Talk:Image macro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

SA Source. Here is the SA entry on Image Macros, dating to Feb 2004 http://forums.somethingawful.com/dictionary.php?act=3&topicid=83

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

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

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)

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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?].

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)