Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-26893431-20180203204530/@comment-26893431-20180226210744

Atvelonis wrote: Amulet of Kings wrote: Why are Bethesda and ZeniMax the only developers considered licensed? What about Dire Wolf Digital and Vir2L? I changed my mind since the moot, I think that we should highlight that the information comes from sources that are sanctioned by Bethesda.

I propose to use Sanctioned (SAN) for novel references. If we reach an agreement I could change the references in the pages I edited. No reason Dire Wolf Digital and Vir2L wouldn't count as licensed if they're making copyrighted material, they would be included if we go with "Licensed." Novels would probably count as licensed too.

I still feel that "Unlicensed" isn't the best grouping. It's difficult/impossible to define whether a lot of texts are copyrighted at all, such as the Translation of Calcelmo's Stone (authored pre-Skyrim by Kuhlmann, who works for Bethesda, but it wasn't part of the game...?). We also have the From The Many-Headed Talos, which is partially copyrighted because part of it appeared in Skyrim. There's also numerous undated texts such as the ones I linked above, so we'll end ultimately up with a bunch of sources whose status can't really be accurately defined.

Using the classification of "Developer texts" would help us avoid this issue. If it was written by a developer, and is a standalone text, it would fall under that category. Kind of self-explanatory. So all of the current Out-of-Game Texts would be sorted this way, but a published blog post from ZeniMax (e.g. Loremaster's Archives, news updates, etc.) would be given a regular reference tag. Given your current explanation, I think DEV would be fitting.

I'll always have a bit of favoritism for UL, because for the more casual player, it's easier to understand than DEV, imo, but I suppose that could depend on the person.