Talk:Hiro and the Dinosaur (painting)

Capitalization

I realize that our convention only capitalizes the first word of a page title, but aren't the titles of paintings normally capitalized fully? --Ted C 10:35, 4 January 2007 (EST)

Titles of paintings should be fully capitalized, I believe. Is this an official name for the painting, though, or a name we've given to it? If it's officially called Hiro and the Dinosaur by the writers/artists then I'd definitely say it should be capitalized. If it's a name we've given to it then maybe it should still be "Hiro and the dinosaur" to reflect that it's not a proper name but instead a descriptive name. (Admin 10:42, 4 January 2007 (EST))

I'm pretty sure it's unofficial. --Ted C 10:52, 4 January 2007 (EST)

Do we need to do a similar update to Exploding Man? --Ted C 10:54, 4 January 2007 (EST)

There's no hurry at the moment. I'd actually like to get opinions on this other than just mine. Let's leave Exploding Man as is until others have offered their views. (Admin 10:56, 4 January 2007 (EST))

We ought to come up with some standard. The other one is actually Exploding Man (painting). At the very least, this one ought to be "Hiro and the dinosaur (painting)" or we ought to move the other to "Exploding man". Since the articles are about the paintings, not the events, my vote is for the first option, for clarity's sake.--Hardvice (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2007 (EST)

I agree with the (painting) suffix idea. About the capitalization, do you think it should be lowercase, too, since these are technically descriptive names and not official names for the pictures? (Admin 14:42, 4 January 2007 (EST))

I dunno. Part of me wants to say that an unofficial title is still a title. Some works have a capped/italicized "common name" despite having a formal title, like Duchamp's The Large Glass (actually titled The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even) or the Mona Lisa (actually titled La Giaconda). Lots of untitled works are referenced by (capitalized) descriptions, like a lot of minimalist stuff (Robert Morris's Untitled (L-Beams), for example). The other part wants to stick with our naming convention. Also, I have just used my undergrad degree in Art History for the first time, ever.--Hardvice (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2007 (EST)

I'm inclined to capitalize even unofficial names for paintings. That would be consistent with what we did for Exploding Man. I have no problem with including "(painting)" as a suffix, as long as we have a redirect from the name alone. --Ted C 14:59, 4 January 2007 (EST)

If we're using "Hiro and the Dinosaur" as a title, I feel it should be capitalized as a title. We're not describing Hiro's encounter with a dinosaur, since it hasn't happened - the page name is (in my opinion) the title (albeit unofficial) of the painting. I say capitalize it. (And yes, let's put "(painting)" as a suffix for clarity.)

As for Exploding Man (painting), the only "official" name that has been given is "Energy Man", given as an extension in the http link http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/novels/downloads/energyman.jpg. I don't think it matters whether we call it Energy Man or Exploding Man, though I personally prefer Exploding (it's more descriptive, and references the explosion). - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2007 (EST)

I think I covered every name for the Exploding Man (painting) that anyone has used. --Ted C 15:22, 4 January 2007 (EST)

Future Hiro

It looks like the Future Hiro is fighting the dinosaur, not the "regular" Hiro. If you look carefully, you might notice a braid on Hiro's back. Obi-Dan Kenobi 14:19, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Could be, who knows? Although, Future Hiro had a soul patch and no glasses. Hmmm... - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Yeah, it's unlikely that's Future Hiro. He's also wearing the same outfit he's been wearing recently. (Admin 14:58, 6 January 2007 (EST))

Looks like it could be a scabbard for the sword, not a braid.--Hardvice (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2007 (EST)

So is this the painting of the event at the museum?

It sure looks like it, but the sword is not in the scabard in the painting...Everything else is right though. An oversight by the props staff, or is the painting yet to be realized?--ASEO 14:40, 1 February 2007 (EST)

At this point, it's impossible to be sure. Hiro was posed correctly, but it does look like he has a drawn blade in the painting. The only confirmation would be to see Hiro run into a live dinosaur at a future date. --Ted C 15:10, 1 February 2007 (EST)

The latest CBR interview seems to indicate that the prophecy was fulfilled. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2007 (EST)

So...there are two?

Just clarification... is it just an error that they left the painting in Isaac's studio or did he paint a second one for Hiro? --Riddler 02:24, 20 February 2007 (EST)