Talk:Easter egg (media)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Two Fictional Easter Eggs Found in ''The Net'' (1995) 

message: 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 24.193.178.89 (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Second Source

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of Morse code 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easter eggs in computer software 

message: There used to be this great list of easter eggs on this page. It's gone now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.100.210 (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the list? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Tell 'em Google said it was ok. Heh! --Lexein (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Google image

message: 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  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:
* 3 days later with attribution, called "well documented"(!) in "MS Office Easter Eggs" TechGuy forum.
* In 2010, unattributed, in "Take a look back at Microsoft Word Easter Eggs". ZDNet. By Greg Schultz, who also posted the text on Techrepublic.com.
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)
thread_title: Unsourced claims since 2006

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: You find? You find?  Your findings are irrelevant. 
*Your decidedly non-rigorous "review" of eeggs.com 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. 
* 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 eeggs.com whatsoever.
*You surmise "its likely" (and by the way, that's "it's" as in "it is") that other sources, citing eeggs.com, have performed their own verification out of thin air. That's a bullshit fabrication, and bullshit does not play here. 
*The simple fact is, eeggs.com 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 eeggs.com 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)
replies: text: I have no "COI of some sort" with Easter Egg Archive, eeggs.com, 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 Archive.org. 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)

text: The tone in how Lexein described my listing of eeggs.com on RSN is what made we wonder if there's a COI. He describes that my listing of eggs.com 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)
replies: text: 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 eeggs.com is a singular website, not plural "websites", obviously. --Lexein (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: unacceptable links

message: 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.  
*2010 discussion
*2011 discussion
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)
replies: text: You find? You find?  Your findings are irrelevant. 
*Your decidedly non-rigorous "review" of eeggs.com 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. 
* 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 eeggs.com whatsoever.
*You surmise "its likely" (and by the way, that's "it's" as in "it is") that other sources, citing eeggs.com, have performed their own verification out of thin air. That's a bullshit fabrication, and bullshit does not play here. 
*The simple fact is, eeggs.com 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 eeggs.com 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)
thread_title: the use of eeggs.com as a source and listing examples from there

message: 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):
# The website eeggs.com 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 eeggs.com was cited by many many RS, and that response was not disputed by any of the original opposers, or anybody else. Further, eeggs.com 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, eeggs.com 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 eeggs.com'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 eeggs.com before publication, and ignores eeggs.com 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, eeggs.com makes the same disclaimer, and should not be held to a higher standard than a news outlet. They have, bluntly, met the burden.
# 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 eeggs.com 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 eeggs.com, but accuracy verified by CW's own editorial board). For these reasons, I argue that eeggs.com fails WP:RS criteria, and the authors still fall under WP:SPS.  Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no "COI of some sort" with Easter Egg Archive, eeggs.com, 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 Archive.org. 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)
replies: text: The tone in how Lexein described my listing of eeggs.com on RSN is what made we wonder if there's a COI. He describes that my listing of eggs.com 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)
replies: text: 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 eeggs.com is a singular website, not plural "websites", obviously. --Lexein (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: 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)
replies: text: Page has been referenced on Cracked.com. May be worth waiting a day or two for things to calm down.Geni (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: +1. --Lexein (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reverting to explanatory caption 

message: 121.73.160.100 (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct capitilisation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Undiscussed move 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Easter egg (media). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090227063602/http://www.google.com:80/codesearch/p?hl=en to http://www.google.com/codesearch/p?hl=en#u_CbvX6xxA8/apt-0.6.46.2/cmdline/apt-get.cc&q=apt-get%20cow&l=2368
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Diego Rivera, Alfred Hitchcock, Mickey Mouse? 

message: This chocolate is getting a bit stale. A quick straw poll to see what people think the lede image caption should be (in gist if not exact wording):
* A:  (Smuckola's edit from a month ago)
* B:  (same but explaining what "activated" typically means)
* C:  (same but clarifying for offline/print/screenreader audience)
* D:  (caption referenced by cracked.com)
* E:  (old caption from earlier version of article)
* F: no caption, remove image entirely
I favour C or F, as being the only two options that I'd say met WP:SELF. --McGeddon (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: *C Guy Harris (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

text: *G  (Concise. No need for "hidden" because Easter eggs are hidden. No need to say where the hedgehog is because there are only rabbits and a hedgehog. If not rabbits, then hedgehog. Plus, the rabbits are both obviously staring stupidly at something. No need for the last word "on", plus it ends a sentence with a preposition. Ha!)  Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Support that. --GRuban (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Support that too. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

text: OK with me. Guy Harris (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll on caption

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Easter egg (media). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5msgFjsUB?url=http://www.eeggs.com/items/719.html to http://www.eeggs.com/items/719.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The unmodified link worked fine, so I reverted the change. Guy Harris (talk) 09:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is the hedgehog/egg thing a subtle reference to Sonic the Hedgehog and Dr. Eggman? flarn2006 [u t c] time: 03:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eggman? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Easter egg (media). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161013192403/http://www.2600connection.com/eastereggs/adventure_letter.pdf to http://www.2600connection.com/eastereggs/adventure_letter.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://diyphotography.net/photographs-of-apple-team-found-in-25-years-old-macintosh-se
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402091642/http://voices.suntimes.com/news/easter-egg-in-old-spice-super-bowl-ad-yields-two-tickets-to-curious-fan/ to http://voices.suntimes.com/news/easter-egg-in-old-spice-super-bowl-ad-yields-two-tickets-to-curious-fan/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've located a source that illustrates what's being discussed in regards to the character. http://old.he-man.org/cartoon/pop/seriesinformation/whereslookee.shtml
The website features numerous, actual screenshots of the character doing precisely what is being described. Yes it's a fansite, but the screenshots (all 40+ or so) are lifted from the show. This should suffice as a source. Objections? G. Capo (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: http://old.he-man.org/site_sects/legal.shtml This probably addresses the issue. The publishers here apparently have been granted the right to post the pictures for informational purposes (among other things). Since the link is merely being used to illustrate a point being made in this article, this should qualify as a valid source.G. Capo (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Loo-Kee sources

message: After the Soviets brutally supressed the "Prague Spring" in 1968 an artist had put on the new 20-crown banknote the hidden face of John Palach, who had had burned himself in protest against Soviets - and also (less clearly visible) face of a girl killed in Slovakia. Additionaly on a classic picture, John Zhizhka, a kind of national hero, has two left hands. It was not discovered quickly, the artist managed to escape to the West. The banknot was printed in several millions of copies and the Commies decided that withdrawing it from the circulation would make it even more popular. 
This banknote was popular also in Poland and other neighbouring Comecon countries. I do not know the name of the artist
This is the facsimile of this Chekho-Slovakian banknote issued in 1970-73; the face of John Palach in oval:
 (I do not know how to insert a picture here, so I have... created a special post on my FB: 
https://www.facebook.com/janusz.korwin.mikke/photos/a.10150563803222060.370988.277681892059/10155294290897060/?type=3&theater )
 
 188.146.135.27 (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Easter egg on the Bohemian 20 crown banknote 

message: Can that go into the article?
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  THX 1138 in Star Wars movies 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Spitfire for the Fairchild F: 
https://selectbutton.net/t/i-found-an-easter-egg-from-1977/8828
Will need to update once this hits a reliable source.©Geni (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been all over the net now    Eduemoni↑talk↓ 02:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have this one in the article with sources. --Masem (t) 02:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have the Michael K. Glass one, which is different from the "Hi Ron!" one, in the article. Guy Harris (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: New earliest Easter egg

message: I think that we should make it so that there is an easter egg in the article. Play on words and very ironic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.205.230 (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think one important purpose of the article is to explain what an Easter egg is, which is why the Easter egg example explicitly points out in what fashion it's an Easter egg.  A cute trick in the article is a low priority, and, if it turns an explicitly-indicated example of an Easter egg into a "true" Easter egg, requiring the user to find it, it would be an "anti-priority".  (People sometimes try to turn the example into a "true" Easter egg by removing the explanation, but when they do, it gets reverted, as is entirely appropriate.) Guy Harris (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easter Egg Article 

message: Note: I do not have the time to go searching for all the historical information on this.
It has been mentioned in quite a few places that the term "Easter Egg" in media started from an onset Easter Egg hunt on the set of The Rocky Horror Picture Show where not all the Easter Eggs were found and some can be spotted within the movie itself.
In case it helps someone who is looking to prove this out:
* https://eeggs.com/tree/1728.html
* https://people.com/movies/20-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-rocky-horror-picture-show/
* https://www.famemagazine.co.uk/a-brief-history-of-easter-eggs-in-the-media/
* https://collider.com/galleries/movie-easter-eggs/
Rasecor (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins Information Missing 

message: That's where I first saw the term used, anyway, in pretty much the same usage as in this article. Although more as a literary device, or a way to acknowledge the source of an idea or character. For example, James Blish in his classic novel A Case of Conscience (1958), had a  Duchess of Averoigne. This was a fictional area invented by Clark Ashton Smith, Averoigne and also used by other writers. 
Perhaps a section should be added here for "Easter Eggs" in written works. Pete Tillman (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Easter Eggs" originated in written SF/F ? 

message: The redirect Software humour has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 19:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Software humour]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Easter egg (media has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 01:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Easter egg (media]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]