Talk:Easter egg (media)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Software / Computing  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

"Easter egg on Movies"[edit]

Are post-credit sequences in films really known as "easter eggs"? Any references to support that? Marasmusine (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"programmers say that forbidding harmless easter eggs may be counter-productive"[edit]

I removed the text "However, programmers say that forbidding harmless easter eggs may be counter-productive, because they serve a very important purpose." The cited reference was an interview with one self-described hacker, and the "very important purpose" was that "they are fun to write". hulmem (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think an article about "Easter eggs" -- or anything else people make -- should have a few words about why people make them.
Whether or not those reasons turn out to be -- in everyone else's opinion -- silly or misguided.
Do you agree?
An interview with a programmer who helped write what was at one time the most widely-used web browser on the planet, discussing why he put an Easter egg into that application -- that seems like a relatively reliable source (WP:RS) to me.
I would prefer a secondary or tertiary sources describing why people make them, but until we get such sources, WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:PRIMARY seem to prefer this source, over no source at all.
So I restored that text (and the reference). --DavidCary (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I've copyedited it for attribution and specificity. --Lexein (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Two Fictional Easter Eggs Found in The Net (1995)[edit]

There are two fictional Easter Eggs found in the 1995 movie The Net which starred Sandra Bullock:

(1) The virus she finds at the beginning of the movie is invoked by hitting the [Esc] key. It is later used at the end of the movie to restore her data that the bad guys had erased.

(2) The central plot of the movie revolves the ability to click on the Pi symbol in a fictional game called "Mozart's Ghost". The Pi symbol is at the lower right corner, and by clicking on it she gains access to a United States Department of Defense database and other sensitive databases.

browncisBrowncis (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The Second Source[edit]

Source 2 in no way proves what the sentence before it claims. The sentence claims the term 'easter egg'"is derived by the practice of the last Russian imperial family's tradition of giving elaborately jeweled egg-shaped creations by Carl Fabergé which usually contained hidden gifts themselves," but the source that follows it links to a short article about DVD easter eggs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The claim that easter eggs are a reference to the imperial russian royal family's tradition (not much of a tradition as it only lasted a couple of decades) does seem to be somewhat suspect, not to mention obscure. the reference cited is also a bit on the light side in terms of documenting that this was indeed the case. Far more likely that the term derives from the widespread cultural impact of american and other easter egg hunts. extraordinary claims require extraordinary documentation. Jmdeur (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It strikes me the same way. I'll change that passage to be less specific. (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Morse code[edit]

I removed the following from the article ".--. . .-. ... --- -. .- .-.. .-. . .-.. .. .- -... .-.. . .. -. -. --- ...- .- - .. ...- . ... .. -- .--. .-.. . .. -. -. --- ...- .- - .. ...- . .--. . .-. ... --- -. .- .-.. -.. . ... .. --. -. .-. . .-.. .. .- -... .-.. . .. -. -. --- ...- .- - .. ...- . -.. . ... .. --. -. .--. . .-. ... --- -. .- .-.. -.. . ... .. --. -. ... .. -- .--. .-.. . .. -. -. --- ...- .- - .. ...- ." because I do not think that it adds anything. I just re-did the surrounding text. If you feel that it is necessary then please assert your reasoning here. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Easter eggs in computer software[edit]

On 8 April 2008, references to Mac OS X's easter eggs were removed by a user (who has since been banned) because there were no references. I know that every entry is supposed to have a reference, but what do I do in this instance, as Easter eggs are, by definition, undocumented features? — George Steinmetz (talkcontribs) 00:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the list?[edit]

There used to be this great list of easter eggs on this page. It's gone now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead Image[edit]

Does that image actually contain easter eggs? Because I've been looking at it for quite some time now and can't see any. Which would be a nice meta-easter egg (Whatever that means.) Estimating a 60% chance ill figure it out after I post this. (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Look where the bunnies are looking. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Are they not just looking at the hedgehog? how is that an Easter Egg? Rubisco (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
When you put your cursor on the hedgehog, it should reveal an easter egg. Perhaps it's a browser issue. I've asked others at IRC to check it, and they can find it. Please try again and let me know. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
"Reveal" in what sense? In Safari 5.1.2 (build 6534.52.7) on Mac OS X 10.6.8, if I put the mouse cursor on the hedgehog, it does not directly reveal anything, but the cursor turns into the "click here" hand. If I click there, it takes me to, which is a picture of a basket of Easter eggs. (Yeah, I gave the secret away. If we're going to discuss whether it's a browser issue, that can't be avoided.) Guy Harris (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh dear. I don't know. I just made it to show how a link can be concealed within an image. That's all. Would you like to remove the whole thing, or replace it with something better? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
It sucks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I quite like the joke. Was it hard to implement? FeyBart (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
It was easy. Click edit on the article page. There, you will find the link to the tool that created it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems OK to me, with there being no reason to remove it. -- Trevj (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this textbook WP:CLICKHERE (and, dare I say it, tenuously WP:EGG), if the example cannot be understood by and isn't explained to users of certain browsers, or anyone reading a print version? It'd seem better to just illustrate the article with a screenshot of one of the many software or website easter eggs mentioned in the article. --McGeddon (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with replacing the top image with one from a notable cited instance, but I'd also want to keep the live bunnies/eggs example in the article. Until then, I'd leave it as is. --Lexein (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I've now replaced it with a screenshot of Google Maps' "Mordor" joke. --McGeddon (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I prefer the rabbit one because it's an actual example. The Google thing is text, and so doesn't offer much more than the description of it in the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
It adds something to see the Mordor joke in context, but you're right, it's not much. I'm afraid it's the only given example I had access to in order to take a screenshot.
Although the very earliest comments on this thread predate the addition of a "Try to click where the two rabbits are looking" instruction to the rabbit caption, I think it still has unresolvable WP:CLICKHERE problems if the image is unillustrative (and potentially confusing) to a reader using a primitive browser or a printed copy of the article. --McGeddon (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
That's a good point. I'm not a big fan of IGNOREALLRULES, but this seemed like one occasion where it would trump WP:CLICKHERE. I mean, how can we do better than a working example? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
The Google example is non-free. So, I've added back the free example, and removed the main clickhere issue, since only description is offered. I've rewritten it as a direct told-you-so-why-are-you-hitting-me pun. Don't hate me for completely deconstructing it. --Lexein (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I think we have to be even more crashingly literal, if the article is going to make sense to someone who's reading this on paper, or whose browser doesn't support imagemaps. "In this thumbnail, if a user on a computer were to click on the hedgehog they would be taken to a picture of some easter eggs instead of a larger version of the painting."? We have clearly dissected the frog by this point, though.
Is there a selfref style template for "this section would make no sense on paper, so never print it and never include it in a book built from this content"? --McGeddon (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
What browsers support images but not imagemaps? Suggestion: a template for imagemaps which automatically shows both images when printed or shown by no-imagemaps browser. One fact that's being lost here is that most Wikipedia article images are too small to be of any use without zooming anyways - this includes that Google search example, or any screengrabs of any software with any text whatsoever. --Lexein (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I thought the imagemap wasn't working on Opera Mini 7.5 on my smartphone, but it looks like the clickable area is just being buggily offset (its top left corner is shown as starting in the centre of the hedgehog image, when I hit it successfully). --McGeddon (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
We could make the clickable area bigger. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Maybe a few percent, but I had no problems with the displayed outline position or sensed-touch position on my creaky old HTC Android 2.3 phone, or my cheap-as-dirt Android 2.3 tablet, with the built-in browser, Dolphin, or Opera Mini. The text "You're not going to believe this..." didn't appear on anything in Android, but did in all browsers in Windows. --Lexein (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Google image[edit]

Isn't the whole non-free thing about images that really need to be there, and aren't replaceable? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That was the rationale for deletion of all screenshots from this article in the past. Now that the legal pendulum has swung back a bit toward fair use, I'd like to add back the screenshots. But there are editors rabidly against use of multiple fair-use images, sigh. (Above, I was just being testy about the Google screenshot). --Lexein (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Glancing through the page history it turns out that File:Adventure Easteregg.PNG - a screenshot of the "first" videogame easter egg - still exists as a file. Non-free image use isn't really my area, though. --McGeddon (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to keep the google pic. I just don't want us to get in trouble. I really don't know either if it's okay. If it were up to me, I'd have tons and tons of these screenshots. We could ask at the reference desk. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Tell 'em Google said it was ok. Heh! --Lexein (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced claims since 2006[edit]

On May 17, 2006 this was added,

Due to the increase in malware, many companies and government offices forbid the use of software containing Easter eggs for security reasons. With the rise of cybercrime and the prevalence of the Easter egg's cousin the logic bomb, there is now concern that if the programmer could slip in undocumented code, then the software cannot be trusted. This is of particular concern in offices where personal or confidential information is stored, making it sensitive to theft and ransom. For this reason, many developers have stopped the practice of adding Easter eggs to their software. Microsoft who has in the past created some of the largest and most elaborate Easter eggs such as the one's in Microsoft Office, no longer allows Easter eggs. This is in large part due to it's status as a founding member of the Trusted Computing Group.

with four or more claims unsupported by the two [1][2] external links provided. I've noticed this paragraph each time I've revisited the article, but didn't pay too much attention, because I assumed it was true. This section has been replicated, more or less verbatim, around the web in about 75 places, some important, some not:

Wikipedia isn't about something made up or synthesized one day, even if it seems reasonable, so I've rewritten the section. Against usual tagging procedure, I've commented out the unsourced text, specifically to salt it from re-adding without proper sourcing. Going forward, it would be helpful to find sources supporting the "no software with Easter eggs" prohibition claim. User:Dru of Id has stated that the military has such prohibitions. It's not clear to me how such a mandate could be carried out in companies and government agencies with entrenched Microsoft Office software. --Lexein (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

unacceptable links[edit]

Regarding this reversion, my understanding is that if it can only be verified through WP:SPS and WP:USERG it does not meet our idea of WP:RS and using Wikipedia to disseminate contents from a self-published websites is a citation spamming. Please explain why you think re-insertion of such disreputable junk links are acceptable with supporting policy. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Unacceptable deletions, rather. Your unexplained deletions far exceed that cited by the single disputed source, DVD-whatever-who-cares. The others have been determined to be RS for use in this article, and you're out to lunch. Feel free to dispute sources one-by-one, and I'll deal with you on that basis. You got my attention by deleting RS material along with your one disputed source. That's bullshit, so knock it off. --Lexein (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Unacceptable reinsertion rather. It is not necessary to discuss each and every action in small bits. You have been around long enough. Forum posts and wikis are user generated contents and group or personal websites are self-published without a means of reliable and reputable fact checking process. Such sources are unacceptable in most cases, and the removed contents are no exception. You should need to have another look at WP:USERG and not reinsert garbage Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't know where you got the idea that it was okay not to even look for sources, and not to even check RSN for source reliability, but both ideas are plainly wrong. So, to prove a point, I sourced your wrong Channel F deletion from a book for which you didn't bother to search. Consider that reason enough for me to revert nearly every single one your deletions, unless you can demonstrate some good faith and source them yourself. Since, you know, the WP:Five pillars talk about some blather about building an encyclopedia, or something like that. --Lexein (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I inadvertently deleted your revert there, as you didn't mention your "reason enough" in the edit summary and (since you also overwrote my intervening edit about Video Whizball) I assumed it was an accident. But one user lacking the time or inclination to seek out better sources is not a valid reason to restore inadequately sourced material. We have some eyes on this now - if there's anything worth keeping in there, it's not going to be lost. --McGeddon (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I indeed received no edit conflict warning, though there was a brief Wikipedia outage error page at the time. Glad you found the oh-so-easy-to-find-book, too.first, as it turns out. It was so easy to find, I will never cease the celebratory well-deserved mockery of the deletionist's bald laziness, for wasting our time, as nearly all deletionists do. --Lexein (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC) added temporal corrections above --Lexein (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand this edit:[3] "thought to be?" That's not what source seems to suggest. If its only certain to "though to be" certainty, I don't feel that its worthy of inclusion. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I'll be reverting every single removal of as a source, because it was considered RS at RSN. The material is reviewed by the editors before publication. I didn't start this purge, but I'm goddamn well ending it. The above admitted lack of understanding is well and truly exceeded by its true extent. Editors should not edit articles without an understanding of domain-specific RS. I trust sources, not your awesome advice. --Lexein (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I found two RSN discussion about it. Opinion is split on it. I don't think the materials on this site is reliable source to use directly, because they're user created contents. I made a third opinion request on this. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

      • I'm a big fan of 3O, but just so you know, they tend to not participate when there are 3 (McGeddon) in the discussion already. You're deliberately, factually wrong about the nature of I wish you weren't, but you are. --Lexein (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Count me out of this one, please, I don't feel like expending the extra care and energy required to talk to a user who - after being given a rebuttal that is polite enough to frame an opinion as "I find" rather than "it is a fact" - posts a bulleted list of outright personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, and ends with "so whatever, ha ha, go away". --McGeddon (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Whatever, but don't pretend you haven't heard of WP:DUCK and WP:SPADE, and don't pretend that Cantaloupe2 has been acting in any kind of good faith, with each and every deliberate misrepresentation made about the easily checkable, and about the obviously checkable discussions they have elected to misrepresent. Deletionists don't get a pass just because they pretend to be polite, and I do mean "pretend." And though I asked you not to mischaracterize my text, you did it anyways: my actual "ends with" was "so whatever, ha ha, go away, or change your entire attitude." Thank you. --Lexein (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
            • Yes, I have been "pretending" that an editor has been acting in good faith, and this is the assumption that all editors should start from. --McGeddon (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
              • Uh, your fight is not with me. It's with the troll who started decimating the article, and making bad faith claims about sources. Trolls do it for the lulz, and you, now snarking with me, are the troll's win. See how the troll got quiet as soon as you started in on me? WP:DUCK, WP:SPADE, Q.E.D. --Lexein (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I used 3O, because this dispute is between you and I. McGeddon does not appear to be a part of dispute. I have listed on RSN again. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
          • And I struck it through (though I should have simply reverted it) as canvassing and forum shopping. Let 3O complete before RSN restarts. Either you respect the 3O process, or you do not. I do. --Lexein (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
            • and I un-struck it. You grieved that I didn't bother checking RSN, and that 3O is not proper. Per your grievance, I checked every entry on this on RSN, and I initiated another RSN and I reciprocally disclosed it. While 3O is okay, its not a binding process. It is up at RSN again, because there your interpretation of consensus that "it was deemed reliable" based on one favorable opinion differs from my interpretation of "no consensus". I don't believe that I am going against WP:CANVAS policy, especially since the whole process is made transparent on both sides, on here, and on RSN. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
              • You jumped process. Good for you. You split discussion. I'll let others write about that little gem. Next: I didn't "grieve" anything. Your choice of words is interesting: are you griefing? BTW I wrote that 3O was good: read my words. And FYI yes, three ill-informed, shallow opinions in 2010 do matter less than two informed ones in 2011 (counting me). And another informed one in 2013. But the year is young. --Lexein (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

the use of as a source and listing examples from there[edit]

After reviewing the source, the system there appears similar to wiki based pages where anyone can contribute by logging in. I have reviewed prior RSN discussions and consensus is unclear. Regarding which examples are chosen for inclusion, I find it to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of specific examples.

My issue with the source is that it is user generated contents, the reliability of its editorial process, which was said to be husband and wife team and whether there is fact checking before something even gets listed on the page.

It maybe cited by other books, but its likely that editorial process in book publishing used the source as a reference, but did their own fact checking before putting it into print, so citing these sources would be fine in my opinion, because it now becomes a secondary source. The direct reference to website appears to be primary user generated sourced. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You find? You find? Your findings are irrelevant.
  • Your decidedly non-rigorous "review" of is a blunt lie. You falsely declare it to be "similar to wiki based pages", with no foundation whatsoever. It is not. You apparently don't know what a wiki is, and so cannot discriminate between a wiki and a non-wiki.
  • Facepalm3.svg Your personal declaration that this topic-specific, cited-by-others source is "WP:INDISCRIMINATE" is false, a dumb misapplication of that wiki shortcut, and is unsupported by anyone in the 2010 discussion at RSN, even the most virulent opposer. Your misreading of that discussion is laughable, and you're failing to make any case against whatsoever.
  • You surmise "its likely" (and by the way, that's "it's" as in "it is") that other sources, citing, have performed their own verification out of thin air. That's a bullshit fabrication, and bullshit does not play here.
  • The simple fact is, has been cited by many others, and that stands in its favor in general and not just for narrowly isolated items chosen by you. Your arrogance is unbelievable, but you're quite believably wrong.
  • Also, and more to the point, the 2010 "discussion" was shallow and ignorant of basic facts about the source. The 2011 assessment as reliable went deeper, found that it was cited in many books, and was, importantly, not challenged by the 2010 opposers, who in 2011 were all still editors in good standing. So, you're out to lunch.
  • I seem to recall that you also labeled a primary source, as well. Um, no, that's not on either.
  • This discussion is WP:LAME. You're acting in the capacity of a narrowminded agenda-driven, policy-wikilawyering, "don't like this article, so I'll shred it" deletionist, and that is not welcome here. Most likely of all, you're trolling, and aren't serious about any of these trumped up objections, so whatever, ha ha, go away, or change your entire attitude. --Lexein (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

ReformedArsenal (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by Lexein

Answering the 3O request in order (apologies for not responding in a single short sentence - the dispute seems more complicated than that):

  1. The website should be considered a reliable source for the purpose of this article about software and other easter eggs. It was discussed at RSN twice, in 2010 and 2011. In the 2010 discussion, the facts and nature of the site were not discussed, and it was piled on negatively without analysis. In the 2011 discussion, the procedures and editorial process were explained, the RSN responder pointed out that was cited by many many RS, and that response was not disputed by any of the original opposers, or anybody else. Further, is not a "primary" source, it is an edited compendium with owner/editorial oversight, which is easily determined from the website itself. The editors/owners of the website published a book of the site in 1997. Next, is not a "wiki", nor is it "wiki like" - this is obvious from its structure, submission process, and item presentation. Finally, the editor's assessment that's status as RS was "indeterminate" is invalid. Later discussion at RSN may be considered to override prior discussion, especially when prior discussion was shallow and not reasoned, and later discussion follows policy. Addendum: Cantaloupe2 has no evidence that items are "not positively accuracy checked" by before publication, and ignores financial and reputational incentive not to publish false or unverifiable entries. Addendum 2: 65 Google Scholar results: this is an unequivocally regularly cited source. Multiple coverage in multiple independent sources over multiple decades: See New York Times; not just listed, but recommended and quoted directly. See many news outlets internationally, including a whole segment interview on NPR. Addendum 3: According to their legal disclaimer in the FAQ, "we do make a best effort to eliminate false and harmful instructions" - this is their pledge to apply oversight, which is exactly what any and all editorial and fact-checking staff will do. This renders the fact that items are user-suggested moot, because editorial oversight is clearly claimed. BUT, just as any and all news sources have disclaimers that they cannot guarantee the veracity of every item published, makes the same disclaimer, and should not be held to a higher standard than a news outlet. They have, bluntly, met the burden.
  2. The items listed in this article are not "indiscriminate", at least not according to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The article is an overview (as are all encyclopedia articles); in this case, it is of the phrase "easter eggs" in its meaning in several topic areas, and items listed are covered by reliable sources, and are all relevant to the topic in an encyclopedic context.

The article may benefit from some editing, and discussion, but not from arbitrary, improperly reasoned deletionism practiced en masse against sourced content, and the sources themselves.

Viewpoint by Cantaloupe2

My viewpoint is just like the 2010 RS/N discussion. Contents are submitted by users, which means that they're user generated contents. They're not positively accuracy checked by the editorial board with a reputation for good fact checking before it is allowed to become available online. From the description of the authors, they introduce themselves "We are the husband and wife team of David and Annette Wolf. We graduated in Computer Engineering together from the University of Washington.". WP:SPS exemption specifically say expertise verifiable through secondary publications and not that anyone with a degree in a relevant field is considered experts. To comment on the 2011 RSN's sole responder's opinion: If books published by reputable publishers used this source, it is ok to cite that book, because before the specific examples were allowed in the book, news, etc it was likely fact checked. When wikipedia editors decided that "because example A,B,C,D from have been used as references in reliably published materials, examples, E and F must be reliable" is a slippery slope argument. "This couple heard from their friends this and that and the couple found it correct" is still the couple's original research. On the other hand, if a reliable publication publishes on something assisted by anecdotal evidence, the findings of the publication is reliable. (i.e. an easteregg talked about in ComputerWord which cites, but accuracy verified by CW's own editorial board). For these reasons, I argue that fails WP:RS criteria, and the authors still fall under WP:SPS. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion by ReformedArsenal
Third (fourth?) opinion by GRuban
As I wrote in more detail on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/, reliable per WP:SPS "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." --GRuban (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Fourth (fifth?) opinion by DreamGuy
As I wrote in more detail in the same thread, I don't think there's enough evidence of that. I am also concerned that Lexein may have a COI of some sort in promotion of the site, as he/she is responding extremely aggressively in this discussion and is pulling up information to try to prove expertise and fact checking from places so random and not verifiable by outside sources that it suggests someone working for the site. DreamGuy (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I have no "COI of some sort" with Easter Egg Archive,, the Wolfs, or any source I have ever cited or supported on Wikipedia. "Extremely aggressive"? No, just vigorous. I detest deliberate misrepresentation, and false accusations, and I don't suffer trolls and fools very well at all. "Not verifiable"? That's false: very easily verifiable, as I've linked. I use search engines (mostly Google's, here), and Doesn't everybody? Hardly seems "random" to me. I can't be faulted for your failure to research (or link!) evidence for your claims. False accusations of the sort you sling around make you look pretty bad, DreamGuy. Good luck with 'em. Seem sorta petty to me, though. --Lexein (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Addendum: At least one editor likes that I can find things at This seems the place to note (since you didn't) that I added 3 +1 (edit conflict) +1 +3 +1 +2 +1 +4 uncontroversial RS; that totals 16 (14 new and 2 rehabilitated) sources to the article. So much for "promoting" I also salted unsourced, widely wikiechoed claims, dating from 2006; now rephrased and properly cited. This adds up to a) me not having any sort of COI, b) always improving the article, and c) acting in the best interest of the encyclopedia. It really would be best for you to fully, earnestly retract your unfair, false, accusation of COI. --Lexein (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The tone in how Lexein described my listing of on RSN is what made we wonder if there's a COI. He describes that my listing of as: "His relisting insults and minimizes the owners of the website" ref. It looks like he's sticking together with the particular websites by expressing a concern that is beyond the scope of Wikipedia concern. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Nope. For you to minimize and insult individuals operating a website, in a rhetorical effort to tar them and the website as unreliable, is itself "beyond the scope of Wikipedia concern" (quoting you). This applies to any website (I really don't care which), even this one which has, objectively, been cited as a reliable source in a large number of reputable sources over multiple decades. Then, for you to (five times, counting the above) accuse me of any sort of conflict or affiliation, merely for objecting to your bias? Well, if that's your sole evidence, obviously, it would be best for you to fully, earnestly retract your unfair, and false, accusation of COI as well, in every venue in which you've expressed it. Oh, and is a singular website, not plural "websites", obviously. --Lexein (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Reverting to explanatory caption[edit]

There was consensus (above) that the "crashingly literal" caption (describing access to the infobox image easter egg) was better than hiding it, or leaving it unexplained. One registered, and some persistent IP-hopping editor, have been replacing it with "This is for illustration purposes only", and have refused to really discuss. So I have restored the caption to the consensus, as have several other long-time registered editors. This encyclopedia is not intended to be a puzzle. A literal example has more educational value here. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Page has been referenced on May be worth waiting a day or two for things to calm down.Geni (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
For context, they included it yesterday as one of "21 Awesome Real Easter Eggs Hidden on the Internet", with a screenshot of the article showing the "illustration purposes only" caption (which was only ever present in the article for an hour or two). I suppose passing Cracked readers are just trying to "fix" it so that it matches the screenshot they arrived here from. Somebody requested page protection about twelve hours ago, but it hasn't happened yet. --McGeddon (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Heh - maybe that screenshot was captured by the very person who edited the article to make the picture seem to be more of a real easter egg, than the "crashingly literal" example that it is. Shh - don't mention meta, or the sad commentary about the redirect at WP:DBAD. --Lexein (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it time to reassess the use of this image? The need to leadenly explain the easter egg clearly feels like it's defeating the point, to the IP editors who keep changing the caption. Could we use the Atari 2600 screenshot File:Adventure Easteregg.PNG under fair use (since we're giving critical commentary of the aspect of the game shown in the picture)? --McGeddon (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

If we can't keep the "ZOMG ISNT IT COOL THERES AN EASTER EGG IN THE WIKIPEDIA!!!!!1111ONE!!!!!" crowd from "improving" the caption, and don't want to have to keep undoing it, maybe we should just give up on showing an image. Guy Harris (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe Anna Frodesiak will join the discussion. I very much appreciate the image, its clickable zone & link, and its (in my opinion) dual-mode factual/ironic caption. This is the English-language Wikipedia; it's all about the educational, helpful, verifiable, and (if there's room) gently humorous. --Lexein (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

In response to the above "...If we can't keep the "ZOMG ISNT IT COOL...": that would never force us to "give up" and show a different image in any other article.

A "crashingly literal" caption is fine with me. The bottom line is being able to experience finding an easter egg. And who would be pleased? A fifteen-year-old computer whiz kid. Who might not? An eighty-year-old grandfather. But, if he's made it to the article, then he's figured out how to move and click a mouse, so would easily be able to hover and click and get it. And, getting it would mean instant understanding of what an easter egg is, both intellectually and experientially. How often can a lede image do that?

So, all of the cons are outweighed by the fact that it's a working example, right there within the article, that, well, works. Isn't there a caption that sort of meets in the middle as far as giving it away?

And nice July and Aug 19 page visits. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the bottom line should be finding out what an Easter egg is, and finding out about its history. If somebody wants to have fun finding Easter eggs, there are plenty of places for people to do that. I really think it should be possible for a crashingly literal-minded person to activate the example Easter egg, even if that takes the fun away from the "ZOMG ISNT IT COOL THERES AN EASTER EGG IN THE WIKIPEDIA!!!!!1111ONE!!!!!" crowd. Guy Harris (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Certainly. There are plenty of other places to find out about optical illusions too, but Wikipedia is a great place, and we have example illusions for visitors to experience. At this article, just like optical illusion, we can give a literal description, the history, and a working example. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The article 3-ring release system is better off having this gif. A working example in this article makes good sense. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
+1. --Lexein (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree that there needs to be a middle-ground caption; it is important to have a working example, but if made too obvious it defeats the purpose of it being an easter egg. But I'm not sure what a good middle ground caption might be. Perhaps something referencing the hedgehog without explaining the entire easter egg? --Imagine Dragonflies (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not supposed to be an Easter egg! It's supposed to be an example of the sort of hiding technique used in an Easter egg, without actually being an Easter egg and thus requiring somebody to do an Easter egg hunt to understand it. Guy Harris (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Pinball easter egg[edit]

Where would one type in the text given? (Out of curiosity) Jackiespeel (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It's listed in the cited source, #11. --Lexein (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Not clear to non-geeks - when it is waiting for one to start or what.
Category of things probably worth trying once :) Jackiespeel (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
"When the game starts", presumably before the ball launcher is pulled. Just so you know, article Talk pages are really about improving articles (as it says at the top), not providing tech support. Just saying. It's better to ask such questions on WP:Village pump or user Talk pages, rather than article talk pages. --Lexein (talk) 04:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
'A comment to that effect' in the body of the article? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, this article is already in enough trouble with Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. I'm surprised it has gotten away with all the instructions already offered for so long, so I won't be adding more. Plus, we're restricted in what can be said in articles by what's actually in the source(s) (see WP:V and WP:OR). --Lexein (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

(reset) The article is a bit of a 'random walk' (and I am just the first person to ask the question). Perhaps some of the details could be shifted to the relevant articles? Jackiespeel (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Which articles? In the operating system and Word articles, either there are already mentions of the applicable Easter eggs, with the same sources (which have the same instructions as here), or they have been deleted as trivia. NotHowTo applies everywhere, so we provide the minimum info to describe the egg, without steps, and without adding helpful hints which aren't in the source(s). --Lexein (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I was merely passing through and curious about the Pinball EE: so 'whatever suits.' Jackiespeel (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I hope I've explained without annoying. --Lexein (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes it is 'more logical' to ask for information on the particular page than going to Village Pump - and it was only passing curiosity. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Correct capitilisation[edit] (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC) - Does Easter egg need the capitalisation, as it has nothing to do with the religious festival?

Undiscussed move[edit]

User:OMPIRE moved this article to "Easter egg (interaction design)" back in May, with no discussion and a rationale of "better definition, not all media easter eggable". The disambiguation is simply telling the reader that this article refers to Easter eggs of the media type as opposed to the chocolate ones, it is not saying "here's a list of Easter eggs in all media ever". (Besides, not all interaction designs are "easter eggable" either.) I've moved it back. --McGeddon (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Easter egg (media). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Diego Rivera, Alfred Hitchcock, Mickey Mouse?[edit]

This practice is similar in some respects to hidden signature motifs such as Diego Rivera's inclusion of himself in his murals, Alfred Hitchcock's cameo appearances, Fritz's appearances in the works of Chris van Allsburg, and various "Hidden Mickeys" that can be found throughout the various Disney Parks.

Is there really a single published source or sources that links all of these things with the idea of "Easter eggs", or is this original research (WP:ORIGINAL)?

Coconutporkpie (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

In my view, this change putting the "citation needed" tag after "hidden signature motifs" is unnecessary and interferes with readability. Placing the tag at the end of the sentence is clear enough, and shows that the entire sentence is disputed, since what is needed is a citation or citations establishing a link between any or all of the things named in the sentence and how they relate to "Easter eggs". What is disputed is not that these things exist, but that they have been compared to "Easter eggs" in reliable, published sources. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Caption creep in the lead image[edit]

I know it would be hard to trim, but do you think we could maybe put the most important part first and then stuff about the painting and artist in brackets? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Agreed: Perhaps something like:
This image[1] contains a hidden "Easter egg" when the mouse pointer is hovered over the hedgehog at the bottom right.
Linked to a note reading:
"Zwei Kaninchen und ein Igel" ("Two bunnies and a hedgehog") by Carl Oswald Rostosky.
That completely removes the topically irrelevent info from the thumb. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 21:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Done. I made a ref. If there's a better way, please improve it. Many thanks! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Unprintable hedgehogs[edit]

Should we encase the lede image in an {{unprintworthy-inline}} template? There is no way to hover a mouse pointer over a printed piece of paper, and I'm not sure how an imagemap like this would behave on arbitrary mirrors of the article. --McGeddon (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Relatedly, User:Smuckola thinks that explaining the lede caption in terms of "online versions of this article" and "clicked or tapped on" is redundant, arguing that "An encyclopedia doesn't need to instruct users to refrain from tapping on pieces of paper, expecting them to start dancing". It's plainly and unnecessarily confusing, though, for someone reading a printed version of this article to be told "This image reveals a hidden Easter egg when the hedgehog in the bottom right-hand corner is activated" - in a parallel world where Wikipedia was newsprint and people made CC-licenced digital versions, it'd be like an article on halftone telling the reader that an example image demonstrated the effect if examined closely. --McGeddon (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)