[theme-reviewers] Question about removing default widgets

Fri Mar 1 15:05:09 UTC 2013

We do wait for the release cycle for new or significantly changed
Guidelines; anything that's a clarification, omission, or especially
egregious (such as some new critical security issue) can generally be added
when needed.

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Justin Tadlock <justin at justintadlock.com>wrote:

>  No, not really.  I just figured we'd wait since we generally add
> guidelines when WP is updated.  I don't see any reason why it couldn't go
> in right now though.
>
>
> On 3/1/2013 8:43 AM, Chip Bennett wrote:
>
> That is clearly an oversight from a previously held discussion/decision,
> and should be added. Is there any particular reason to wait until 3.6 to do
> so?
>
>
>  On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Justin Tadlock <justin at justintadlock.com>wrote:
>
>>  I would be on board with that too (enhancing but not combining
>> widgets).
>>
>> We should nail out a guideline for this for the 3.6 guideline updates.
>> Here's the text from our original guideline for this that was never added
>> to the theme review page:
>>
>> Themes may OPTIONALLY unregister core Widgets
>> If unregistered, Themes are REQUIRED to replace these Widgets with their own (extended) version
>>
>> I think that should cover it.
>>
>>
>> On 3/1/2013 8:14 AM, Chip Bennett wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Cais that *enhancing* core Widgets is one matter, and
>> inherently acceptable, and that *combining" core Widgets is a separate
>> matter, and not acceptable.
>>
>>  From the end user's perspective: changing the active Theme should not
>> change the list of default core Widgets. If the user sees core "Archives"
>> and "Recent Posts" Widgets listed with Theme A active, the user should
>> still see "Archives" and "Recent Posts" Widgets listed with Theme B active.
>>
>>  This conversation has motivated me to push my Category and Tag Widget
>> improvements back upstream, along with Oenology's "Post Formats" widget. If
>> they are accepted into core, I'd love to be able to remove them from the
>> Theme. (Less code to maintain FTW.)
>>
>>  As for cluttering up the Widgets screen: well, IMHO it's already a huge
>> mess. What would a few extra Widgets matter? :)
>>
>>
>>  On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>   Although I did agree with the idea of replacing default core widgets
>>> with "enhanced" versions of the same widget, given this conversation I
>>> believe this can be expanded upon.
>>>
>>>  First, I do not agree with multiple "default" widgets being replaced
>>> with a single "enhanced" widget. As far as I am concerned this is not
>>> acceptable.
>>>
>>>  Second, if the default widget is going to be "replaced" it should be in
>>> the sense the new "enhanced" widget is simply extending the default widget.
>>> Lets take the default "Categories" widget as an example, an extended
>>> version should provide exactly the same functionality as the default
>>> version when it is initiated.
>>> The enhanced version then may add on top of that functionality
>>> additional options such as an include or exclude option, again just as an
>>> example using the Categories widget, there are much better enhancements
>>> that could be implemented, such as RSS feeds (h/t Chip)
>>>
>>>  That being said, I also happen to agree with Otto on why lose out on
>>> the opportunity to self-promote with a custom widget that may be exclusive
>>> to the theme ... even adding in three or four theme widgets will not really
>>> clutter up the widget window that much; and, if they are prefaced with the
>>> theme name (IIRC this is not covered in the guidelines) they will also
>>> naturally be grouped together as well.
>>>
>>> Edward Caissie
>>> aka Cais.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 5:58 AM, Dane Morgan <dane at danemorganmedia.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>>  On 2013-02-28 22:50, Otto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Justin Tadlock
>>>>> <justin at justintadlock.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It can be an archive widget, posts widget, or something like that.
>>>>>>  Another
>>>>>> good example is a combination of the tags and categories widgets into
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> super-cool taxonomy/terms widget.  That'd be neat to see.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Those should be *entirely new widgets*, labeled with the name of the
>>>>> theme in front of them..
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would you be intentionally incompatible *and* ignore freebie
>>>>> branding opportunities? I just don't get it at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Otto
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  +1
>>>>
>>>> I think Otto has this one right. Maybe some users don't agree that your
>>>> enhancement is an enhancement. Give them the option and let them try you
>>>> out, don't confuse them and take away default choices.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing listtheme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.orghttp://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing listtheme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.orghttp://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20130301/ff13986a/attachment-0001.htm>