[theme-reviewers] Why can't theme authors have a second version of a theme?

Otto otto at ottodestruct.com
Fri Sep 26 22:38:33 UTC 2014

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Not taking any sides but "Responsive" is already fair game :
> https://make.wordpress.org/themes/2013/02/26/clarifying-guidelines-for-theme-name/#comment-29874

With regards to that specifically, I believe he was thinking more along the
lines of a theme named something like "XYZ Responsive". or something like
that. In such a case, the "XYZ" part is the name, the "responsive" is just
a descriptive feature. Really, it's a spammy keyword technique, and we
shouldn't allow it... but, whatever, that doesn't bother me that much.

My concern is more along the lines of "versions are not supposed to be in
names". We don't allow plugins that do this. You can't make "PluginX 2.0"
as a plugin name. We get submissions that do this so much that we have a
form letter response to send back to them.

If it's an update, then it should actually update the original, not be a
new one. You update the original "PluginX", not make a new entry for
"PluginX 2". Calling a theme "Responsive II" or "2" or "Part Deux" or
whatever you like violates this rather simple and basic principle. This is
just my opinion, of course.

"Weaver II" was allowed to do it because he retired Weaver at the same
time. No conflict, no problem. If a theme was submitted named "AwesomeTheme
1.0" and the "1.0" part was actually in the name, I would hope we would
reject that as well. Version numbers should not be in names.

And a new entry in the directory should be treated as would any other new
entry, not as an update to another entry.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20140926/9f8b510f/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the theme-reviewers mailing list