[[Template:t-SOP]]
This template is no longer needed and is nominated for deletion, see WT:RFDO#Template:t-SOP. Could you modify your translation tool so that it uses {{tø}} instead? Note that unlike {{t-SOP}}, this template does not automatically link individual words, so your tool needs to take that into account. {{t-SOP|nl|grote auto}} gives grote auto but {{tø|nl|grote auto}} gives grote auto, so you need {{tø|nl|grote auto}}. If a call to {{t-SOP}} already includes a link, you don't need to change it.
I made a quick-and-dirty hack. Not an ideal solution, as now the script user and a later editor see different wikitext to correct, but this script was never meant as anything more than a dirty hack anyway. Someone should now modify template_l_xform in Module:links so that it does not add section anchors. (And drop this. Why did you not use a tracking category like usual, anyway?)
Just saw what happened to Module:scripts, by the way. Do we really need so strong protection of modules? (Also, search for -- !!!. There are two script codes which probably need some love.)
The protection is there because any changes there would affect just about every page on the wiki. For example, if someone were to delete "Latn" then every page using Latin script would trigger a script error!
The function template_l_xform is going to be deleted actually. But it can't be because {{t-SOP}} still uses it, and {{t-SOP}} is still being used by... your script. :) Your script shouldn't add {{t-SOP}} to entries anymore, it should convert it to {{tø}} (or {{t0}} which is a redirect) whenever possible. However, {{t-SOP}} would automatically add links to the words if there weren't any links in the text (through template_l_xform) while {{tø}} does not do that, and I didn't know if your script would always add links to SOP terms. That's why I asked you to change it yourself.
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?