Talk:Awakenings

message: Shouldn't this be divided into two articles, one about Sacks' book and one about the film? One of the things I find bothersome about many Wikipedia articles is that they tend to refer more to pop cultural anchors than to the sources of those anchors. Rhombus  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.18.218.36 (talk • contribs).
:Many of the articles about films based on books (& books made into films) have separate articles if the information about both is substantial enough to merit two articles. I prefer the separate article approach, because it treats each work as an individual entity (and keeps article length reasonable, in some cases). However, cross-linking would obviously be de rigueur in such cases. Her Pegship 22:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 

message: I've removed Vin Diesel from the list of stars. Give me a break, folks; he was an uncredited hospital orderly, not a star, and hardly worthy of mention in this case.
Qwe 21:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vin Diesel 

message: I am curious to know what if any medical progress has been made with regard to the problems treated in this film. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uberkuh (talk • contribs).
:Not a whole lot, but I don't think this disorder occurs much anymore... Regular Parkinson's has made some progress, but still less than you'd think.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical Progress 

message: "Eleanor tells him that he is a good person and Leonard considered him his best friend. Sayer, remembering Leonard's advice on living every minute of life, asks Eleanor to join him for a cup of coffee."
So who is Eleanor? The plot summary never mentions who she is! tildetildetildetilde —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.114.183.173 (talk • contribs).
* Eleanor Costello is the black-haired nurse that Dr. Sayer works with (played by Julie Kavner). Firetrap  (talk • contribs)  19:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eleanor 

message: I think the book is at least as notable as the movie...so maybe this page should go to the disambiguation page. Thoughts?--Xris0 (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, although I'd recommend the book option. Litawor (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommend defaulting ''Awakenings'' to disambiguation or book page 

message: Why does the drug initially work awakening the catatonic patients but then stop working? Is that explained in the film? 81.129.95.5 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  L-Dopa failure? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Awakenings. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140429161211/http://www.sonymoviechannel.com/movies/awakenings/details to http://www.sonymoviechannel.com/movies/awakenings/details
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: TheOldJacobite seems to be edit warring over my attempt to make a trivial fix: Changing
:Leonard Lowe (Robert De Niro) proves elusive in this regard ...
to
:Patient Leonard Lowe (Robert De Niro) proves elusive in this regard ...
The key there being that there is the first time Lowe is mentioned in the main body and it is necessary to provide at least some indication of who this person is. TheOldJacobite keeps reverting this complaining that my edit comments are not clear enough. For the record, the quality of edit comments is not a rationale for reverting edits.
-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Two reverts is not edit-warring.  You changed the article and gave an incoherent edit summary.  I reverted you and stated that was my reason.  You reverted back to your version, falsely claiming that I had given no reason for my revert.  I reverted again, repeating what I had said the first time.  When you change the article, the onus is upon you to give a good reason for it.  You failed to do so. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivial edit war