮ ᱒᱐᱑᱗

• ᱑᱑:᱓᱕᱑᱑:᱓᱕, ᱑᱒ ᱢᱮ ᱒᱐᱑᱗ ᱡᱩᱫᱟᱹ ᱱᱟᱜᱟᱢ −᱙ ᱢᱳᱰᱩᱞ:URL Looks like unless the error is big and red, nobody is noticing it.

᱘ ᱢᱮ ᱒᱐᱑᱗

• ᱑᱑:᱕᱘᱑᱑:᱕᱘, ᱘ ᱢᱮ ᱒᱐᱑᱗ ᱡᱩᱫᱟᱹ ᱱᱟᱜᱟᱢ −᱒᱙ ᱢᱳᱰᱩᱞ:URL It is foolish to advertise the use of parameter that we are deprecating

᱑᱙ ᱮᱯᱨᱤᱞ ᱒᱐᱑᱗

• ᱐᱕:᱒᱑᱐᱕:᱒᱑, ᱑᱙ ᱮᱯᱨᱤᱞ ᱒᱐᱑᱗ ᱡᱩᱫᱟᱹ ᱱᱟᱜᱟᱢ −᱑᱑ ᱪᱷᱟᱸᱪ:URL Removed the discontinued parameter. It was long overdue.

᱓᱐ ᱚᱠᱴᱚᱵᱚᱨ ᱒᱐᱑᱖

• ᱑᱓:᱔᱙᱑᱓:᱔᱙, ᱓᱐ ᱚᱠᱴᱚᱵᱚᱨ ᱒᱐᱑᱖ ᱡᱩᱫᱟᱹ ᱱᱟᱜᱟᱢ −᱖᱐ ᱪᱷᱟᱸᱪ:Infobox website Undid revision 746799654 by CFCF (talk) More aliases means less performance

᱑᱓ ᱚᱠᱴᱚᱵᱚᱨ ᱒᱐᱑᱖

• ᱐᱘:᱕᱑᱐᱘:᱕᱑, ᱑᱓ ᱚᱠᱴᱚᱵᱚᱨ ᱒᱐᱑᱖ ᱡᱩᱫᱟᱹ ᱱᱟᱜᱟᱢ −᱓,᱕᱔᱕ ᱪᱷᱟᱸᱪ:Infobox website Reverted 11 edits by CFCF (talk): This is an article to do bold edit. This is a highly visible template. Sandbox and peer-review first.
• ᱐᱑:᱓᱗᱐᱑:᱓᱗, ᱑᱓ ᱚᱠᱴᱚᱵᱚᱨ ᱒᱐᱑᱖ ᱡᱩᱫᱟᱹ ᱱᱟᱜᱟᱢ −᱓,᱐᱘᱒ ᱪᱷᱟᱸᱪ:Infobox website Reverted to revision 739864785 by Izno (talk): Reverted to the last known good version after observing multiple damaging edits by CFCF.

᱙ ᱚᱠᱴᱚᱵᱚᱨ ᱒᱐᱑᱖

• ᱐᱙:᱕᱕᱐᱙:᱕᱕, ᱙ ᱚᱠᱴᱚᱵᱚᱨ ᱒᱐᱑᱖ ᱡᱩᱫᱟᱹ ᱱᱟᱜᱟᱢ −᱘ ᱪᱷᱟᱸᱪ:Infobox website Reverted change by User:CFCF. Where is the consensus for this change?

᱘ ᱚᱠᱴᱚᱵᱚᱨ ᱒᱐᱑᱖

• ᱑᱕:᱐᱕᱑᱕:᱐᱕, ᱘ ᱚᱠᱴᱚᱵᱚᱨ ᱒᱐᱑᱖ ᱡᱩᱫᱟᱹ ᱱᱟᱜᱟᱢ −᱑ ᱪᱷᱟᱸᱪ:Infobox website Null edit to force a refresh
• ᱐᱙:᱒᱗᱐᱙:᱒᱗, ᱘ ᱚᱠᱴᱚᱵᱚᱨ ᱒᱐᱑᱖ ᱡᱩᱫᱟᱹ ᱱᱟᱜᱟᱢ −᱑ ᱪᱷᱟᱸᱪ:URL No edit summary

᱒᱑ ᱚᱜᱚᱥᱴ ᱒᱐᱑᱖

• ᱐᱗:᱐᱙᱐᱗:᱐᱙, ᱒᱑ ᱚᱜᱚᱥᱴ ᱒᱐᱑᱖ ᱡᱩᱫᱟᱹ ᱱᱟᱜᱟᱢ −᱑᱙ ᱪᱷᱟᱸᱪ:URL Reverted good faith edits by Izno (talk): Please see the talk page.

᱖ ᱰᱤᱥᱮᱢᱵᱚᱨ ᱒᱐᱑᱔

• ᱐᱕:᱒᱗᱐᱕:᱒᱗, ᱖ ᱰᱤᱥᱮᱢᱵᱚᱨ ᱒᱐᱑᱔ ᱡᱩᱫᱟᱹ ᱱᱟᱜᱟᱢ +᱓᱘᱐ ᱢᱳᱰᱩᱞ:URL Alright, redeploying. I feel this Module is thoroughly tested this time. I even spot-checked it against Portable Document Format right now.
• ᱐᱓:᱒᱖᱐᱓:᱒᱖, ᱖ ᱰᱤᱥᱮᱢᱵᱚᱨ ᱒᱐᱑᱔ ᱡᱩᱫᱟᱹ ᱱᱟᱜᱟᱢ −᱓᱐᱕ ᱢᱳᱰᱩᱞ:URL Reverted 1 edit by Codename Lisa (talk): I CANNOT believe this... We test and test and test and nobody notices?
• ᱐᱓:᱒᱔᱐᱓:᱒᱔, ᱖ ᱰᱤᱥᱮᱢᱵᱚᱨ ᱒᱐᱑᱔ ᱡᱩᱫᱟᱹ ᱱᱟᱜᱟᱢ +᱓᱐᱕ ᱢᱳᱰᱩᱞ:URL Sandbox testing successful. The active discussion thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Chrome vs. Firefox Wikipedia rendering didn't register any blocking objection. Tests at Well... I guess it is all well.

᱒᱙ ᱱᱚᱵᱷᱮᱢᱵᱚᱨ ᱒᱐᱑᱔

• ᱐᱘:᱑᱘᱐᱘:᱑᱘, ᱒᱙ ᱱᱚᱵᱷᱮᱢᱵᱚᱨ ᱒᱐᱑᱔ ᱡᱩᱫᱟᱹ ᱱᱟᱜᱟᱢ +᱒᱖᱕ ᱪᱷᱟᱸᱪ:Infobox website Added the same language syntax that is available in {{infobox software}} and {{infobox web browser}} (I think). Spot-tested against OneDrive. Seems to work okay.

᱓᱐ ᱢᱮ ᱒᱐᱑᱔

• ᱑᱙:᱔᱘᱑᱙:᱔᱘, ᱓᱐ ᱢᱮ ᱒᱐᱑᱔ ᱡᱩᱫᱟᱹ ᱱᱟᱜᱟᱢ +᱙᱘ ᱪᱷᱟᱸᱪ:Infobox website Committing a modified version of User:Sardanaphalus's request.

᱒᱙ ᱢᱮ ᱒᱐᱑᱔

• ᱑᱓:᱐᱗᱑᱓:᱐᱗, ᱒᱙ ᱢᱮ ᱒᱐᱑᱔ ᱡᱩᱫᱟᱹ ᱱᱟᱜᱟᱢ −᱓᱐ ᱪᱷᱟᱸᱪ:Infobox website Oh, I see we already have a talk page discussion about changing this too. Plus Template talk:Infobox software#RfC: natural and programming languages labels has already obtained wide community consensus.
• ᱑᱐:᱕᱓᱑᱐:᱕᱓, ᱒᱙ ᱢᱮ ᱒᱐᱑᱔ ᱡᱩᱫᱟᱹ ᱱᱟᱜᱟᱢ +᱒᱘ ᱪᱷᱟᱸᱪ:Infobox website Endorsed one edit request by User:Sardanaphalus. (See: talk page.)

᱑ ᱰᱤᱥᱮᱢᱵᱚᱨ ᱒᱐᱑᱓

• ᱑᱘:᱑᱔᱑᱘:᱑᱔, ᱑ ᱰᱤᱥᱮᱢᱵᱚᱨ ᱒᱐᱑᱓ ᱡᱩᱫᱟᱹ ᱱᱟᱜᱟᱢ +᱑ ᱪᱷᱟᱸᱪ:Infobox website This is better, given the state of articles... Still, no one is using it yet, so no harm is done.
• ᱑᱘:᱑᱒᱑᱘:᱑᱒, ᱑ ᱰᱤᱥᱮᱢᱵᱚᱨ ᱒᱐᱑᱓ ᱡᱩᱫᱟᱹ ᱱᱟᱜᱟᱢ +᱒᱑᱙ ᱪᱷᱟᱸᱪ:Infobox website {{#invoke:InfoboxImage}}