This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Easter egg (media) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Easter egg" media – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: 1 |
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
This article is prone to spam. Please monitor the References and External links sections. |
Are post-credit sequences in films really known as "easter eggs"? Any references to support that? Marasmusine ( talk) 10:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
browncis Browncis ( talk) 00:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
On May 17, 2006 this was added,
with four or more claims unsupported by the two [1] [2] external links provided. I've noticed this paragraph each time I've revisited the article, but didn't pay too much attention, because I assumed it was true. This section has been replicated, more or less verbatim, around the web in about 75 places, some important, some not:
Wikipedia isn't about something made up or synthesized one day, even if it seems reasonable, so I've rewritten the section. Against usual tagging procedure, I've commented out the unsourced text, specifically to salt it from re-adding without proper sourcing. Going forward, it would be helpful to find sources supporting the "no software with Easter eggs" prohibition claim. User:Dru of Id has stated that the military has such prohibitions. It's not clear to me how such a mandate could be carried out in companies and government agencies with entrenched Microsoft Office software. -- Lexein ( talk) 13:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
I don't understand this edit: [3] "thought to be?" That's not what source seems to suggest. If its only certain to "though to be" certainty, I don't feel that its worthy of inclusion. Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 20:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
After reviewing the source, the system there appears similar to wiki based pages where anyone can contribute by logging in. I have reviewed prior RSN discussions and consensus is unclear. Regarding which examples are chosen for inclusion, I find it to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of specific examples.
My issue with the source is that it is user generated contents, the reliability of its editorial process, which was said to be husband and wife team and whether there is fact checking before something even gets listed on the page.
It maybe cited by other books, but its likely that editorial process in book publishing used the source as a reference, but did their own fact checking before putting it into print, so citing these sources would be fine in my opinion, because it now becomes a secondary source. The direct reference to website appears to be primary user generated sourced. Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 01:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
ReformedArsenal ( talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Where would one type in the text given? (Out of curiosity) Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:56, 12 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)
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?
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Easter egg (media). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
21:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)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)
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)
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)
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):
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)
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)
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)
This is for illustration purposes only(caption referenced by cracked.com)
Example of Easter egg hidden within image(old caption from earlier version of article)
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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:
188.146.135.27 ( talk) 01:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Can that go into the article?
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 7 § Software humour until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 19:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9 § Easter egg (media until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 01:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Easter egg (media) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Easter egg" media – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
This article is prone to spam. Please monitor the References and External links sections. |
Are post-credit sequences in films really known as "easter eggs"? Any references to support that? Marasmusine ( talk) 10:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
browncis Browncis ( talk) 00:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
On May 17, 2006 this was added,
with four or more claims unsupported by the two [1] [2] external links provided. I've noticed this paragraph each time I've revisited the article, but didn't pay too much attention, because I assumed it was true. This section has been replicated, more or less verbatim, around the web in about 75 places, some important, some not:
Wikipedia isn't about something made up or synthesized one day, even if it seems reasonable, so I've rewritten the section. Against usual tagging procedure, I've commented out the unsourced text, specifically to salt it from re-adding without proper sourcing. Going forward, it would be helpful to find sources supporting the "no software with Easter eggs" prohibition claim. User:Dru of Id has stated that the military has such prohibitions. It's not clear to me how such a mandate could be carried out in companies and government agencies with entrenched Microsoft Office software. -- Lexein ( talk) 13:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
I don't understand this edit: [3] "thought to be?" That's not what source seems to suggest. If its only certain to "though to be" certainty, I don't feel that its worthy of inclusion. Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 20:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
After reviewing the source, the system there appears similar to wiki based pages where anyone can contribute by logging in. I have reviewed prior RSN discussions and consensus is unclear. Regarding which examples are chosen for inclusion, I find it to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of specific examples.
My issue with the source is that it is user generated contents, the reliability of its editorial process, which was said to be husband and wife team and whether there is fact checking before something even gets listed on the page.
It maybe cited by other books, but its likely that editorial process in book publishing used the source as a reference, but did their own fact checking before putting it into print, so citing these sources would be fine in my opinion, because it now becomes a secondary source. The direct reference to website appears to be primary user generated sourced. Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 01:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
ReformedArsenal ( talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Where would one type in the text given? (Out of curiosity) Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:56, 12 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)
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?
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Easter egg (media). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
21:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)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)
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)
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)
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):
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)
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)
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)
This is for illustration purposes only(caption referenced by cracked.com)
Example of Easter egg hidden within image(old caption from earlier version of article)
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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:
188.146.135.27 ( talk) 01:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Can that go into the article?
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 7 § Software humour until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 19:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9 § Easter egg (media until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 01:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)