Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-26893431-20180203204530/@comment-26893431-20180219192203

Atvelonis wrote: Blademaster Jauffre wrote: So we're now voting between UL and DEV for which one replaces the OOG ref group? Yes. We also have to come up with an adequate replacement for the text on the OOG template. You suggested above that we could simply change "out-of-game" to "unlicensed" in that description, but if we go with that terminology we'll probably have to give a more accurate explanation of what is considered licensed.

Notice: The following are unlicensed references. They are not found in any in-game books, but can still be considered part of The Elder Scrolls lore and are included for completeness.

This sort of works, but I think it isn't really useful to readers who aren't already familiar with the term. I still don't exactly understand the way you intend to define "unlicensed" but my guess is based on copyright from Bethesa/ZeniMax, so something like this might be preferable:

Notice: The following are unlicensed references. They are not copyrighted by Bethesda or ZeniMax, but can still be considered part of The Elder Scrolls lore and are included for completeness.

Personally it makes intuitive sense to me which texts would be sorted under DEV and which wouldn't, but I'm having a hard time wording this in a concise way. I guess just changing "out-of-game" to "developer" works because it's not a legal definition or anything, but this definition still feels a bit off to me.

Notice: The following are developer references. They are not found in any in-game books, but can still be considered part of The Elder Scrolls lore and are included for completeness. That's indeed what I meant with unlicensed, I'm personally a supporter of unlicensed, but I suppose there might have to come some kind of serious vote.

I think either of the two suggestions you made would work.