Talk:Relativity (M. C. Escher)

message: obviously, im am not an avid user of wikipedia, as im a incapable of setting up a properly formatted discussion page for the Relativity piece.
there are sixteen characters in this piece, whilst the article states there are fifteen. I will highlight the 16th if needed. I thought it be best to not edit the original text, but ask for other peoples' opinions first.
: I updated the article with the correct number of characters, thanks for pointing it out. Otherwise, you should not hesitate to make changes to articles - if you make a mistake, it will be corrected. Wikipedia has a policy that people should be bold in editing, so that's fine. The only articles where you should be really careful about making changes and discussing them first are those about controversial and political subjects. -- Ze miguel 09:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of characters

message: Is this really sometimes called Crazy Stairs or was that just taken from Family Guy?
I'm pretty sure that this has only come up in Family Guy.
Yes, that definitely needs to be changed.JRNorbergé 03:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crazy Stairs 

message: The recent PC game "Prey" contains Relativity-like features, such as more than one gravity source in a single environment. Perhaps that should be mentioned, or at least linked?
If you were to do a section on Relativity in popular culture, it would be huge.  It's too big to be feasible, I think.
Verin (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prey 

message: It seems to me that most of the analysis of the physics of Gravity is wild and ungrounded speculation. While every detail is certainly a possibility, do we have any reason to discard other interpetations? I know we can't exactly ask Escher himself, but saying certain things would be impossible in Gravity without any basis outside speculation seems unwise.
I mean, it's a work of art, for goodness' sake! And since when did Escher's other impossible works display such consistency?  --Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.35.3.46 (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis of Physics 

message: The focus on the physics of the picture totally misses the philosophical reasoning behind the engraving. I think this needs an updating at some point. 70.25.64.82 (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: 2021

message: I don't understand the need for a citation for the statement that the image contains 3 different sources of gravity, when the image in question is included in the article and you can plainly see it for yourself. Is anyone actually arguing that the image contains fewer or more than 3 sources of gravity? If not, is there any actual need for a citation?  
It seems to me that there's something of a trend recently on wikipedia to require citations for everything and anything, and I don't think that's always a good thing.
Sometimes [citation needed] it can be [citation needed]  difficult [citation needed] to read [citation needed] articles [citation needed] that have [citation needed] had 'citation needed' [citation needed] tags [citation needed] sprinkled [citation needed] over them [citation needed] like snow [citation needed] on a mountain peak [citation needed].  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.209.132 (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed for gravity? 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support. Doesn't seem very controversial. :) Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
*Note: WP:NCP says, "There is no consensus for always using spaces between initials, neither for never using them." Also, the artist's page was just moved from the spaced version to the unspaced version a week ago. And the category containing his artwork would also have to be moved. Dekimasuよ! 06:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Whether or not there is consensus regarding spaces between initials, I support the push to make all of Escher's articles and categories share the same space/no space decision. There should be consistency within one person's named articles and cats. Binksternet (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Not really true -- the women have different clothes from the men... AnonMoos (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "all the figures are dressed in identical attire"

message: Could someone add to the article in which museum the painting is housed ? Thanks.  -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.134.6.222 (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a painting. AnonMoos (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Museum

message: This article seems to only mention the lithograph version of this work and omits the woodcut.  Is there another article for that one somewhere, or what?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.87.126 (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of woodcut version?