[[Template:t-SOP]]
It no longer adds {{t-SOP}} directly to entries, but substitutes it. As template_l_xform is only used by {{t-SOP}}, I think it can be safely changed in whatever way without casualties. So I proposed a change above which would make everything work with minimal effort. When the migration to {{t}} is done, we will get rid of both. When this happens is another matter, see this month's Grease pit.
I kind of understand the protection level in case of Module:scripts or Module:languages — the changes are expected to be quite rare (they are not now, but this is a temporary situation), and need to be discussed anyway — but for say, Module:links it is somewhat harmful because it encourages forking by people who do not have necessary privileges (I think User:ZxxZxxZ had to be recently elevated to administrator status just because of that). Functions become disorganised and spread between many different modules. It also prevents progress when no administrator has enough interest to discuss or implement a proposed change. The same can apply to templates — I wanted today to modify {{pl-conj-ap}}, but could not, because it was locked by a control freak administrator who is now inactive. Same with {{pl-decl-noun}}. How often do you (you people, not necessarily thou specifically) expect vandalism to happen? Are such drastic measures worth this harm?
{{t-SOP}} failed RFD and should really be deleted soon, so could your script avoid using it altogether?
Sure why not, done. Still, you could make that change to Module:links, so that the remaining uses can be dealt with using a simple subst:. Why the rush, though?
Which change are you talking about? To template_l_xform? But that's also going to be deleted...
Yes. But while we still have it, it can do its one last job.
Ok just to make things clear. Your script does not use {{t-SOP}}, so that can be deleted? But it does still rely on template_l_xform, so it can't be removed yet?