I just completed the majority of the work of merging the documentation for these two extensions into one page at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:OATHAuth.
I have a couple questions and review requests for specific doc sections:

Configuration#Parameters

• I added $wgPrioritizedModules to the parameters table along with a brief description of what I think it does: could @Catrope verify I wrote true things here, and that this should indeed be included in this table?
• I reordered the table to match the order that these config params show in the code. I also made the table sortable, so it's easier to sort by name now that we have a mix of OATHAuth and WebAuthn rows listed in the same table.

Cross-wiki support(WebAuthn)

• I left the warnings in this section that came from the WebAuthn page, but I thought perhaps this had been resolved and we didn't need these warnings anymore?
• On the other hand, I added a note that this section doesn't apply to Wikmiedia SUL wikis, but is that untrue? I see T376021 is still open, so I'm unsure.

For the page Extension:WebAuthn:

• Should I mark this page as {{Historical}}? Or {{Archived extension}}? Not sure what the preferred practice is for when an extension's functionality still exists but has been integrated into another extension. Perhaps the existing notice box is sufficient, but that doesn't follow the standard practice of using one of these templates that adds categories, etc.
• Should I remove Category:Extensions_used_on_Wikimedia from that page if it's archived or marked historical? Similarly, should the release status in the extension documentation template on that page be changed to something else, like Unmaintained?

Thanks!

In T415665#11637499, @TBurmeister wrote:

I just completed the majority of the work of merging the documentation for these two extensions into one page at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:OATHAuth.

Thank you!

I have a couple questions and review requests for specific doc sections:

Configuration#Parameters

• I added $wgPrioritizedModules to the parameters table along with a brief description of what I think it does: could @Catrope verify I wrote true things here, and that this should indeed be included in this table?

I have removed it from the table. Now that the extensions are merged, we don't need this to be a setting anymore, and I'd like to get rid of it (T418317).

• I reordered the table to match the order that these config params show in the code. I also made the table sortable, so it's easier to sort by name now that we have a mix of OATHAuth and WebAuthn rows listed in the same table.

Great, thank you!

I also removed a few other settings (that no longer exist) from the table, and fixed a few typos.

Cross-wiki support(WebAuthn)

• I left the warnings in this section that came from the WebAuthn page, but I thought perhaps this had been resolved and we didn't need these warnings anymore?

Thanks for moving these over. These warnings still apply, so they should stay.

• On the other hand, I added a note that this section doesn't apply to Wikmiedia SUL wikis, but is that untrue? I see T376021 is still open, so I'm unsure.

It's... not totally true, but also not totally false. I think the note is more confusing than it is helpful, so I'd remove it. The last paragraph of this section pretty much already says what I think we should say: there is built-in support in OATHAuth for multi-wiki setups where all the wikis are on subdomains of the same root domain, but not for setups across multiple root domains; WMF has a multi-root-domain setup and uses the "shared domain" feature in CentralAuth to make that work, and in theory third parties could use that too, but we don't have good documentation for how to set this up in a non-WMF environment and to our knowledge nobody has ever done that.

For the page Extension:WebAuthn:

• Should I mark this page as {{Historical}}? Or {{Archived extension}}? Not sure what the preferred practice is for when an extension's functionality still exists but has been integrated into another extension. Perhaps the existing notice box is sufficient, but that doesn't follow the standard practice of using one of these templates that adds categories, etc.

I don't think there is a preferred practice because merging extensions this way rarely happens, I'm not sure if it's ever been done before. I think {{Archived extension}} would the best option, with a custom "reason" indicating that it's been merged into OATHAuth.

• Should I remove Category:Extensions_used_on_Wikimedia from that page if it's archived or marked historical?

Yes, you should remove that regardless, because it's no longer being loaded in WMF production.

Similarly, should the release status in the extension documentation template on that page be changed to something else, like Unmaintained?

It looks like archiving an extension involves blanking the page, and linking to the old version of the page pre-blanking (using an oldid) for people who would like to read what it used to say. So I don't think you have to change this, I think you can just archive it, and delete the extension documentation template (and everything else) when you archive it. If people click through to see the old content, they'll see that it says "stable", but they will have been warned that they're looking at old content.