File talk:Junction 4 M66 South - Coppermine - 17763.jpg

Just happened on this picture by chance - it's very, very good! The colour of the sky, slightly reflected on the face of the blue sign, is lovely. --Chris5156 02:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is, perhaps a candidate for POTM?

Side thought: Since the Image namespace has changed to the File namespace, the discussion pages for images have become available again, but perhaps this is a good thing? Coppermine allowed people to comment on images. Jeni ^(talk) 02:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We shouldn't lose about the only good thing Coppermine DID do... M5lenzar 09:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually the reason talk pages are back is that the MediaWiki upgrade script (unlike the phpBB one, which is much cleverer) overwrites any changes to the main code files. There's only a handful of places where this is affected, and talk pages was one. --Ritchie333 17:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the chat about talk pages being back is here. I say keep them! Sabristo simon 19:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I started something with my comment! I agree that we should keep discussion pages for images at least - people should be able to comment on them. Whether they are necessary for other pages, I'm not so sure. But this is useful. --Chris5156 12:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think on other pages they are useful if you want to add an extended comment regarding an edit you have made, which may not fit into an edit summary. Comments where it doesn't really matter if they get lost down the recent changes list. Jeni ^(talk) 12:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)