Talk:Spider Martin

message: I don't think this section is being used appropriately in this article.  The section refers to one of the many galleries that Martin exhibited at and to two other Civil Rights photographers.  No information is given as to whether Martin and the two photographers knew each other or had any other connections.  There must be many, many other CR photographers who could also be listed as well as many other galleries.  Why these 3?  It occurs to me that if the article doesn't show the relationship, then the See Also section is not an appropriate place to put this information.  Since my earlier edit was reverted, I would like to garner the opinions of other editors on this question.   TheMindsEye 05:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're entirely right. -- Hoary 05:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The 'See also' section

message: I can find no evidence that Martin's work has been exhibited in any of the Smithsonian museums. A quick perusal of SI's collections search site, http://collections.si.edu/search/, brings up nothing. I don't want to cast aspersions, but claiming someone's work has been exhibited by the Smithsonian is a great justification for jacking up the price.
Qafsiel (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim was added in the original edit, by User:Jon Coffelt, who seems to be Jon Coffelt (the article about whom has a rocky history). Well, I'm removing the particular claim. -- Hoary (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The Smithsonian?

message: In this edit, JC713 "Removed numerous external links for irrelevance or dead links [...]". I'm all for removing irrelevant links. However, while the first link I looked at, "About Spider by Ed Mullins" is dead, Ed Mullins' "Spider Martin" is available. Finding http://web.archive.org/web/20080309113934/http://www.ccom.ua.edu/od/martin.shtml (the latter) was easy, because I knew the URL (http://www.ccom.ua.edu/od/martin.shtml) of the former.
I'm about to revert the edit, well intended though it might have been. If a link is dead, first look for it at the Wayback Machine. If it's still lost, comment it out. If it's available but irrelevant, say so. (I'll start this process, but I shan't complete it.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoary thanks for the shout out/alert. I was really put off by the Birmingham Weekly link leading to a very odd site that I got carried away with the rest of the links. Thanks for fixing this! When I get some time, I will do some research and fix the article even more (you guys did a ton, thanks!). Sorry about this; I completely forgot about the Wayback Machine. I guess Birmingham Weekly changed their URL to Bham weekly or something! Thanks again. JC713 (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant/dead links

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Spider Martin. 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/20060324142000/http://www.informationbirmingham.com/councilminutes/2003/dec/Mins0506.y03.pdf to http://www.informationbirmingham.com/councilminutes/2003/dec/Mins0506.y03.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified