[theme-reviewers] Pagelines Themes: Theme URI

Chip Bennett chip at chipbennett.net
Wed Oct 6 19:53:33 UTC 2010

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com>wrote:

> Line 12 in my editor: Author URI: http://www.pagelines.com
> Thus the Author URI and the footer credit link (i.e.: the leaf image in the
> footer) are the same.

Yep; not sure what I was thinking there. Author URI is defined, and is the
same as what is used in the footer.

> I understand the issues you are having with the theme and the Theme URI,
> and I have read your comments regarding the Theme URL and credit link but
> you are extending the current Theme Review guidelines well beyond what is
> currently written. If we are to adopt the additional criteria you have
> written we cannot "not-approve" this theme based on it.

I disagree. The URI given for Theme URI is not specific to **the Theme
submitted to the Repository**. Rather, the URI is for a *different *Theme -
the paid-upgrade version of the submitted Theme.

The only connection it has to the submitted Theme is that the submitted
Theme is linked from the page (in a not-terribly-conspicuous manner, at

> We can go forward with the criteria, we can ask the author to correct this
> issue as soon as possible as the current URI link will not be accepted in
> the future. It is fundamentally important for us to not appear to make up
> the rules as we go which is how this could easily be contrued.

How so? The Guidelines state:

Theme URI, if used, is *required* to link to a page specifically related to
the Theme.

The Theme URI in question does not meet this criterion, because the linked
page *is not specific to the submitted Theme*.

> This is an interpretation of the Theme URI usage and one that should be
> clarified, I'm fine with wording to the effect of your comment being used to
> add/update the Theme Review page, but I am not fine with a not-approve
> resolution solely based on it.
> ... or in other words, as much as I agree with your comment and reasoning
> we have nothing that clearly supports it beyond the discussions in this
> thread. We have set the Theme Review page(s) in place so all will be able to
> see and understand what is required and with that we have also set them as
> the Theme Review Team's guideline for review commentary.

I disagree, for the reasons stated above.

I'll clarify the comment regarding footer credit link, since it is
consistent with the defined Author URI.

> A comment to the effect "the Theme URI is not specific enough" would better
> suit the current written guidelines, unfortunately we cannot modify our
> comments ...

We can always add new comments - which I am about to do.

> In this case, and as I see it all similar instances should be addressed on
> a case-by-case scenario, the Theme URI issue should be addressed but if it
> is the only issue (again, in this case) then I would likely advise the
> author it needs to be corrected with the next update in the very near future
> and approve it. IF there are any other issues, then this Theme URI issue
> must be corrected with the next update or it will be resolved to
> "not-approved".
> And again I disagree. The Theme URI not being correct is, IMHO, potentially
a show-stopper.

If Theme URI is the same as Author URI, or incorrectly points to WPORG, or
something, fair enough. We can ask that to be fixed in the next version. But
if Theme URI is intentionally being used to link to a page/site that is not
accurate, appropriate, and specific to the Theme, then we shouldn't give
that a pass.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20101006/dab9bbba/attachment.htm>

More information about the theme-reviewers mailing list