User talk:Ohconfucius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Queen's Pier Edinburgh Place Ferry Pier Ao Man-long Shaoguan incident July 2009 Ürümqi riots Question Time British National Party controversy Akmal Shaikh 2010 Nobel Peace Prize Danny Williams (politician) Amina Bokhary controversy Linn Isobarik Quad Electrostatic Loudspeaker Rega Planar 3 JBL Paragon Invader (artist) Olympus scandal Demerara rebellion of 1823 Yamaha NS-10 LS3/5A Naim NAIT Knife attack on Kevin Lau Roksan Xerxes Kacey Wong Causeway Bay Books disappearances Gui Minhai

Still changing access dates contrary to MoS[edit]

Why are you still changing access dates that are consistent within an article and allowed by the MoS (per MOS:DATEUNIFY and WP:CITEVAR), as at Cordyline pumilio? Please stop now. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Changes to List of British Army full generals[edit]

Thanks for your script assisted edit to List of British Army full generals ([1]). While mostly beneficial, please note the the Bombay Staff Corps (and similar staff corps) is a proper noun and as such all its initial letters should be capitalized. Not sure if this is a script bug or intentional but grateful if you would rectify. Thanks again. Greenshed (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Edmund Charaszkiewicz[edit]

Ohconfucius, I appreciate your good intentions in regard to "Edmund Charaszkiewicz", but he was not a "British person of Polish descent". He was a Pole who ended up in Britain due to the vicissitudes of history. He could not return to Poland, so he stayed in Britain. That is not sufficient reason to change the spelling used by the article's original author. Please do not change the spelling again to British. To prevent further confusion, I have deleted the "British persons of Polish descent" category.
Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Still a strong national tie. American English doesn't make any sense in that context.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  03:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Stanton. @Nihil novi:I also tend to feel the period of enforced residence British Isles still counts as a strong national tie. It's not like the Philippines, which was colonised by the USA and thus Philippine articles tend to be in US English. Poland has no such ties with the US. It's not down to whether he voluntarily spent time there, but the fact that he did that makes a difference. If an individual was educated in Britain in their youth and without any other sojourns in US territories, it would be the same. -- Ohc ¡digame! 11:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
In that case, I propose applying Oxford spelling, which uses the suffix -ize in words like organize and recognize because -ize corresponds more closely to the Greek root, -izo (-ιζω), of most -ize verbs. Oxford spelling is used by many British academic and science journals (e.g., Nature) and many international organizations (e.g., the United Nations and its agencies), and in many British literary works, including the King James Bible, the works of Shakespeare, The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien, And Then There Were None by Agatha Christie, and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis.
The -ize spelling is common for academic, formal, and technical writing for an international readership. The spelling affects about 200 verbs and is favored because -ize corresponds more closely to the Greek root, -izo, of most -ize verbs. The belief that -ize is exclusively an American spelling is incorrect. In Britain, both the -ise and -ize spellings are used.
Nihil novi (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that suggestion. Seems reasonable enough! -- Ohc ¡digame! 21:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Ohconfucius, for introducing Oxford spelling into the "Edmund Charaszkiewicz" article!
Nihil novi (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Case titles[edit]

Hi I see you have been active cleaning up various formatting issues, for which I thank you. In amoung your edits however I see you have been tending to remove any words & numbers in parentheses from case titles - for example in your edit to Wilkie v Commonwealth you removed the (No 2) for the second external link, which left the page confusing the two different cases. As this example the words in parentheses disambiguate which case is being referred to, helping to maintain the accuracy & verifiability of wikipedia. Find bruce (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Also I have now noticed you have been introducing errors by purporting to correct the spelling of quotes from the Constitution of Australia, legislation and court cases, eg [2], [3], [4] & [5]. Please stop. Find bruce (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, which has allowed me to fix a bug in my script. Please note that, except in R v Kirby article, there is nothing to indicate that the words ought not to have been changed – they are not bounded by quote formatting. Quotes ought rightly to be protected from arbitrary change (but wasn't in the case of R. v Kirby because of a script glitch). The errors were made in good faith, and I don't really think that your tone was warranted. Anyhow, my apologies. -- Ohc ¡digame! 16:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry that you think there is some problem with my tone. In any event, it would seem my fundamental point is not clear. "Overruled" is a legitimate word and I am unaware of "over-ruled" being commonly used. The use of "-ise" or "-ize" is context sensitive, at least in Australia. As an example the Macquarie Dictionary lists "recognise" and "recognize" as being equally used spellings. Where the spelling of a word such as "recognize" is acceptable in the context of an article, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. Where an article uses spelling consistently, there is no valid reason for a change in the absence of consensus.
Similarly in relation to wikilinks, I am at a loss to see any legitimate explanation for changing "Williams v Commonwealth (No 2)" to "Williams v Commonwealth", or why you or your script thinks that a wikilink to Oxford University should be replaced with Oxford that is a link to the city of Oxford.
My polite request was for you to stop running a script that requires a substantial amount of rework to restore the articles to a context appropriate spelling. Find bruce (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I think that we were slightly talking cross-purposes.My point was that there was no indication within wikicode that the passages were quotes, so the script could not parse them as such. I was indeed unaware that Macquarie recognises the Oxford "-ize" on the par with "-ise" in Australian, and I thank you for pointing it out. There is no argument about the other points, for which the relevant scripts have been adjusted. I see now that you intended your message to be polite, and I take it as such. However, I'd like it noted that I consider the final sentence "Please stop" as being rather abrupt, and what caused me to comment about your tone. G'day! -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad we are able to resolve things. I can see your point about what I intended to be polite can be seen as being abrupbt & I will try to avoid that in the future. Thanks. Find bruce (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
Hello, Ohconfucius.

As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Changes to 2017 Brighton siege[edit]

Hello Ohconfucius, I had to fix the article 2017 Brighton siege following your script. You removed all the Facebook video references which were official Victoria Police media briefings which created citation required tags. AnomieBOT had to rescue orphan refs. Your script changes website info to publisher for cite news and work info was removed and publisher only info. Cite AV media was changed removing publisher info and changing work to publisher. This is the second article you have run scripts. Clearance Diving Branch (RAN) article was changed. In cite news info was removed newspaper which was the official title. Cite web changed website to publisher. Cite episode the title info was changed to work. It takes me considerable time to rectify your changes.--Melbguy05 (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Augh! If that's the case, Ohconfucius, please fix it. One of the most constant sources of frustration (multiple times per day almost every day) that I have as a citation cleaner is people constantly putting the work title in the publisher field, which is wrong, wrong, wrong. It's the same thing as confusing The Magical Mystery Tour with Apple Records, or Garner's Modern English Usage with Oxford University Press. For {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite journal}}, and various others (but not {{cite book}} – bug has been reported to WT:CS1), |work= is synonymous with |website=, |journal=, |newspaper=, |magazine=, |periodical=. It's desirable that all of these be replaced with |work= for consistency and brevity. It also aids conversion (e.g. of mistaken uses of {{cite web}} when {{cite news}} should have been used, or whatever). For {{cite book}}, |work= should be an alias of |title= which is divergent from |title= in other templates, the {{cite book}} equivalent of which is |chapter=.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  14:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@Melbguy05 and SMcCandlish:I'll fix the ref names where problems exist. Two things:
  • WP has clear policy not to refer to primary sources and self-published sources except for very special circumstances. The only exception is where a link is provided to the subject's own website. I do not think any of those exceptions apply here. Twitter, FB are notable among those SPS. Therefore, the script automatically strips citations that refer to these. Editors ought to find notable secondary sources that substantiate or formally mention the elements that are included in any given article. If no secondary sources exist to cite, then that tends to suggest the information isn't notable to start with.
  • As to the use of the |work= and |publisher= parameters, it's exactly the problem that Stanton describes, where editors populate the wrong field which consequently gives rise to incorrect italicisation. Someone in their wisdom decided to create confusing parameters and I'm happy to build regexes for these were it not be for my fear of the false positives that would start appearing immediately. And where the source is a well known one, such as, putting additional publisher is not recommended. There is no problem with |work=Navy News, but |website=RAN Clearance Divers Association is clearly wrong as it's an organisation and not a publication (this is an instance where the |website= parameter is misleading). is a website whose name in WP is not italicised (not yet, anyway), so the use of the non-italicising |publisher= parameter is correct. Furthermore, as a red herring now that I notice it, that site is not owned by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation but by Rupert Murdoch, so its removal was correct albeit for the wrong reason. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
    There are lots of cases where primary sources are permissible, ranging from WP:ABOUTSELF to providing attribution for quotations. And not everything on these sites is primary anyway (when they're not, the site should be in |via= instead). I think this behavior by the bot is beyond its approved scope. I.e., if you proposed a bot to delete primary and alleged primary source citations of these sites, that bot request would be denied. What it should probably be doing is adding {{primary source inline}} to these citations, so that they're tagged and categorized as probable but not 100% in need of cleanup. Even a primary source is better than no source. The correct solution to a statement cited to a primary source when it is not something (per WP:AEIS) that can be drawn from a primary source is to remove the claim, not the source for it. That's something that requires human judgement as to a) whether the case in question qualifies, b) whether the cite to a usually-primary site is in fact primary, and c) what the affected material is.

    Next, the "incorrect" italicization is subjective and debated trivia (and if eventually the debate ended, in favor of no italics, then just a temporary matter of template limitations). The real issue is that the metadata is all F'ed up, and the citation is confused and confusing, harder for readers to use to verify that our content is accurate.

    Additionally, the entire idea that " is a website whose name in WP is not italicised (not yet, anyway), so the use of the non-italicising |publisher= parameter is correct" is totally, utterly false. That parameter is for the publishing company, only. Never, ever, ever for the name of the work (whether it be a conventional title like Salon or a domain name like Whether MOS:TITLES is being obeyed in a particular article or not, and whether that guideline will have a rule to not italicize titles of online works or not (it does not) has no bearing of any kind on what parameters to use for the correct data in citation templates. Their style is presently fixed, but in theory they could be adjusted to not italicize |website= if a) we had an actual consensus that domain/host names used as tiles not be italicized (there is no such consensus), and b) the |website= were re-documented and re-coded to be for hostnames only (throwing an error if one is not used), and c) |work= were re-documented as required (in that form or one of its aliases) for non-hostnames, throwing an error if one is used. I.e., |work= would have to no longer include |website= as an alias. If this is what you want, good luck. It will take multiple RfC and months if not years to gain consensus for that, if it ever happened. You can't just impose it via bot in a WP:FAITACCOMPLI manner. I hate to be so strident about this, but this is serious matter, and the ideas you're presenting are ones that we've been over before multiple times in great detail without consensus emerging for them.

    PS: In the event that a publication's title and publisher have identical or even near-identical names, we do not use the |publisher= parameter. This even applies to traditional offline publications; e.g. we use |work=[[The New York Times]], not |work=[[The New York Times]]|publisher=[[New York Times Company]], not just |publisher=[[New York Times Company]], and never in a million years |publisher=[[The New York Times]] or |publisher=[[The New York Times|]]. That's just blatant citation data falsification for WP:POINTy style trivia viewpoint advocacy purposes.
     — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  15:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

    Thank you for the input. I will modify the script in light of your comments. I clean up a great many citation errors, and I can tell you that all those proscribed forms you mention above exist. I think that editors often cannot be bothered to read the citation templation documentation, and fill in the parameters wrongly.
  • Thanks for addressing it! And, yes, the "put random stuff in whatever parameter" problem is rampant (thus my "constant source of frustration" comment) and mostly affects online sources, though I also very frequently encounter things like |publisher=BBC News, |publisher=International Journal of Basketweaving, etc. (And a different kind of error: |publisher=Google Book, |publisher=YouTube – those are properly |via=). For websites, I think the similarity between (or even exact equivalence of) the name of the work and the publisher for most online publications leads to much of the confusion. People don't see a "traditional" title at "" or whatever (like Foo Bar: Barian News for Fooites, just a "" decorative logo, don't understand that's the actual title, and don't find a publisher name in the copyright info other than something like " Inc.", so they aren't sure what to do, and put | and that's it. PS: A further complication is that when it comes to such an entity, something like "A. B. Ceesdale worked as the systems administrator from 2003 to 2012" is correct style even if you're in the "italicize domain names as publications" camp (i.e. "The news was first published in"), because in the former case "" is being addressed as a business entity with employees, like New York Times Company, not as a publication (source). Unless we settle on a "never italicize a publication name if it is a hostname" (unlikely, but possible), we'll eventually have to address this in MOS:TITLES, since after 16 years people are still doing it wrong on a daily basis.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  23:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • If you're referring to the removal of "newspaper" from Navy News newspaper, I don't believe it actually belongs in the title. In any event, the mention "the official newspaper of the Royal Australian Navy" ought not be in the field. -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
    True. That's a marketing tagline, not a subtitle.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  15:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Ohconfucius. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harry Littlewood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A Moment in Time (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Script assisted removal of "|language=en"[edit]

What exactly is the logic of removing "language=en" from reference wikicode? Sure it's ignored, but when it comes to translate an article into another language, if the language of a reference is not provided, then it makes the lives of translators an absolute nightmare. Every ref I add, due to experiencing this myself, I try to add "en" in the language. I can't understand why you'd want to remove them, it seems a little silly (and a waste of time and resources) if you ask me. UaMaol (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It's just clutter, and wastes more resources here than removing it both for WMF and our readers. Any source that doesn't have something like |language=es is assumed to be English on this wiki, just like sources with no language parameter at es.Wikipedia are presumably Spanish. This isn't a "nightmare" for anyone, just common sense. It's not like every wiki is going to support the English-language parameter name |language= in their own templates, anyway. So, the copy-paste-parameters-while-translating argument doesn't fly.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  08:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Stanton. Well, exactly. The moment to tag a source |language=en would be at the point of using the reference on a sister WP project. It serves no meaningful function here on en.WP, as it English is the default. I would add that it is not a wasted of time as I do not look to perform insignificant edits. The change, whenever it is performed, is always part of an edit where there are more significant changes to the form or formatting of articles. My advice to you is to save yourself the bother of adding "en" in the language – the time you spend doing that would be more productive spent elsewhere. -- Ohc ¡digame! 18:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with both of you points. Resources would be better spent elsewhere indeed for both matters, but considering you've mentioned it, I'm going to continue using it. Let's waste both of our time and resources... UaMaol (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@UaMaol:Your prerogative, of course. Face-wink.svg -- Ohc ¡digame! 10:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Precious three years![edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bernie Sherlock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kells (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing[edit]

Hello, Ohconfucius.
AfC submissions
Random submission
~8 weeks
2246 pending submissions
Purge to update

I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged.
Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


Why do you prefer linking like "Napoleon Bonaparte" rather than "Napoleon Bonaparte"? I see no advantage at all in the first construction and it looks bad to my eye. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Can't sasy why exactly. I don't go consciously changing "Napoleon Bonaparte" from "Napoleon Bonaparte". I suspect it may have been an automated simplification of piped links. Which article are you referring to where I may have changed this? -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's something the script does: Celia Homeford (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I suspected as much, as someone foolishly piped "Napoleon Bonaparte" to "Napoleon", instead of using the piped link "[[Napoleon Bonaparte]]". It's what redirects on WP are for. The script picks up redundancies within links and created the simplest link. -- Ohc ¡digame! 20:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Nick Yates[edit]

Hello Ohconfucius. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Nick Yates, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Stupified after removing copyvio. Still might be good for AfD, but not speedy now. . Thank you. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you. Will consider that route in due course. -- Ohc ¡digame! 23:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gu kailai.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Gu kailai.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Angelique Rockas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-apartheid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Possible bug / issue with citation edits[edit]

Hi there, just wanted to draw your attention to your recent edit at Alexander Macdonald, 17th of Keppoch, in which you changed the existing ref name "macdonald391" to "macdonald391A", "macdonald391B", and "macdonald391C". These three had the same content, so didn't need different ref names. This is clearly not a big deal (and I never would have seen it, had not one of them generated a ref error), but I wanted to mention it in case this is indicative of a larger issue with the script-assisted fixes. If not, ignore me. And ignore (or correct) me if I'm misunderstanding something here. Thanks! :) Jessicapierce (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

website vs publisher in Cite Web[edit]

Hi Ohconfucius. We seem to be treating the |website= and |publisher= of Template:Cite web differently. With your script you changed "|website=Newnham College|publisher=University of Cambridge" to "|publisher=Newnham College" on Jenny Morton. To me this is incorrect. According to the template page "website: Title of website" and "publisher: Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant. The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website)." In this example, the website is Newnham College but it is published by the University of Cambridge (as shown by the of the address). Could you explain your reasoning? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 12:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

  • User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa, as can be seen at Help:Citation_Style_1#Work_and_publisher, |website= is an alias for what ought to be works or journals – these are normally italicised according to our style guide. The example used in Template:Cite web, "Encyclopedia of Things", reflects this, as the encyclopaedia would clearly be be a reference work in publishing terms. The field |work= is therefore not intended for Newnham College, which is not a "work" or "journal" according to any known definition. As such, a more appropriate way to express the information in that case would be |publisher=Newnham College, or |publisher=Newnham College, University of Cambridge if you insist on a greater level of completeness, and the |work= would be left blank. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 21:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "work: Used by some templates such as {{cite web}}, {{cite news}} (where it is aliased to newspaper), {{cite magazine}} (aliased to magazine), {{cite journal}} (aliased to journal)": the reference to aliases here means that the |work= is named differently in cite news/etc, not that only newspapers/journals/etc can feature in the work parameter.
  • On websites, in most cases "work" is the name of the website (as usually given in the logo/banner area of the site, and/or appearing in the <title>...</title> of the homepage, which may appear as the page title in your browser tab, depending on browser); otherwise use the site's domain name. If the "work" as given by the site/publication would be exactly the same as the name of the publisher, use the domain name. This clearly shows that the website name is what goes in |work= when using Cite web.
  • As for |publisher=: "publisher: the name of the company that actually published the source". This parameter is about which company/organisation/etc has published the website; it is not for stating the name of the website itself.
  • "The "publisher" parameter should not be included either for mainstream, widely-known newspapers, or where it would be the same or mostly the same as the work/site/journal/etc." This shows that |work= has prominence over |parameter= and it is the latter that is left out if they are the same; not |work= as you have suggested.
Therefore, going off the above the options for the example we are discussing are:
  1. |work=Newnham College and |publisher=University of Cambridge
  2. |work=Newnham College, University of Cambridge (and no |publisher=)
  3. | and |publisher=University of Cambridge
Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 22:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Gaia Octavia Agrippa, I promise you I didn't make any of it up. CS1 is certainly one of those guidelines that is involved, and there may have been discussions that are not reflected in the template documentation. I clearly remember bringing up the issue of publisher/work, and possible confusion subsequent to the creation of the |website= alias, but I was told instructions would be made unambiguous. Maybe user:Jonesey95 can help? -- Ohc ¡digame! 20:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Following the documentation, I would use option 2 above, per the banner on the web site. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
That's alright Ohconfucius: I know what its like to do something a certain way because you're sure that's the way its supposed to be done, only to have the supporting evidence for that practice has disappeared/maybe never existed as remembered. Thanks for your input Jonesey95: the banner does currently support that option, it did formerly simply say Newnham College. Does this mean you'll adjust your script Ohconfucius? Or what ever it is that would need changing; the technical side of Wiki is my fortey. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 22:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Since you offered, maybe you'd like to take a look at my sources script first, to see how it can be adjusted for the above, and then maybe what other improvements you can suggest to to it as well as my other scripts. Face-wink.svg -- Ohc ¡digame! 20:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I should have read my reply again. I meant that the technical side is not my fortey. I wouldn't know where to start! Sorry, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg -- Ohc ¡digame! 11:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)