[theme-reviewers] Question about removing default widgets

[Justin Tadlock]

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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>             <mailto: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
>             <mailto: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
>         <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>         http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     theme-reviewers mailing list
>     theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>     <mailto: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/20130301/22473441/attachment.htm>