Talk:Twenty:20 (film)

WP:FILMS B class assessment

I have reviewed this article per a request at WP:FILMS' assessment department. I made various changes throughout the article (mostly removing contractions in the plot section). After reading the article, I found a few things that need to be worked on before it can reach B class.

• Italicize the title in the intro as well as the other occurrences within the article.
• The flag in the infobox needs to be removed. This is a result of past discussion about its inclusion.
• In the production section, there is a single sentence by itself. To improve the flow of the article it shouldn't stand by itself. Instead incorporate it into the prior paragraph or expand on it.
• Consider reducing the length of the cast. If some of the characters aren't that notable consider removing them. If they are all vital, try using columns to reduce the size of the section. Also consider mentioning more details about each character instead of just listing the name. This isn't a requirement, but will give more information on each character. Look to other GA/FAs for examples.
• The controversies section should all be converted to prose. Instead of using a list, just break it up with different paragraphs.
• The audio release section needs sources for the present information. Also for the heading, make sure that release is lower-cased (Audio release).
• In the reception section, the quotes don't need to be in italic font.
• All inline citations need to go directly after the punctuation (ex. "She sat by the dog.[1]" not " by the dog. [1]" or "by the dog[1]."). Make sure to fix all occurrences within the article.
• The inline citations need to use the citation templates or use better formatting instead of using just the url.
• File:Twenty20poster.jpg needs to have the source of where the image was found listed on the image's page.
• Keep branching out to find more sources. Look in archives on Google and use a library database if possible. If you need further assistance ask for help at WP:FILMS, as there are usually a few editors that have access to various sources to help you out.

Good job working on the article so far, and I hope that after implementing the above suggestions, the article will ready to reach B class. Once you have addressed the suggestions, have an editor or two take a look at the article to give it a good copyedit. If you have any further questions on the review or above suggestions, please let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I went through the article and fixed some minor errors and grammar issues. In order for it to reach B, it still needs a few more things. The inline citations need more parameters including the author who wrote the article, date it was released, the newspaper/magazine/site that released it, and the access date the site was last accessed. Showing just the title of the website/link isn't sufficient. Take a look at some current GA/FAs for examples. If you need help with formatting let me know. For the cast section, consider using two columns without the table so that it doesn't take up so much of the article (there's a lot of white space on the side). For the reception section add a few reviews that may have been negative. This will prevent the section from appearing POV. The article still could use another copyedit, so try to get another editor or two to take a look. Once you have addressed these issues, let me know on my talk page and I'll give it another look. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I've assessed it as B-class. Add a citation for the budget in the infobox and see if there are any more relevant categories that can be added. If you wish to pursue GA, I'd recommend expanding the plot more (add more details), look for any more content that is available (maybe see if the DVD has anything), and find someone to copyedit it. You could always take it to the Indian task force and see if anyone can help out. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

WP India (Kerala workgroup) reassessment

The article is reassessed to B-class, as it abides by the guidelines for B-class articles in the project. Also, WP: Films have reassessed it to B-class.--Anoopkn (talk) 08:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A Link Error in Casting.

The casting table entry for the Malayalam Actor Baburaj points to a wiki page for a music composer with the same name. Request correction or attention. Sanjit Nair (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning Missing.

Can some one care to add a spoiler warning before the Plot section of the movie?? I think it's required.Sanjit Nair (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As per guidelines in Wikipedia:Spoiler, having a spoiler warning is not encouraged, as wikipedia is an encylopedia, the information is supposed to be covered in detail.--Anoopkn (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification.Sanjit Nair (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

File:TwentyTwenty.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:TwentyTwenty.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:TwentyTwenty.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 16 August 2014

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Twenty:20 → Twenty:20 (film) – Twenty20 is the primary topic. Both titles looks similar and therefore confusing. Rameshnta909 (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support Confusing on first glance, redirect so there's no ambiguity. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support WP:DIFFPUNCT. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Incoming links need to be fixed before this move is made. Jenks24 (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2014

Request to add an image in the Music section of film article Twenty:20 (film) because, there is already a space for adding a cover image and it's empty and there is an official cover/poster of the film in wikipedia. The image is reliably sourced and fully licensed. Thanks. File:Twenty20poster.jpg 27.97.211.82 (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• To anyone considering making this edit, please be aware there is a long, ongoing edit war between User:Wiki-senetor and User:Bangbang43, both of whom have been identified as being sockpuppet masters, and both of whom have IPs editing in the same way as they have been. The requested image addition here was uploaded by User:Wiki-senetor. I advise against adding this or any other contribution by either of these editors or their sockpuppets. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful, edit warring by proxy. Stickee (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 4 January 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Move of 16 August 2014 is confirmed. (non-admin closure) Wbm1058 (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Twenty:20 → Twenty:20 (film) – This is in response to the above RM discussion where 2 people indicated support to move the film to a DAB Page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: That this has been moved in the middle of the discussion. Please identify if you wish the article to stay at Twenty:20 (film) with the DAB or without the DAB Twenty:20

• Oppose move to DAB The film should not be moved to a dab page as there is nothing else of the same name. Twenty20 is the primary topic for Twenty20, but it is not the primary topic for Twenty:20 - it is not abbreviated that way, it is abbreviated T20 (and that is never abbreviated T:20. Standard HATnote at the top is sufficient as per the mis cited WP:DIFFPUNCT from the previous discussion. "While each name in such a pair may already be precise and apt, a reader who enters one term might in fact be looking for the other, so use appropriate disambiguation techniques, such as hatnotes or disambiguation pages to help readers find the article they want."-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The redirect to from Twenty:20 to 2020 (disambiguation) is is silly. No one typing in a combo of text and number would possibly be looking for anything other than the film or cricket. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy procedural revert TRPOD moved this page back to "Twenty:20" against the result of the last move request, so it should be immediately returned to the result of the last move request, and TRPOD should have move request to move it off the title it should be at instead of this move request, which is procedurally wrong, since the DEFAULT NAME should be Twenty:20 (film) , the result of the last move request -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi there @65.94.40.137:, it's unclear why you are arguing the default should be Twenty:20 (film). We have a film Clerks which is the primary topic for the word Clerks, and doesn't bear a parenthetical "(film)" even though there is a completely different article for Clerk. Instead there is a hatnote directing people to the Clerk article if that's what they're looking for. We have a movie Airplane!, again without "(film)" tacked on, that is obviously different from Airplane. In this latter example, the only difference is punctuation. Nuance apparently matters. Unless there is something else called Twenty:20, with the colon, I don't see why this film wouldn't be correctly located at Twenty:20. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying that this move request and the bold move that preceded it is faulty. Any move request should start with the result of the last move request as the starting point (the default name) not the boldly moved new name. TRPOD's request should start with the article at "Twenty:20 (film)" and request the title he boldly moved it to, "Twenty:20", not the vice versa. If TRPOD wants a new name, the article should start at the name previously agreed on, not start at the new location, and then lead an opposition on restoring the status quo. This is a procedural matter. Presenting the new name as a fait-accompli with restoring the prior consensus result as an possible option is wrong. The new name needs to be the option. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• • TRPOD's bold move has been reverted. TRPOD should close this move request (as it is procedurally incorrect), and file a new one with a rationale for the title he boldly moved this article to before (since rationales for the title TRPOD wants would be different from this awkward nomination). -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wrong mentioning of cast

Mammootty is the seniormost and he should come first in the cast. Mubthasim (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Wrong for whom? Mammootty fans? Cast is not arranged according to "age", if that is the case then Madhu is the most senior. What happened to your so called seniority in these cases - [1],[2]. It proves you are biased. Wikipedia is not here to push your agenda. 137.97.101.58 (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Wrong Arrangement in the cast.

Hi, You know Mammootty and Mohanlal are equally popular & rival actors in Malayalam Film Industry. Both actors are equally important in the movie, So we have to consider other aspect like age, experience, spells. In any manner, there shouldn't be any chance for Mohanlal to be placed above Mammootty. On the basis of age, career experience & considering their english spelling, Mohanlal only comes after Mammootty. Then on what basis admins are keeping the wrong order and reverting other edits. This is not fair. Expecting an answer. Thnaks in advance. SmakTwone (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps because Mohanlal is listed first in the credits of the movie [3]. I seriously doubt we would list the cast of a movie in descending order based on age. Some pretty minor characters/actors would be listed first then in many movies, in all likelihood. Experience is very subjective. Do 5 minor roles count for more than one major role? What is a major role? How do we weigh experience? You can't. It's subjective. If we list alphabetically, we run into the same problems we would with age; some pretty minor characters/actors would potentially be listed first. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Why are you diverting things. I already said that both are equally important role & both have done major roles in the movie. So there is no need to talk about minor character. I can give you many sources where Mammootty is listed first. From my best knowledge, names are arranged in alphabetical order when two people are equally deserved. Even in the movie itself Mammootty is mentioned above Mohanlal in the end credit scene. Atleast Give me one reason to write Mohanlal Above Mammootty. From any aspects Mammootty comes first. Watch the movie's end credit scene. SmakTwone (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Rearrange cast in billing order

Hi Hammersoft After talking with the admins in the help desk, i came to know that, the casts are arranged in the billing order. Means Accordingly how the producer chosen it. So from the movie's post credit scene itself, we can understand there should be some rearrangement to be made. You can watch it here : [[4]]. So I believe you guys should do proper rearrangement as per in the billing order or producers wish. SmakTwone (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• I can't see the film in my region. What I do see on the description is three actors ahead of both of them, meaning neither of them has top billing. I don't think this is authoritative. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
• @SmakTwone: This article has been semi-protected for years because petty Mammootty fans and Mohanlal fans kept warring over the order. Right now you're unhappy, but if we change it, Mohanlal fans will get irritated. Whatever the status quo has been should remain in place to prevent disruption to the article and to the community. Sorry if this conflicts with your fandom, but this is a really pointless issue to be upset about. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb:It is not about fandom. You guys are not giving a proper reason for the current arrangements. On what basis the current arrangement was done. Earlier i thought names are arranged based on alphabetical order when things between them goes similar. But after talking with an admin in help desk, they said currently cast are arranged based only on billing order(i.e as per producer's wish). So I checked the end credit of the film and the order is not same as in the current article. Atleast just give me the criteria of the current arrangement. Seriously this not fair. SmakTwone (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• You have been given a proper reason. They are in billing order. End credits are not billing. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
• SmakTwone, your plea "Seriously this not fair" suggests that you have a very strong emotional attachment to this issue, which makes you inherently biased in favour of a particular outcome, and thus, somewhat unsuitable for an objective discussion about this. And for all we know, there could be multiple versions of the film, one with Mammootty billed first in regions where he might be more popular and one where Mohanlal was billed first in regions where he might be more popular. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
• Adding on; SwakTwone, you said that both are "equally important role"; if that's the case, then why should it matter in what order they are billed? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Cyphoidbomb: What are talking man? Now I doubt you guys are protecting something for someone. After this whole talk you still failed to show me the proof as I did along with my argument. I strongly believe wikipedia isn't working based on intuitions. From my best knowledge there is no multiple credit scene for the movie. If do, just show me the proof. I though for keeping the current arrangement from edit you guys definetily need to have a strong proof. Just show me that. This talk won't be this long if you guys have showed me earlier. It feels like you are opposing me to keep this. @Hammersoft: If end credit is not the billing. Then give me the correct one. When i started this talk I am not at all serious. But when i realised you guys are just defending me/my request without a single solid evidence, I am forced to continue the talk. And to your add on questing. I just want to know how this cast arrangement was done according to wiki rules. Just give me the proof of your arguments in the billing order. I have given a proper proof and you are opposing me. So then Give me a stronger proof. That's all. SmakTwone (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Proof has been provided to you, but you've chosen to ignore it. Here's another one; the listing on Amazon. Now, you are accusing us of having nefarious purposes in "protecting something or someone". This conversation is no longer productive. If you feel you have a case to make despite the evidence that's been provided to you, if you feel that we are obstructing you in applying your great evidence, then please avail yourself of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Thank you, and have a great day. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hammersoft,There is no proof other than the movie itself.Please watch the credit line starting from 2.42.50 to 2.43.15

Fantastic videos from MXPlayer [[[Twenty:20] https://www.mxplayer.in/movie/watch-twenty-twenty-movie-online-a971f4d900cbf36e12b1f4dc47192d1f?utm_source=mx_android_share]]

Keralacinelovers Media (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Cast line provided is not matching with original movie

Admin, This is not a matter of fanism but the original cast line of the movie is Madhu, Mammootty, Mohanlal, Suresh gopi. I have the most valid proof with me and it is movie itself.Sir,please dont be biased because the truth is just under your finger tips.The movie has only one version and here please watch it from Mxplayer.Cast line:2.42.50 to 2.43.15Fantastic videos from MXPlayer [[[Twenty:20] https://www.mxplayer.in/movie/watch-twenty-twenty-movie-online-a971f4d900cbf36e12b1f4dc47192d1f?utm_source=mx_android_share]] Keralacinelovers Media (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• As with an earlier discussion, this movie is not viewable in my region and I suspect in many places in the world. Regardless, the link you provided shows (as with the earlier link) a description which shows Mohanlal listed first. This just further proves that Mohanlal should be listed first. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I could see it, but can't read Malayalam. Keralacinelovers Media, arguing over which of these people should be credited first is an entirely fruitless passion, and has been a needlessly disruptive subject across many articles. If I were you, I'd drop the stick on this. Nobody's going to die if the English Wikipedia has the wrong actor listed first. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• These edits, given the above, aren't surprising [5][6][7][8]. It's a curious thing that legions of fans insist on trying to change the order of these actors to either side. This has been going on for many years now (almost six years) and shows no sign of abating. Both actors are successful. Both actors are millionaires. Both actors have won many awards. Why does it matter so much? Are their lives going to somehow be negatively affected if one or the other is placed first on a cast listing on Wikipedia? What's behind this? @Keralacinelovers Media: can you shed light on this? Just help us understand why who comes first is so important? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Cyphoidbomb: You might be able to use the titles of their articles on Malayalam; ml:മമ്മൂട്ടി (Mammootty) and ml:മോഹൻലാൽ (Mohanlal), and visually compare the Malayalam text against what you see on the opening credits. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Hammersoft: I'll take a look, but the geniuses who produced the film put all the credits at the front, even for mundane stuff like sound mixing and art, so it might be more time than I'm willing to invest on something so trivial. And for a little extra trivia about these two actors, the film Harikrishnans was produced with two sets of credits, one with Mohanlal first and one with Mammootty first, to be released in the various regions where one is more popular than the other. Yeah. This is such an ongoing pain that I am wondering if we shouldn't just do an RfC somewhere and come up with a way to figure out who should get credited first. Like, count the number of characters in the film's title and if it's odd, Mohanlal is first, and if it's even, the other guy. But of course then someone would come by and argue that the transliteration of Harikrishnans should actually be Haarikrishnans or something, just so they could win. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Well then being able to confirm what Keralacinelovers Media says is on the version above is rather pointless, as it could be listed in the opposite order on another release. Uhg. I doubt an RfC would help. I don't think there's any reasonable metric that can positively prove one actor should be listed first above another in any given movie, and any arbitrary method will have a very hard time gaining approval. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Admins.Iam not here to support either of the fan clubs nor the actors but i firmly believe that wikipedia should have a minimum crediblity in dealing with cast billing.Sir,you mentioned that the movie is unavailable in your region but have you thought about the impression people will get about wikipedia after watching the movie's original billing order and the alternate wiki credits?Will it be okay if Marlon brando be put behind the wiki cast order of the page "The Godfather"?

 As you said no English wikipedians are going to suffer for a misrepresented cast line.You are right.But my question is simple.Why Mohanlal?You will be saying that the websites you visited listed him first.But in reality those website listing are nothing but wikipedia bill order.
 Mohanlal acted as antagonist of Mammootty in almost all the movies from 1980s and i had seen many mammootty movie pages were antagonist Mohanlal is edited and placed above Protagonist by his fans.Actually cinema itself is the solid proof and i know nobody cares too much to an editable source like Wiki but i read an article in Wiki prejusice against actors in Manorama weekly,that is the reason iam here.So it is only the matter of credibility.Once again sorry if i turned as a disturbance.The article below may help you to understand the positions when both these actors combined in cinema.

[[9]]

Keralacinelovers Media (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

One more thing sir,for the movie Twenty 20,there is only one version.No other version were made till date.The simplest thing you can do is to check the original end credit(casting bill)Of the movie by using a Malayalam-English Word trsnslator.Faith in you.Regards Keralacinelovers Media (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The below article will also help you to identify the protagonist.I believe if there are two protagonist,alphabetical order is wiki policy. https://keralakaumudi.com/en/news/news.php?id=265790&u=he-would-one-day-become-a-hero-and-even-a-threat-to-me-mammootty-predicted-once-265790

Keralacinelovers Media (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• If you're not here to support either, then why is it that any edits you do that resort the cast listings are in favor of Mammootty? Your non-neutrality here in favor of Mammootty seems clear. Since, as Cyphoidbomb noted, it appears that at least some of their movies have had the cast order reversed depending on where they were released, there doesn't seem to be an "official" sort order for these movies. If the sort order doesn't matter to the producers of the movie, why is it so important to you? I don't care who is listed first. I really don't. If it can be proven who should be listed first (which I seriously doubt at this point), then it should be listed that way. Otherwise, changing it is disruptive. If you change it to Mammootty first, someone else will change it to Mohanlal first. If they do it, then you or someone else will change it back to Mammootty, and on and on this will go for years. We're up to six years now. I took a look at the Times of India link you've provided. The article doesn't load. All I see is a picture of them together with a caption, followed by "See full story here". When I click on that, nothing happens and the article never appears. Personally, I wouldn't care if Marlon Brando is not listed first. Honestly, I don't see what the issue is. If that happened to the Godfather article, the reputation of Brando and/or the movie would not be affected in any material way. Neither would Wikipedia's reputation be tarnished. The problem here is the seriously disruptive nature of this years long campaign between the Mohanlal and Mammootty camps to get their favorite actor listed first. The problem IS NOT that Mohanlal or Mammootty is erroneously listed first (since we apparently can't prove it one way or the other). This article has been protected from edits by non-autoconfirmed users since 2014 because of this absurd disruption. The disruption needs to end. Now. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keralacinelovers Media, your Marlon Brando/Godfather comparison is weak for a number of reasons, including the number of sources that have written about this film, as well as just general consistency in credits across the entirety of Western films. Indian cinema and even Indian television shows are notoriously bad at credits. Film posters don't usually list starring cast, but instead mention the person who took still photos of the production or who did the makeup, or offer a list of names with no titles. Film credits aren't much better. Sometimes the cast isn't even listed. I just saw one of these the other day. Other times there's no rhyme or reason to how or where anybody is placed. In Western films if there are credits before the film, the director is always last. But in Indian films, it can be any order. Credits don't even always list full names. Sometimes it's a nickname like Thalapathy or a person's first name, as if everyone is supposed to know that film editor "Anthony" is Lewellyn Anthony Gonsalvez. At Kaappaan, Mohanlal is listed second after Suriya on the poster, but this person thinks this means that Mohanlal should be listed first. Lolwut? So to echo what Hammersoft said, if the academic value of credits isn't important enough for Indian film studios to care about by applying a consistent standard, then it's not entirely reasonable to expect everybody else to care or to try to figure out what the intended purpose is. So even if Mammootty is credited first in the film, can I be 100% sure that that's who the producers felt was the most important person in the film? Nope. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

What the movie cast actually said

No change needs to be made. Just wanted to show what end credits actually said. (None of the cast is listed in intro credits.) The cast order in the end is very weird to say the least (Madhu is credited first, then Mammootty, then Mohanlal). I support User:Cyphoidbomb's decision since Mohanlal had more prominence in the film. Mohanlal has more screentime despite being listed third in the credits. @Hammersoft: End credits photo: [10].

Fun Fact: the person listed first is somehow Madhu (veteran actor), not the other two people the other users were fighting about. DareshMohan (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

We're spinning around the same topic and saying the same things repeatedly. I'll revert to what I started with; either provide reliable, SECONDARY sources that support a particular cast order, or it's going to get reverted (and no I'm not suggesting I will do so, just that tons of people try). --Hammersoft (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)