Talk:Easter egg (media)

"Easter egg on Movies"
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"
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)
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
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)

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. 24.7.121.60 (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Morse code
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
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)

What happened to the list?
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)

Lead Image
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. 74.132.249.206 (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 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Bg-easter-eggs.jpg, 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 220.233.44.239 (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
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
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)

unacceptable links
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: "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 eeggs.com 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 eeggs.com. 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 eeggs.com, 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 eeggs.com 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 eeggs.com as a source and listing examples from there
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)


 * 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)

Third opinion
wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Answering the 3O request in order (apologies for not responding in a single short sentence - the dispute seems more complicated than that): 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. 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)
 * Viewpoint by Lexein:
 * 1) 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.
 * 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.
 * Viewpoint by Cantaloupe2:


 * Third opinion by ReformedArsenal: ....
 * Third (fourth?) opinion by GRuban: As I wrote in more detail on Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, 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, 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)  Addendum: At least one editor likes that I can find things at Archive.org. 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) non-eeggs.com sources to the article. So much for "promoting" eeggs.com. 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 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)
 * 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)

Reverting to explanatory caption
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 Cracked.com. 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
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
121.73.160.100 (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
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
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Diego Rivera, Alfred Hitchcock, Mickey Mouse?
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
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.  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
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)


 * Sorry I didn't join in here earlier, but, "...In online versions of this article..." seems unnecessary. Most viewers are online, and those who aren't and try to click the hedgehog without finding an egg, will simply figure out that it doesn't work offline. Adding that phrase to the beginning makes 1,000 online visitors a day read it for nothing. I don't think it is worth it. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm more concerned about people reading printed copies of the article or having it read aloud to them on a screenreader, where "This image reveals a hidden Easter egg when activated" is at best meaningless and at worst actively confusing. We shouldn't give print readers a disorientating WP:CLICKHERE sentence on the grounds that they'll be able to figure out what it should have said. --McGeddon (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But when print readers read "click here" on what they know is an ordinarily-online encyclopedia, they'd have to be daft not to figure it out. Also, what percentage of readers are offline compared to online. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There must be a way to phrase the caption so that it seems unremarkable to somebody reading it online in a web browser, but which isn't potentially mystifying to a reader of a derivative print work. "This image reveals a hidden Easter egg when activated" is very cryptic in print, even if you know that the text came from a website. --McGeddon (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If we can't come up with anything better, I'd support adding in brackets to the end of the caption. My first choice would still be to omit it completely. So, any idea about the offline-online percentages? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The solution is what I posted, which you keep ruining. The solution is to stop regarding the readers of an encyclopedia (especially this article) as being mouth-breathing simpletons or two-year-olds. You have been advised repeatedly that you are clearly wrong, that you have a solution desperately in search of a nonexistent problem, but you are a broken record of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. And then you ruined it again, citing the talk page, which in reality, contradicts you. Because you so thoroughly outlined above why you have a bad idea, ironically willfully ignoring the meaning of the word "daft", and ironically show your own idea of another template which you then ignored.  So I'm forced to spell it back out here again. Please stop.
 * As I said and as Anna reiterated, there's no coming up with anything better because there is no problem with the prose. Not because of reader technology demographics, but because there just isn't a problem with the prose. The only relevant target demographics are that of any other encyclopedia article: basic reading comprehension and immediate self awareness. — Smuckola(talk) 00:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Readers of print articles and users of screen readers are certainly in a minority, but WP:SELF and WP:ACCESSIBILITY clearly consider them to be relevant target demographics for the articles we're writing.
 * I don't know what percentage of print readers would give up on "activate the hedgehog to reveal an egg" as making no sense, but I'm sure plenty of intelligent adults would if you stopped them on the street. But even at the higher end, we're still doing a disservice to intelligent print readers by briefly confusing them and pushing them towards the unimpressive conclusion of "Wikipedia didn't bother to write this sentence for print, so please rewrite it in your head". This is a problem with the prose, the prose is not perfect. "In digital versions of this article..." isn't great for web readers either, I admit, but I'm sure there are ways to word the sentence so that it can be understood seamlessly in all contexts.
 * I'm not sure whether you're supporting the suggestion I made to wrap an unprintworthy-inline template around it. What do people think about that? --McGeddon (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Right now, the caption reads "...This image reveals a hidden Easter egg when the hedgehog in the bottom right-hand corner is activated. Another Easter egg can be found when a mouse pointer is hovered over it...". "Activated"? "Another"? Could someone please explain? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Activated" is User:Smuckola's preferred alternative to "clicked or tapped on". It does seem a bit opaque. --McGeddon (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. This is mobile phone thing, right? Then I will leave this to you and others because I do not own a mobile phone. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Clicked or tapped on" was meant to cover the use of computer mice and smartphone/tablet fingers, yes. I don't know what Smuckola intends the alternative "activated" to mean, but I'd guess it was meant to be a catch-all verb that also covered keyboard shortcuts, VR goggles and whatever else people might use to interact with a digital copy of the article. --McGeddon (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, isn't the main egg that pic of eggs? Hovering over and seeing "I'm a hedgehog..." is hardly an egg worth mentioning. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Straw poll on caption
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: This image reveals a hidden Easter egg when the hedgehog in the bottom right-hand corner is activated. (Smuckola's edit from a month ago)
 * B: This image reveals a hidden Easter egg when the hedgehog in the bottom right-hand corner is clicked or tapped on. (same but explaining what "activated" typically means)
 * C: In online versions of this article, this image reveals a hidden Easter egg when the hedgehog in the bottom right-hand corner is clicked or tapped on. (same but clarifying for offline/print/screenreader audience)
 * D: This is for illustration purposes only (caption referenced by cracked.com)
 * E: Example of Easter egg hidden within image (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)


 * C Guy Harris (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * G This image reveals an Easter egg when the hedgehog is clicked or tapped. (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)

Okay. After a week, I guess that's two in favour of C and one effectively in favour of B. I'll go for Anna's suggested rewrite of B and wrap the image in the unprintworthy-inline tag that I suggested back in May, which nobody seems to have objected to. Not sure if that helps screenreaders, but will at least spare any print copies this ends up on. --McGeddon (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support that. --GRuban (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support that too. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK with me. Guy Harris (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link 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)


 * The unmodified link worked fine, so I reverted the change. Guy Harris (talk) 09:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Eggman?
Is the hedgehog/egg thing a subtle reference to Sonic the Hedgehog and Dr. Eggman?  flarn 2006  [u t c] time: 03:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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)

Loo-Kee sources
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)

I've removed until it can be determined that the screenshots are not a copyvio. If they are, that ref is not permitted per [WP:COPYLINKS which says "...Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States..." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Can G. Capo or anyone else show the screenshots are not copyrighted? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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)

An Easter egg on the Bohemian 20 crown banknote
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)

THX 1138 in Star Wars movies


Can that go into the article?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
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)
 * Macintosh SE easter egg.png

New earliest Easter egg
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)


 * This has been all over the net now   Eduemoni↑talk↓  02:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We already have this one in the article with sources. --M asem (t) 02:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)

Easter Egg Article
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)
 * 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)

Origins Information Missing
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: Rasecor (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 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/

"Easter Eggs" originated in written SF/F ?
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)

"Software humour" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_humour&redirect=no 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)

"Easter egg (media" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Easter_egg_(media&redirect=no 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)