[theme-reviewers] [WordPress Themes]

Thu Dec 16 19:55:31 UTC 2010

The old rule of thumb about the rips of twenty-ten used to be that just changing the text-domain was not enough, that it had to offer something different that twentyten did not, the header menubar/header piece at the top really doesn't cut it.

As for the header image/text, they could respond that its 'by design' and really there's nothing you can say about it other then 'recommending' it be larger, but definately not a reason to fail the theme.

So if the theme itself doesn't have anything new to add to its pretty much the twenty ten theme, thats sufficient enough to not-approve it,  respond back Cais if this is still the case?

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Furcifer 
  To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org 
  Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 11:49 AM
  Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] [WordPress Themes]

  I'm gonna suggest is be not approved until that header is fixed, it's not really just the menu, the header image is set far too small as well, I'm guessing they didn't use the standard  test data and that they were probably using a screen with a low res.

  From: theme-reviewers-bounces at lists.wordpress.org [mailto:theme-reviewers-bounces at lists.wordpress.org] On Behalf Of Edward Caissie
  Sent: 16 December 2010 19:45
  To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
  Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] [WordPress Themes]

  Moving the menu in Twenty Ten can offer some challenges ... 

  On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Furcifer <furcifer at furcifer.net> wrote:

  Yeah I was thinking that to

  From: theme-reviewers-bounces at lists.wordpress.org [mailto:theme-reviewers-bounces at lists.wordpress.org] On Behalf Of Edward Caissie
  Sent: 16 December 2010 19:31

  To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
  Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] [WordPress Themes]

  Just a quick look (via SVN) at the header.php template file makes me think this is a Twenty-ten child-theme ...

  Cais.

  On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Furcifer <furcifer at furcifer.net> wrote:

  The new one that is, not the Typo theme >.<

  -----Original Message-----
  From: theme-reviewers-bounces at lists.wordpress.org
  [mailto:theme-reviewers-bounces at lists.wordpress.org] On Behalf Of Edward
  Caissie
  Sent: 16 December 2010 15:20
  To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
  Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] [WordPress Themes] #2131: THEME:
  Typo-o-graphy - 3.0.2

  No worries. That's why we work through the first ones together. Even
  long time reviewers still miss things, too.

  Sent from my iPhone

  On Dec 16, 2010, at 10:18 AM, Furcifer <furcifer at furcifer.net> wrote:

  > @Cais damn I missed a few things, I apologise.
  >
  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: WordPress Themes <theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
  > Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 2:49 PM
  > Subject: Re: [WordPress Themes] #2131: THEME: Typo-o-graphy - 3.0.2
  >
  > #2131: THEME: Typo-o-graphy - 3.0.2
  > ---------------------+---------------------------------
  >  Reporter:  tommek  |     Owner:  FurciferRising
  >      Type:  theme   |    Status:  assigned
  > Resolution:          |  Keywords:  theme-typo-o-graphy,
  > ---------------------+---------------------------------
  >
  > Comment (by cais):
  >
  > => all (unique) theme functions should be appropriately prefixed with a
  > consistent 'namespace' such as 'typo_' to avoid possible conflicts; see
  > 'menu_args()' and 'add_my_stylesheet()' as examples (there are more to be
  > addressed).
  > -> index.html is does not need to be included with theme
  > -> The 'add_editor_style()' function was called but the default 'editor-
  > style.css' related file was not found. This should be addressed with the
  > next update.
  >
  > Overall: not-approved
  > * Items marked => must be addressed, they are singificant and will most
  > likely cause the theme to be not accepted.
  > * Items marked with -> are suggestions, but recommended to be addressed.
  > * Items marked with - are notes and observations.
  > * Other items noted should be addressed and corrected as needed.
  > * Additional review may be required once the above issues are resolved.
  >
  > --
  > Ticket URL: <http://themes.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/2131#comment:3>
  > WordPress Themes <http://themes.trac.wordpress.org/>
  > WordPress.org Theme Directory Reviews
  >
  > _______________________________________________
  > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20101216/a4c1b95b/attachment.htm>