Talk:Image macro/Archive 1

Archive 1

Updated

Added an image, fixed some tiny problems. --PotatoSamurai 19:13:28, 2005-08-05 (UTC)

I think this needs a more well known example image, like the timeline mentioned in the article or "Ha Ha! I'm using the Internet!" --24.114.252.183 06:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

What is this, Encyclopedia Dramatica? This doesn't sound like a legitimate encyclopedia entry. --HMC —Preceding undated comment added 02:17, 27 June 2006

If there's any problem with this article, it is that it more defines the term than studies it - ie, it could be argued that it should be moved to wikionary. However the article itself is otherwise valid, the term is is common use on many internet websites (with high alexa ratings, for what it's worth) and describes a particular style of photoshopping LinaMishima 11:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard this term in my life, before noticing it littered all over the O RLY? article. If this article stays, the usage should be noted as extremely obscure. Clayhalliwell 15:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that it is a common term on places such as Something awful and 4chan, it's not that obscure (in terms of internet terms), given their respective trafic levels.LinaMishima 16:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't disbelieve you, but I'm having a real hard time finding this term on either of those websites. Can you offer any kind of link or quote of its usage? - Rainwarrior 16:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been part of the shared culture of SA and just about every other game, tech or geek related general discussion forum going back to 2001, if not farther. So much so that overuse of image macros has made them bannable offences in certain places like SA. You would probably find it used in the rules section of it and many other forums specifying where image macros can and can't be used. Here's a small image macro gallery[1]. A thread about image macros[2]. Forum rules including a prohibition on image macros [3]. Another thread about image macros, from 2002 no less[4]. Incidentally, here's a copy of the [img-timeline] macro if anyone wants to upload it for the article. [5] --72.137.173.201 06:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You may have an easier time finding these under the name 'pictoflame' as pictoflames tend to be very popular image macros. Gaiaonline often has many pictoflames used in it's subforum, the GD. Like the person above said, they're very common on SA and tech/geek/video game board, but not so much anywhere else. - Indy Gold 22:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I always thought an "Image Macro" was a system set up so that you could make hundreds of different versions of an image (usually just changing the text) with ease. Like [6], or [7], for instance. (This at least fits with the definition of Macro.) - Rainwarrior 16:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, those type of automatic captioning sites are usually just referred to as image generators [8]. Clayhalliwell 18:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So why on Earth are they called image macros then? --SquidDNA 12:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Um you were talking about the wrong things. An image macro is an image that has captions superimposed on it, while an image generator is used to create image macros, hence the name "image generator". - M0rphzone (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of all external links

While most of the links removed were really unneeded (Being just places where macros are often posted), I think Macrochan [9] had a legitimate purpose here. It's a site that collects Image Macros, so it's got a good deal of related content. I'm posting in talk instead of just putting it back cause it's my site.
Doesn't seem right, whether or not it's against the rules (is it?) Travis Wells 23:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Its very related as it is not just an image macros but sorts them and also contains a large number of meme related ones such as the Owls [O RLY?]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.223.94 (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2007‎

The reference to 4chan is completely unnecessary. There is too much free advertising for 4chan on wikipedia. 69.152.173.243 16:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

All external references are dead or accessible only to members. Eagle Pilot (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Definition

SA Source. Here is the SA entry on Image Macros, dating to Feb 2004 http://forums.somethingawful.com/dictionary.php?act=3&topicid=83 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.164.14 (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2007‎

this definition is wrong. the thing that makes it a macro is that it's automated. simply superimposing text on an image does not make it an image macro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.57.140 (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2007‎

1000 retards on SA don't make a right24.4.57.140 06:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What does this parenthetical I deleted mean?

The intro contained:

(such as [img-timeline], resulting in the now-bannable Timeline of history)

I couldn't understand it, even after googling the italicized terms, so I deleted it. What was it supposed to mean? 75.35.109.153 11:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess answering this question is stupid, since it was asked like three years ago and the relevant text is long gone, but [img-timeline] was one of the original SA image macros. Timeline.jpg (which looks like this: http://www.bilski.net/images/Humor/timeline.jpg ) was so overused that the administrators of Something Awful started banning anybody who used it. Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Just check the history. I looked through the history for 2007 and re-added it in the article. If anyone can, please clarify it. - M0rphzone (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Image Macro generator?

Wikipedia's not a forum or a how-to guide, but an external link to an online easy image macro generator would be helpful. Opinions?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Macro?

As far as i can tell it's termed an Image Macro purely because some group of geeks decided that's what it should be called, is there a good explanation of the term and why it's appropriate anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.85.54 (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There should at least be a section on the etymology of the term, showing how it evolved from something that made sense at one time, to its current nonsensical state. 66.25.138.120 (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is stupid. Text on a photo is not a macro. A macro is something else. Surely the most famous site that puts text on photos is LOLCATS, and there is no mention of "macros" on that site. Don't let stupidity take Wikipedia over even more than it already has. — Chameleon 02:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - Text on a picture (to my mind) is more often known as a 'TOAP' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.55.4 (talk) 10:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism section

For some reason the Plagiarism portion cannot be edited but needs to be. It contains opinions about a specific website that should be left out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.208.146.196 (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

Using the previously deleted reference to Something Awful, I am going to add a section detailing the etymology of the word to the Wikipedia page. Specifically, I will detail how the name derives from short text shortcuts a user could type that the forum software would then automatically expand into a pre-defined image. This relates to a macro because, as defined on wikipedia, a macro is "a rule or pattern that specifies how a certain input sequence (often a sequence of characters) should be mapped to an output sequence (also often a sequence of characters) according to a defined procedure." (You can argue whether that definition is truly applicable in the case of an image macro as defined here, but that's a moot point since that is, in fact, where the phrase derived from and thus the only relevant fact.) I know people deleted the Something Awful reference before, but I believe it to be a valid source since the specific page linked to is stored on the "encyclopedia" section of the site meant to house factual historical data, and is a time-stamped description of the very fact we are discussing here. If someone has counter-evidence or doesn't believe my justification of the source here meets Wikipedia guidelines, please post about it here on the discussion page before engaging in an edit war. Uncommented reversion will be themselves reverted. --Matt T. (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Java??

What does it have to do with Java? or java, for that matter? --Yecril (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

O RLY?

Someone please change the image on this to the original O RLY owl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.160.28 (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This. The current example is awful...it's a copy of the original that misses the point, the point isn't 'an owl', it's 'an owl with a look of surprise/suspicion'. 92.3.145.210 (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal websites

Lacking well supported exceptions, personal websites and poor quality sources have no place here per WP:SPS. "better than nothing" is not a good enough argument to insert personal webpage from tripod.com. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that it is hard to find sources that this topic, right? Because this originates from Internet culture and phenomena, it is hard to verify using sources other than ones closely related to, or where the actual phenomena originated (Something Awful). Since we have to use reliable third-party sources, it'll be up to the news reporters to research and verify the content, but because of the nature of the content, this means there aren't going to be many (if any at all) reliable sources/news sites that covers this topic in depth and accurately. Maybe Wired might give it a shot, or some other Internet related site, but for now, there's almost nothing specifically on the general image macro and the history behind it. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Lack of adequate reliable secondary source coverage means it is not notable enough to justify standalone article. WP:GNG Perhaps this should be merged into something else. Still no excuse to add junk personal webpage or perhaps sent for Afd. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not merged. Image macro ≠ Internet meme. Cantaloupe, don't attempt future merges if you don't have a fundamental understanding of the topics involved. - M0rphzone (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

---

I was going to merge it myself, but I suspect some editors may object, so here's merger proposal. the coverage in wsj is about meme,b ut the only reference to "image macro" just references back to this very article. It's about internet meme. That article is fairly thin as it is, so I would say merge into it.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - This article's topic is a fundamentally specific aspect of Internet memes/phenomena, so merging it does not help. Just because sources don't focus on the general topic doesn't mean it's not notable and can't stand by itself. Obscurity does not mean non-notability. More sources can be added once they appear. Merging is unnecessary. And you seem pretty hurried in trying to merge stub articles - what's with the typos? - M0rphzone (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Image macros are one type of meme. The Internet meme article rightly describes the greater phenomenon, of which this is but one example. --Jayron32 21:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Below moved from Talk:Internet meme. - M0rphzone (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't know if this is the right place, but I saw the "merge" banner at the top. I would just like to be absolutely clear that an image macro IS NOT a meme. Fourteen year olds nowadays call anything with a caption a "meme". It frankly makes me furious inside every time I hear it. Please don't do this or you'll only be furthering this misconception. --71.185.56.72 (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Example images

The ROFL waffle image isn't enough of an example, as it could be confusing to the uninitiated. Several images showing the scope and intention of image macros would be better as found in this image macro gallery. Very often image macros convey messages of disdain towards the original poster or the entire thread and this is not shown. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gerbert (talk • contribs) 22:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

The ROFL image is ridiculous. First of all, it makes a reference to internet slang that some people might not be familiar with and second of all, it isn't even funny! I disagree with Hagermanbot when he says image macros "convey messages of disdain towards the original poster...". It's just an image with text superimposed.

Note: HagermanBot was a signing bot; the user you were replying to is Gerbert. - M0rphzone (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Might I humbly suggest (also?) using an image of Doctor McCoy saying "I'm a doctor, not an image macro"? Me and my friends find that one hilarious. --Kawachan (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not use the "O RLY" image, since that's the one referred to in the article? Alexbrainbox (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Specifics

Remembering back to forums that had image macros as a feature, they weren't just images with text, they were images with text that would be a common response. For example, "O RLY" would be posted in response to something you were doubtful of, "WRONG FORUM" super imposed over an image of Roman Ruins would indicate the post was better suited to another board, "POINT NOT FOUND" when a post was nonsensical or off-topic. Or did I fundamentally misunderstand them? 78.147.232.63 (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Bach example

I'm afraid I don't understand the Bach image macro. Is it a pun on "voice" in music theory versus "voice" in common use? Is it mocking Bach for transcribing a Vivaldi concerto such that it required four harpsichords? Perhaps a slightly more accessible example might be better. 142.20.20.193 (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Bach meme is terrible

What dweeb decided this would be the best way to illustrate what an image macro is? With a whack joke on a background no-one uses? Throw in an advice dog or foul bachelor frog or literally ANY MEME PEOPLE ACTUALLY USE. 60.234.89.120 (talk) 09:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thick?

In first paragraph:

Image macros are usually overlaid with white Impact font bordered with a thin black outline.

In second-to-last paragraph:

Although they come in many forms, the most common type of image macro is a photograph with large text superimposed in Impact font, using all upper-case letters and coloured white with a thick black outline.

The sample picture looks thick to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.69.135.20 (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)