[WikiEN-l] Original research or common sense inferral?

[Andrew Gray]

On 02/04/07, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:

> > And?  It's a logo.  Why would it need to be?
>
> Well, I raised that on the talk page, and Chelseaboy (he of the
> heraldic interests) commented "It is obvious from looking at the
> shield (which is illustrated in the box at the top of the article)
> that it is a shield [...] newly formed shields of arms (this is a
> shield bearing a chevron and a cross, which are heraldic elements)
> used in England require authorisation from the College of Arms before
> display".
>
> I wonder then if the logo of the [[Ministry of Sound]] (and probably
> those of many other outfits) require authorization...

I'm not sure it's so much "require authorisation" as making the point
that it *isn't* a shield of arms. It looks like one, it feels like
one, but it *isn't* one. My understanding is that if you're using it
as a shield, it has to be authorised; in this case, it isn't, so it's
simply a pretty and confusing logo.

Really depends what you present it as, I suppose.

Something similar happened with the [[University of Durham]]; it
remarketed itself under a new name and a new badge recently, but the
official crest stayed the same.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk