only forget publisher for journals if it is same

[GlazerMann]

Includes a test
I believe this is ready to merge
I am NOT saying that this is a good idea. It is still being discussed

[josve05a]

This is a parameter field which adds content and should not be removed (by a bot) without consensus, not the other way around. We should NOT get consensus in order to NOT remove the parameter.

A manually entered field (which add content) should not be removed by a bot. A manually entered field which is redundant or does not add anything new could be removed by a bot. To change this, consensus needs to be gathered, not the other way around.

[GlazerMann]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources Only suggested for books.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Citation_Style_1#Work_and_publisher should not be included unless important

This feature is over three years old just from checking GitHub

[josve05a]

@GlazerMann If it is added, a human has decided that it is important.

[GlazerMann]

The bot has been removing it since February 2014 which is when the code went to GitHub. And it was certainly not new at that point

[josve05a]

Lack of complaint does not equal consensus. Has the bot (previously, or ever) gotten community consensus to remove such fields?

[ms609]

From memory, Cite journal used to specify that publisher should not be set for journals; as such, the bot was implementing a consensus decision. I note now that the documentation does not explicitly mention this. I'm not aware of any style guide that would advocate including a journal's publisher, as it is very difficult to think of a situation where this would be useful information. Nevertheless, I would suggest that Template talk:Cite journal would be an appropriate place to reach a consensus on the appropriate behaviour here.

I'm closing the PR for now; feel free to reopen it once consensus has been obtained / reaffirmed.