I would also welcome this, especially if it could be done in one edit with a comment. However, I don’t think this can be implemented without needing manual configuration until global templates are available, and the need for manual configuration means that smaller wikis lacking techy people will most probably miss this feature.

In T270605#6710148, @Tacsipacsi wrote:

...I don’t think this can be implemented without needing manual configuration until global templates are available, and the need for manual configuration means that smaller wikis lacking techy people will most probably miss this feature.

@Tacsipacsi: can you share what's led you to think offering the functionality @Urbanecm is describing [i] depends on global templates?

i. I understand the core of this task to be an easy way for people to:

• A) Communicate to others that a topic has been "resolved" and it would defy conventions for people to add any new comments to it.
• B) Signal to relevant bots to archive said topic.

Including such template instructs the archiving bot to archive the topic from the page.

@Urbanecm: how common is it that the archive bot you are referring to is updated to support new templates and/or changes to existing ones?

...I ask the above [naively] wondering whether we ought to consider supporting bots, as they're currently configured, to be a requirement.

In T270605#6817470, @ppelberg wrote:

Including such template instructs the archiving bot to archive the topic from the page.

@Urbanecm: how common is it that the archive bot you are referring to is updated to support new templates and/or changes to existing ones?

...I ask the above [naively] wondering whether we ought to consider supporting bots, as they're currently configured, to be a requirement.

I'm not sure I understand the question right. It probably shouldn't be hard for a bot operator to use a different template. However, it would be nice (and probably not hard from engineering perspective) if the tool had an option to customize the name of the template via an interface message (ie. a page in NS_MEDIAWIKI), as non-English projects probably wouldn't use templates in English (some of them do, but some of them, incl. Czech Wikipedia, don't).

Does this make sense, Peter?

In T270605#6817469, @ppelberg wrote:

@Tacsipacsi: can you share what's led you to think offering the functionality @Urbanecm is describing [i] depends on global templates?

This functionality not needing manual configuration depends on global templates. Without global templates, there’s no reliable way to use a template cross-wiki (and it needs to be a template, otherwise bots won’t find it). Wikidata can be used to connect similar templates, but it can’t ensure the level of consistency this feature needs. For example, the first unnamed parameter is mandatory and should be ~~~~ in case of m:Template:Section resolved, while it’s an optional parameter for overriding the default text (and signature should be next to the template, not passed as a parameter) in case of ar:قالب:منظور. Maybe TemplateData could be used to give instructions to DiscussionTools, but, again, that needs manual per-wiki configuration.

• A) Communicate to others that a topic has been "resolved" and it would defy conventions for people to add any new comments to it.

Actually, I don’t agree with this interpretation. As the Meta template says,

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.

(emphasis by me). You may choose to implement a limited functionality (i.e. no option to reopen the discussion), but then you should explicitly implement a limited functionality; this limitation shouldn’t just happen to be.