[theme-reviewers] Guidelines regarding Theme Names

[Trevor Turk]

Maybe it would just make sense to have a separate "exceptions" section
that says to write this list if you believe your theme might be
appropriate for the  directory even though it doesn't meet all of the
guidelines. In the case of a "normal" theme, comments would be
required and therefore comments.php would be required. Best to leave
things as clear as possible for "normal" themes because it's already a
lot to take in when you first approach it.

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph)
<philip at frumph.net> wrote:
> if the simplist theme didn't use comments he wouldnt have 'required'
> comments.php with it so yeah
>
> so under the required theme files
>
> comments.php (if theme uses comments)
>
> ?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Chip Bennett
> To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 7:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] Guidelines regarding Theme Names
> Then we need to address the criterion that Comments are required
> functionality.
> I think the best course would be to add an exception statement, to allow for
> specialized Themes - although personally I don't think barebones support for
> comments is all that much of an encumbrance. Regardless, I think
> comments.php should still be listed as a required template file. (The above
> exception would be implied here.)
> Chip
>
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Very well ... so we are eliminating all the "pure" CMS themes that would
>> not use comments?!
>>
>> If I was to develop a theme that is strictly for the purpose of serving
>> information (whatever it may be) then I have no use for comments. If the
>> theme is presented in that fashion it should be reviewed as a special case
>> and potentially acceptable.
>>
>> Forcing the inclusion of tempalte files that serve no purpose to the theme
>> is simply forcing the theme to be bloated with unused files.
>>
>>
>> Cais.
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The issue is that comments_template() is required for correct
>>> implementation of Comments, and the use of comments_template() requires a
>>> template file to be passed as an argument.
>>> So, if Themes incorporate comments functionality (which is a
>>> requirement), they must use comments_template(), ergo, they must have a
>>> comments template file.
>>> Chip
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Edward Caissie
>>> <edward.caissie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Has anyone pinged this directly to nacin? It may just be an oversite or
>>>> a core issue that should be addressed versus a template file inclusion
>>>> issue.
>>>>
>>>> I'm having a hard time believing the basic minimal requirements need to
>>>> be extended beyond including index.php and style.css (with scrennshot.png
>>>> only being required for the Extend/Theme repository).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cais.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph)
>>>> <philip at frumph.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> that original simplist theme that came up in this theme reviewers
>>>>> thread + comment from otto & nacin
>>>>>
>>>>> just give it a try with the minimal theme and nacin's plugin, it comes
>>>>> up
>>>>>
>>>>> (and no, no other deprecated messages come up)
>>>>>
>>>>> - Phil
>>>>>
>>>>> The official word is that the 'default' functions that fallback in WP
>>>>> are never really updated and who knows if they're going to be in there
>>>>> anymore in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Edward Caissie
>>>>> To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>>> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 7:41 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] Guidelines regarding Theme Names
>>>>> So no comments.php file throws a deprecated message at you? That
>>>>> doesn't seem right ...
>>>>>
>>>>> What theme is this happening with? I'd like to see this myself ... and
>>>>> are there other tempalte files we will need to make requirements for similar
>>>>> reasons?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cais.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph)
>>>>> <philip at frumph.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While your in there add comments.php to the minimal theme files
>>>>>> requirement, official deprecated message comes up without it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: Chip Bennett
>>>>>> To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 7:35 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] Guidelines regarding Theme Names
>>>>>> Right on. I threw that together really quickly (and tend to err more
>>>>>> toward a "formal" tone anyway.
>>>>>> Looks good! Some of those (especially the "version-specific,
>>>>>> markup-related terms" item. Could probably use more content there. What else
>>>>>> similar don't we want in Theme names?
>>>>>> Chip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Edward Caissie
>>>>>> <edward.caissie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't change the intent of the section, but I did go in and
>>>>>>> "lightened-up" the text a bit ... it's a little less "formal" but the
>>>>>>> meaning is the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cais.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See here:
>>>>>>>> http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Review#Theme_Name
>>>>>>>> Please advise, comment, correct, and/or add appropriate Theme
>>>>>>>> Name-related guidelines. I notice I'm running into several instances where I
>>>>>>>> have to comment on the Theme Name. Some objective guidelines in this area
>>>>>>>> will be helpful.
>>>>>>>> Chip
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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 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 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 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 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 list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>