[theme-reviewers] Pages: date/time stamp should not be displayed?!

Thu May 16 17:13:17 UTC 2013

Comments are time-dependent. Static page content isn't.

> This is dealing with "Pages With Comments" specifically(?!)

No, that applies to both pages with and without comments. But there's no
need to check it on both, unless someone, for some reason, wrapped
the_time() inside of an if ( comments_open() ) conditional - which is
something I've never seen.

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com>wrote:

> Here is the original entry:
> http://codex.wordpress.org/index.php?title=Theme_Unit_Test&oldid=91273#Page_With_Comments
> Here is the current entry:
> http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Unit_Test#Page_With_Comments
>
> This is dealing with "Pages With Comments" specifically(?!), does this
> mean theme authors are now required to not show timestamps in the comments,
> too? I honestly do not see the difference between a page with or without
> comments and the relevance of not having a timestamp displayed. I see
> displaying a timestamp on a page as a service to the reader, one which the
> author of the page content should be taking into consideration when they
> write the original content and/or any subsequent edits as well.
>
> Edward Caissie
> aka Cais.
>
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>
>> I think, with respect to Static Pages, "static" also refers to "not
>> time-dependent". Time is irrelevant to the Static Page and its content.
>>
>> Consider a static-content HTML site converted to WordPress - such as what
>> people refer to when using that heinous, cringe-worthy phrase, "using
>> WordPress as a CMS" - that static content exists outside of any sort of
>> time reference. Publish date is irrelevant for Static Page content.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Edward Caissie <
>> edward.caissie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No timestamp means no fixed position means not static ...
>>>
>>> Edward Caissie
>>> aka Cais.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Edward Caissie <
>>> edward.caissie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A published timestamp fixes the page to a point in time, thus making it
>>>> truly static.
>>>>
>>>> Edward Caissie
>>>> aka Cais.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Let's look at this another way: what would be the point/benefit of
>>>>> displaying the *publish* date/time on a Static Page?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Edward Caissie <
>>>>> edward.caissie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My bad for not "noticing" it before now ... but that does not change
>>>>>> the point that it should not be in the guidelines; or the point that there
>>>>>> are most likely quite a few themes that should not be in the repository
>>>>>> based solely on that guideline as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point of something being static requires it to be fixed to a
>>>>>> certain place or time thus having a timestamp is more likely to indicate
>>>>>> the page to be static than to not have a timestamp. Having a guideline that
>>>>>> dictates no fixed location, as in time, seems more counter-intuitive than
>>>>>> useful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Edward Caissie
>>>>>> aka Cais.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Amy Hendrix <sabreuse at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (this is becoming a bad habit!) My bad -- that wasn't the original
>>>>>>> version, just the oldest revision on the first page of history
>>>>>>> (D'OH!)
>>>>>>> but my point is that the no timestamps guideline has been around for
>>>>>>> several years now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Amy Hendrix <sabreuse at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> > Sorry to follow up to my own email, but the first version of the
>>>>>>> Unit
>>>>>>> > Test codex page at
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> http://codex.wordpress.org/index.php?title=Theme_Unit_Test&oldid=91985
>>>>>>> > has "Make sure datestamps or timestamps are not visible." in 2010
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> > as authored by Cais ;)
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Amy Hendrix <sabreuse at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >> The guideline that Posts should display timestamps but Pages
>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>> >> not has been around for as long as I've been using the Theme Unit
>>>>>>> Test
>>>>>>> >> -- I completely agree that stale information on posts is always an
>>>>>>> >> issue, but IME the norm for just about all the users I deal with
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> >> that static pages should be seen as static, not time-dependent.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Emil Uzelac <emil at uzelac.me>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>> I did not have time to check latest version yet, however I do
>>>>>>> agree
>>>>>>> >>> that timestamp should be displayed and not dictated if that is
>>>>>>> the case.
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Edward Caissie <
>>>>>>> edward.caissie at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> I was just reviewing the latest Theme Unit Test data (mostly
>>>>>>> because I
>>>>>>> >>>> cannot seem to get the entire data set to import into my local
>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>> >>>> environment) and noticed "date/time stamp should not be
>>>>>>> displayed" ...
>>>>>>> >>>> perhaps I missed some extensive discussion but where did this
>>>>>>> guideline come
>>>>>>> >>>> from?
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> This is the single most common complaint about information
>>>>>>> found on
>>>>>>> >>>> WordPress installations that I hear, the reader generally has
>>>>>>> no idea if the
>>>>>>> >>>> information is current or stale ... and more often than not
>>>>>>> those search
>>>>>>> >>>> results that appear to rank highest tend also to be the ones
>>>>>>> that are
>>>>>>> >>>> outdated.
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> I can see the category/tag meta data not being displayed
>>>>>>> (mostly due to it
>>>>>>> >>>> not being available in a default installation) but to not show
>>>>>>> the timestamp
>>>>>>> >>>> by reason of it being a guideline, that simply does not make
>>>>>>> sense.
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> By design? Yes. By theme author prerogative? Yes. Dictated by
>>>>>>> the WPTRT?
>>>>>>> >>>> NO.
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> Edward Caissie
>>>>>>> >>>> aka Cais.
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> >>>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20130516/ee87b193/attachment-0001.html>