Talk:Lucifer (2019 Indian film)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Lucifer First Look.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Lucifer Second Look.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2019

Grammar Mistakes: "....but it did not materialised and was shelved after ...." should be changed to "....but it did not materialize and was shelved after ...."

"Boban said he has not officially signed to do the film, at the same time he did not denied the possibility..." should be changed to "Boban said that he had not officially signed to do the film, at the same time he did not deny the possibility..."

"Pillai was to direct the film based on the first story, which did not materialised, so he discarded that story." should be changed to "Pillai was to direct the film based on the first story, which was not materialized, so he discarded that."

"In September 2016, actor-writer Murali said he was uncertain whether he would be acting in the film saying it was too early to discuss the cast other than Mohanlal." should be changed to "In September 2016, actor-writer Murali said that he was uncertain whether he would be acting in the film as it was too early to discuss the cast other than Mohanlal." Anish83 (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2019

"The film received highly positive response from audience and critics". It can be added in lead.

Audience:
https://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report-lucifer-fan-movie-review-prithviraj-s-directorial-debut-starring-mohanlal-lauded-by-netizens-2734159
https://www.news18.com/news/movies/lucifer-twitter-hails-mohanlal-film-as-blockbuster-with-both-mass-and-class-2080515.html
https://www.india.com/buzz/lucifer-twitter-reaction-mohanlal-starrer-political-thriller-opens-to-positive-reviews-twitterati-declare-it-a-blockbuster-and-call-it-gripping-class-movie-with-mass-scenes-3614699/
https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/south/lucifer-movie-review-mohanlal-starrer-opens-fabulous-response-masses-444645
https://www.bollywoodlife.com/south-gossip/lucifer-movie-review-prithviraj-sukumarans-directorial-debut-starring-mohanlal-gets-lauded-by-audience/
https://www.ibtimes.co.in/lucifer-movie-review-by-viewers-live-audiences-response-mohanlal-prithvirajs-film-794750

Critics:
http://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/review/2019/mar/28/lucifer-movie-review-a-fitting-tribute-by-prithviraj-to-an-actor-of-mohanlals-stature-1957120.html
https://www.news18.com/news/movies/lucifer-movie-review-intriguing-political-thriller-tailor-made-for-mass-audience-2080669.html
https://english.mathrubhumi.com/movies-music/review/lucifer-review-the-complete-actor-s-complete-political-thriller-1.3683283
https://www.filmibeat.com/malayalam/reviews/2019/lucifer-review-an-intense-entertainer-that-offers-a-fresh-and-engaging-watch-284358.html
https://www.ibtimes.co.in/lucifer-movie-review-mohanlal-deal-devil-strikes-gold-794768
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/malayalam/movie-reviews/lucifer/movie-review/68608873.cms
https://malayalam.samayam.com/malayalam-cinema/movie-review/mohanlal-prithviraj-manju-warrier-starrer-lucifer-malayalam-movie-review-rating/moviereview/68606726.cms
https://keralakaumudi.com/news/cinema/review/movie-review-lucifer-63757
https://www.manoramaonline.com/movies/movie-reviews/2019/03/28/lucifer-malayalam-movie-review-mohanlal-prithviraj-manju-warrier-tovino-thomas-murali-gopy.html
https://malayalam.indianexpress.com/entertainment/review/lucifer-malayalam-movie-review-mohanlal-prithviraj-manju-warrier-tovino-thomas/
https://www.asianetnews.com/movie-reviews/prithviraj-mohanlals-lucifer-review-pp2dkh
https://malayalam.news18.com/news/film/movies-lucifer-movie-review-100205.html
2405:204:D38C:A45C:5C48:BF74:7650:356F (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: these sources don't prove that the general response was positive, it are just reviews. Please come with a source that specifically proves the general response to the movie was positive. MrClog (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Stephen Nedumpally $ Quereshi Abraham

Who is Quereshi Abraham..? Ujwal Asok Krishna (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Khureshi Ab'raam is the alter ego of Stephen Nedumpally. He is the illuminati. 137.97.129.254 (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2019

Last edited user added an unsourced genre against the hidden note, which should be removed. 2405:204:D30C:3703:602F:F651:37F:5B86 (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done Tolly4bolly 10:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2019

Should remove the reference from onlookersmedia.com which fails WP:RS. Last editor added it for budget. 137.97.142.68 (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Þjarkur (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2019

Add an update in box office section: "In a month after release, the film became the 13th highest-grossing South Indian film overseas, by grossing $7.15 million (Rs 50.03 crore). Thus, Lucifer became the first ever Malayalam film to gross 50 crore in overseas box office".

Last sentence should be also added in the lead, it's a landmark. Source. 137.97.129.254 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 10:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2019

Please change Lucifer Box office collection to 200 crore from 165 crore. Reference: https://www.ibtimes.co.in/mohanlals-lucifer-crosses-200-crore-box-office-full-movie-now-available-amazon-prime-video-797750 182.18.177.138 (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Tolly4bolly 10:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2019

Update the box office section, add that "Lucifer emerged as the highest-grossing Malayalam film in Tamil Nadu, with a gross collection above ₹2.1 crore." Source. 2405:204:D309:2C98:1D0D:7572:D447:3DFF (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

200 crore box office figure

In this edit I moved the 200 crore box office figure out of the infobox, directing readers to the box office section for more information. The reason is that we were using two sources to support the 200 crore claim, but one of them, Hindustan Times, makes it fairly clear that the 200 crore figure includes satellite, digital streaming and overseas rights, which have nothing to do with box office. Since time immemorial, box office has meant what you made in gross ticket sales. Since there is no cut-and-dry figure to put in the |gross= parameter of the infobox, I opted to remove it, since we are not obligated to provide this information when there's more to the story than meets the eye. See Kabali (film) as another example of this. Another option would be to present the gross as a range of 165-175 crore, since IBT claims the figure, and the Hindustan Times figure seems to indicate a 175 crore gross. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Other revenue has to be specially mentioned. Box office means gross generated from theaters. Other than that 200 crore has nothing to do with the box office. Exagerated collections has to be removed. Albin369 (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Official trackers updated the collection as 128 cr indian rupees. Why are you using double standard among malayalam movies. Albin369 (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

"Official trackers"? There are no "official trackers" in Indian cinema. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Box office

Boosted box office collections mainly 200 crore business. Film collected 128crores worldwide. Other figures are exagerated. Albin369 (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Albin369: See this. It could be poor journalism, but without any sure way of knowing, it seems like the data should be presented in the form of a range based on what the sources say. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Conflicting information

@Vaishnav bk: I don't understand these edits or these edits. In the first one you added Vivek Oberoi and Manju Warrier to the |starring= parameter. In the second edit you only added Vivek Oberoi. So it's confusing how you're in conflict with your own edits. Further, I only see one actor's name on the poster, Mohanlal. Who decided that Vivek Oberoi and Manju Warrier are credited as "stars" of the film? The lede only mentions Mohanlal as having the lead role. So it seems odd that we'd have a |starring= parameter in conflict with the lede. My suspicion is that there's some confusion over what "starring" means. It doesn't mean "appearing in". It's a special credit that typically indicates the lead roles. So how are you determining who the stars should be? Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Mohanlal played the lead role.... But Vivek Oberoi also played the role of main villain.... So he also have a pivotal role... Thank you Vaishnav bk (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vaishnav bk: Pivotal role ≠ "starring". How are you deciding who receives the label of "starring"? I looked at the credits and there's nothing in the opening that I can find that lists "star" cast. And the closing credits just says "Cast". So where is the info coming from? Are you just making it up? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Plot not too lengthy

Lucifer is a movie in which you have to pay heed to each and every points and turns in the movie. For such a movie, the plot will be excessively detailed, which is needed for the movie to be understood. Please remove the template in which it says that the plot is excessively detailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris John 999 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to give a blow-by-blow of the movie, it needs to be a succinct summaries of the important moments in the film so that readers can understand the narrative. Please see WP:FILMPLOT. BOVINEBOY2008 12:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2022

Bop2k3 (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

For your kind information, i hereby join wilipedia to perform some edits inorder to avoid a chaos Bop2k3 (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2022

Please consider my request at the earliest because i m an experienced editor and also this film gross and runtime ate being changed by haters. So please Bop2k3 (talk) 07:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

In hereby request you all to allow me to edit prtected pages too Bop2k3 (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 08:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2022

Soyaabeen SK (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I will do only a minor change and will not do vandalism Soyaabeen SK (talk) 08:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ab207 (talk) 08:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2022

1. Lucifer earned 200 Crores according to the valid sources but Wikipedia says 175.

2. Box office est. ₹175 crore[3]

3. https://www.hindustantimes.com/regional-movies/mohanlal-s-lucifer-storms-into-rs-200-crore-club-first-for-malayalam-cinema/story-vTm7JXaAdz0FWFTllE4n2I.html 2406:B400:A9:7FEB:9D3D:D149:A5B6:3783 (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia displays the worldwide gross from theatrical revenue which, according to the source, is only 175 crore -- Ab207 (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2022

1. LUCIFER storms into the ₹200Crore club

2. Box office est. ₹175 crore[3]

3. https://www.hindustantimes.com/regional-movies/mohanlal-s-lucifer-storms-into-rs-200-crore-club-first-for-malayalam-cinema/story-vTm7JXaAdz0FWFTllE4n2I.html

LUCIFER has surpassed ₹200Crores and the source attached to it says the same still the page says ₹175Crores and it should Ge corrected as per request. 49.205.254.215 (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The source says that the total net gain was 200 and that the box office est. is 175. Aaron Liu (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 25 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Lucifer (2019 Indian film) → Lucifer (film) – Primary film compared to Lucifer (2019 Nigerian film), based on page traffic, incoming wikilinks, no. of reliable sources - within the articles and on internet (not to mention the Nigerian film's sources are based on a single event), and the Indian film dominates in Google search too. A hatnote should be used on primary as per WP:ONEOTHER. 137.97.96.191 (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). No such user (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Procedural comment. This RM is the result of a contested request to revert the previous move. The move has been done because of new article Lucifer (2019 Nigerian film), which is heading to be kept at AfD. Basically, the community should decide whether the exception at WP:INCDAB applies: threshold for identifying a primary topic for such titles is higher than for a title without parenthetical disambiguation. The discussion below has been copied from WP:RMTR. No such user (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

---

• This is a request to revert a recent undiscussed move. Concur with IP, moved to correct section. Station1 (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  Pinging @Bearcat who made the move on 4 August. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  Can you say for certain that the Indian film dominates Google search everywhere, even in Nigeria? – robertsky (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Incomplete disambiguation rules apply here. There can only be a "primary topic" for the plain title "Lucifer" itself — the moment any disambigation has to be applied, all disambiguated topics must be fully disambiguated. That is, as neither film can be at just "Lucifer" itself, there is no such thing as one film still getting to outrank the other one as "primary topic" for the partially disambiguated "Lucifer (film)" — if there are two or more films in the mix, then the first-level disambiguator "film" is completely off the table for any of them, and all of the films must be fully disambigated at the "YYYY film" or "YYYY country film" level. There is no such thing as "this film is more notable than that film for the purposes of getting to claim primary topic over a partially disambiguated title" — if neither film can claim the completely undisambiguated title Lucifer itself, which obviously neither film can, then both films have to be fully disambiguated by year and/or country. A film can only be disambiguated as "film" if it's the only film that needs to be disambiguated — if there's more than one film in the mix, then there's no such thing as "this film gets to be the primary 'film', while the other films have to be bumped down another rung".
    If you'd like to try nominating the Nigerian film for outright deletion at WP:AFD, then go right ahead, and if it gets deleted, then the Indian film can be moved back to just "film" — but as long as the Nigerian film still has a Wikipedia article, there's simply no such thing as one film getting to outrank another film for the incompletely-disambiguated title "film". Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry but that's incorrect. See WP:INCDAB. There was an RfC about this a while back. But in any case, this is a discussion to be had on the article's talk page if you want to propose a move, and I can elaborate further there. In the meantime, 2 editors have objected to the move, so it must be moved back per BRD and then discussed. Station1 (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Concur with Bearcat. Partial disambiguation is very rarely justified. I agree that if there is a lack of consensus about it, the title should revert to the partially disambiguated title, but I personally suggest not using that title and suggest holding an RM discussion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

    I completely agree. It is rarely justified, but this is one of those rare cases. Station1 (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  Revert, and light trout unless a completely new editor who doesn't know about RMs, if anyone wants to argue against rules, then go ahead and initiate a disruptive RM, thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Partial disambiguation is never used for films; see WP:PRIMARYFILM. 162 etc. (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
  • misread that - correct Partial disambiguation is never used for films. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I am not commenting on the move, but that Nigerian film's notability is questionable, with no independent sources (WP:NF). Among the 7 references, 3 of them doesn't have any mention and remaining gives only passing mentions, "[Award Category] - Lucifer".--2409:4073:4E1B:8333:3D54:5403:4F11:2D6F (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    • A deletion discussion is open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucifer (2019 Nigerian film). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

---

• Oppose Partial disambiguation is contrary to WP:PRIMARYFILM, and no compelling evidence has been provided on why this should be the exception. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Tree Critter (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose obviously. BTW Tree Critter you cannot support if Lucifer (2019 Nigerian film) survives deletion. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYFILM unless Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucifer (2019 Nigerian film) results in deletion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2022 (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.

Lucifer is not the only Malayalam film to gross 200 crores

• As of July 2021, Lucifer is the only Malayalam film to earn more than ₹200 crore,:
• Because it is not the only Malayalam film to gross 200 crores. 2018 (film) also achieved the milestone:
• https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/malayalam/tovino-thomas-starrer-2018-becomes-first-malayalam-film-to-reach-rs-200-crore-milestone-8652435/:

116.68.101.209 (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

References

 Partly done: Actualcpscm (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)