Talk:Kane & Lynch: Dead Men

message: What about the controversy about Jamie Foxx in the role of Lynch in the film? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0968747/board?p=2  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.234.199.245 (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO this fails notability guidelines. No Kane & Lynch movie has even been released. Rumors of a non-existent movie aren't the best content for an encyclopedia. Jaydubya93 (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy in the film

message: I was reading the article and this caught my attention: "... now only four; The villainous Older Brother who is the leader, the psychotic Younger Brother who is Kane's nemesis, Carlos who is Kane's best friend and quiet sociopathic killer Mute) on Kane's movements. Alaheulahahaha dermititis yusef coldest on the defroster. Then back drop into soup of chicken. External, water etudients conroy into cable nitritional valvadory-motoring gesehehaa. With their three week deadline up, Kane heads back to LA in an attempt to renegotiate with The7. Lynch questions..."144.134.237.31 (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its been removed. Thanks. Jaydubya93 (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism?

message: In one part of the article (Under Kane) Kane's son's name is given as Stephen. Under Jenny his name is given as Timothy. Neither name is referenced. Is the son's name known? If so, why do we not have this corrected and referenced? If not, why are we making things up? 151.213.117.113 (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Son's Name

message: I'd like to mention that while the reasons for the firing of Gerstmann may be unconfirmed, the effect it has had on the industry is tangible.  The GameSpot review has certainly caused people to question the validity of online reviews and the review for this game caused that.  I think at least a link should be provided instead of ignoring the issue completely in the article. 66.42.141.5 (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made numerous corrections to this section of the article. Most of these were grammatical issues, however I also changed the phrasing so that it was clear that when Gerstmann's NDA ended, that he was interviewed by GiantBomb.Com and claimed the reasons for his firing were due to the ad revenue from Eidos. Previously, Gerstmann's claims were stated solely as fact without stating in the article their context. It needs to be understood clearly that Gerstmann is a terminated employee and as such his statements could be biased or based on incomplete information. Prior to the changes the phrasing made it sound as though cnfirmation could have been provided by either Eidos or Gamespot management, neither or which has occurred AFAIK.  Jaydubya93 (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: GameSpot Controversy

message: Does he have hair or is he bald?--EveryDayJoe45 23:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lynch

message: On steam on upcoming games it's listed as 'October 2007' which is assumed that you can buy it over the internet. I'd put it on the main details but since it's a digital purchase, I don't know the exact date or if it's even before that. Still, a point to consider. 20:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE, no longer relevant as game has been released. Jaydubya93 (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Release Date? 

message: Does anyone else see parallels to the main characters in the film From Dusk Till Dawn?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.160.121.65 (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Dusk Till Dawn? 

message: "In the IO video game Hitman: Blood Money, one of the after mission newspapers mentions Kane and Lynch, though their names are different." Explain this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.26.193 (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Adam Marcus is apperently Kanes real name, as evidenced by the dossiers on the official homepage.DannyBoy2k 13:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it really relevant? That trailer is most likely not canon, since the voice of Lynch is NOT Michael Ironside.DannyBoy2k 13:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahaha, the voice of Lynch is not Michael Ironside. The voice actors are all listed in the manual and he is not there. 66.28.71.162 (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia Trouble 

message: In the trivia section, there is this:
"This is yet more evidence that SCI/Eidos's games are being adversely affected as they have one eye on the prospect of a future movie franchise."
That's not impartial...
--AndyboyH 08:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Trivia Trouble 

message: it says that sutherland is the voice of Lynch, where exactly was this information aquired?  I'm pretty sure that he isn't the voice actor, this needs to be edited.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingofattendance (talk • contribs) 19:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  keifer sutherland? 

message: I don't believe the part about online co-op being dropped "at the last minute" is accurate, I recall that they've been saying it would be offline only since last year. Unless there is a source or a consensus I'm not aware of, this claim should be removed. 66.28.71.162 14:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online Co-op 

message: Please do not remove without further discussion. The section is purely a description of gameplay and content, containing no editorial information. There is no "strategy" to be found in the section. Such descriptions may exist in strategy guides but certainly would not be exclusive. I am not aware of any embargo against such descriptive information. 66.28.71.162 17:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines and discussions thereof.  Lists of levels are generally not included because they have no value to the reader who may never play the game.   --MASEM 17:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sketchy and randomly enforced guidelines at best, but sure, let's have less information. End of my part of the discussion, do what you will. 66.28.71.162 18:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fragile Alliance Maps 

message: I predict vandalism to this page in the coming days, if you don't know why I predict this then just go over to Gamespot and its page right now and you'll see what I mean. If it starts up here I would lock this article for protection, many internet users like to think they're cool or important when they're just abusing wiki. Just a heads up. Stabby Joe 15:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care whether the controversy is mentioned or not. All I'm CLEARLY saying is I can see (and have seen) more vandalism in which this article needs to be protected against... which is now has. Stabby Joe 20:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coming vandalism... 

message: Regardless of any controversies, Gamespot is usually listed in the "Reception" section of most video game articles. The lack of mentioning Gamespot's review could be misinterpreted as POV, especially towards those familiar with the controversy. ShadowUltra 23:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The review can be mentioned as part of the critical reception - but the Gerstmann controversy issue should not be mentioned since its been (only) stated that the review has nothing to do with the firing.  However, it is not necessary to include a Gamespot review in every video game article - only if it adds sufficient critical responses beyond what is already provided - lacking Gamespot's review really isn't a POV issue as long as more than one review is quoted. --MASEM 23:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Jeff's firing should not be mentioned in this article. It has to do more with Eidos advertising rather than the game.-- Coasttocoast 01:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: First, the primary reason why such should not be YET added is due to the fact that there has not yet been any confirmation of Eidos's involvement in this. Second, the article is about the game itself, not about editorial opinion, not about the publisher, and not about the relationship between a publisher and a media. If you really want to mention this event, go to the Gamespot article in which is currently locked due to the fact that there is no clear confirmation. However, even if there is news that confirms any rumors, only a small mention should be noted, not a paragraph or sub-section (that would go to Gamespot's article). --BirdKr 03:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important, add it. Just like Manhunt 2, this game needs its story told. Doshindude 05:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur with BirdKr.  This is an encyclopedia not a rumor mill.  It isn't going to seriously hurt this article by waiting a week or two for the events to play out and the information to become reliable.  Cheers.--Burzum 05:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreement here too.  Again, right now the most official word, from CNET (owner of Gamespot) has stated they don't fire employees for giving bad reviews, so there's no confirmed connection between this game and his firing - only wild speculation.  --MASEM 05:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fictional backround of the characters in the game is the epitome of trivia, the Gerstmann controversy on the other hand is the epitome of notability. I am disgusted to see paragraph after paragraph on the former and no mention of the latter. In fact, the only reason the game is notable at all is specifically because of the Gerstmann controversy and it does a diservice to the readers of wikipedia to exclude any mention of it. Simply mention the controvery is speculation, and once discredited from a reliable source update the information about the controvery as discredited. Regardless of the unconfirmed status of the information that the Gerstmann stories are based on, the controversy is very real and is getting media attention, and more importantly it's all rooted in the release of this game.Windkin 08:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. The whole controversy has been widely reported. It's the only reason I have actually heard of the game. It should be mentioned as the game is an inseperable part of the story. Clearly it needs to be put into context however. 77.100.107.56 10:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yup i wouldn't have heard of this game without the controversy over the firing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.171.147 (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think you are missing the point.  This is an encyclopedia.  It doesn't have to be updated immediately, but when it is updated it has to be correct.  There is no need to publish a lot of speculation when we can simply wait a couple of days and see if it all clears up.  Do not start an edit war on this due to an unnecessary sense of urgency.--Burzum 13:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Noted, sorry for any misunderstandings. There is now a mention of Gamespot's score of the game along with a mention of the controversy. Once the article of Gamespot is unlocked with the controversy written, I will add a link that will direct to such section.--BirdKr 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to add GS without mention or indication of that controversy then do the following: list it in th emiddle of reception, don't say the score is low and add something major that was said about a certain aspect of the game. This formular is what improves articles. I've done so and all that needs to be done is citations. Stabby Joe 20:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Summarizing changes since this chain was written to limit confusion - six years later, Gerstmann's story meets notability guidelines and is included in the article.  Jaydubya93 (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there no mention of Gamespot's review? 

message: Should a mention of this controversy be noted here? http://kotaku.com/gaming/kane-%26-lynch/kane--lynch-site-fibbing-about-reviews-scores-329529.php
Between the Gerstmann firing and now this, I do feel that at least some mention should be added.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.142.148 (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. Perhaps a "controversy" section might be added? Also, I separated this comment from the Gamespot controversy, since it is technically a separate issue. MatttK 17:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a section for this trying to keep it unbiased.  This may be non-notable, however. --MASEM 18:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is worth noting. There's a fairly large controversy and backlash over the game. I don't doubt that in 5 years, the controversy will be the only thing the game is remembered for. You can find another original post about the fabricated scores: http://www.gamebump.com/go/official_kane_and_lynch_website_lies_about_its_scores  --hack 18:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a total non-issue.  Those stars have been there since forever, and have never meant anything until recently when various sources decried it as a score indicator.  I remember PC Zone getting pissed off at Daikatana, because they included an outdated quote on the box art when in reality, they trashed the game.  It might be Eidos again, but let's keep this in context, this is an absolute non-issue. - hahnchen 22:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One person can decide what's an issue now? There are many people upset by this, and I dont see how "those stars have been there since forever" is an excuse, and I doubt that "recently various sources decried it as a score indicator," when you put five stars next to a favorable quote, what are people supposed to think? That the stars are just there for looks, and there happens to be five of them? It's clearly an attempt at manipulation, a lot of people called them on it, and they changed it. It's an event, so it may be worth noting. Your simple dismissal of it doesn't reflect the world at large. -01:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. It was clearly a deliberate attempt to mislead people. Perhaps it was only noticed because of the other ongoing controversy but I would still say that it is worth mentioning, given the other Gamespot issues. I would say the controversy section should be expanded (keeping the info that is there already) to include the Gamespot info once the dust has settled and we have a better idea of what exactly has happened. MatttK (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The world at large still believes that Gerstmann was fired for the K&L review and not just for being incompetent.  You think this article should reflect that?  Given that every sourced statement says he wasn't, and Gerstmann's silence on this?  If he was fired for the K&L review, if he was pressed on to inflate scores, then the statements GameSpot have released since then have been libel.  It's in Gerstmann's interest to fight that, he hasn't.  GameBump, given their most recent K&L article, still believe that putting preview quotes on the website is some sort of crime against humanity.  They seem to forget that it's done by every published on pretty much every game.  Not all events are worth noting, this trivial issue, isn't. - hahnchen 14:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we are talking about the "Critical reception" section of the article, it is completely relevant what people think. Years from now, all people will remember about this mediocre game is that there was a huge controversy around it. I think the article should include the details of the controversy, regardless of the outcome. MatttK (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read the Gamespot's Discussion Page to learn why some of us have reservations of mentioning this. In a nutshell, since it's an unconfirmed rumor that is not notable by itself, the incident does not warrant a mention. People get outraged all the time, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia has to note it: Wikipedia is not a new media, but an encyclopedia--BirdKr (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused.  I agree that "unconfirmed rumors" typically shouldn't be included on Wikipedia, but it's a fact that the Kane and Lynch website posted clearly deceitful "scores".  This is separate from the Gamespot issues, which probably shouldn't be included in this article at this time. TheUncleBob (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We must consider that the stars may have been decorative only. Unless Eidos themselves admit that they aren't decorative, we must do no harm. Will (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of what the creator of the website may or may not have intended (reminder, the website may not have been created by Eidos, but by an outside advertising agency), it's clearly a *fact* that the design of the page was misleading.  We may not be able to comment on the motives behind the misleading five-star decorations, but we can comment on the fact that advertising approved by Eidos included "5-star" graphics along side quotes from gaming websites that did not give the game a "5-Star" review.  There is nothing untruthful about such a statement. TheUncleBob (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: "Decorative only?" Excuse me, what? Even if that was the case (and it isn't), it would be so misleading and unusual that it would be worth a mention. Whether Eidos admits that they attempted to mislead consumers is completely irrelevant. If they do so, well, no problem, but even if they don't (and why would they?), not mentioning the fact that their website was grossly misleading and that a game reviewer who criticized the game on an influential gaming website that Eidos heavily advertised on got fired is a serious disservice to anyone trying to read about the game. These incidents can and should be covered in an NPOV manner, obviously, but not even mentioning that such controversy exists isn't going to make a good encyclopedia article, but an inherently biased one that doesn't even attempt to be comprehensive. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caught lying about review scores? 

message: Hi, could someone please clarify who is Kane and who is Lynch in the image? Thanks.  Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kane is the one with the patch on his nose (hes the traitor) and Lynch is the one with the glasses (hes the medicated phsychopath). --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone please... 

message: I've (again, after someone removed it) added a fact tag to the Freedom Fighters reference, freedom fighters is a common phrase and unless someone can some up with a reference of it being a reference to their previous game, it shouldn't be there as it's probably original research. Rehevkor (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freedom Fighters? 

message: I already know that Kane is voiced by Brian Bloom but I don't know who voices Lynch. If somebody knows, please tell me!
:Look for it somewhere else. Wikipedia isn't a forum, which is asserted by the top template.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 22:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Klyptyzm, I'm sorry I just wanted to know who it was so we could add it to the article. I also want to know if someone could add that Kane was voiced by Brian Bloom please. --69.124.58.112 (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  voice actor for Lynch? 

message: The is no need to elaborate about the subject too much, I agree, but just pushing it into the ref is too little. Several sites and communities has rebelled because of this story. The thing is, it's not just about GameSpot, but very much against the game itself, as can be seen in this far to extreme site in which they actualy burn(!) the game. If this not worth mentioning, then what is? Tsar User 14:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a highly opinionated self-published site. For comparison, the site "paypalsucks.com" isn't mentioned in the article Paypal, only what happened to SA. Will (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't realy fight the 'sps', except by saying - it ain't me and I don't know these guys (and frankly think they have a bit too much time on their hands). The thing is, I see it a part of the critical acclaim (or lack of it) for the game. The site itself is indeed opinionated - that's realy the point. Now, it dosen't matter to me whether or not this particular site is actualy mentioned (though I do think it serves a good example for the ref.), but why not the text? It dosen't matter for the text if the editor was fired because of this or not, but it did cause several shock waves which did rebounded and have an actual affect on the game. Tsar User 17:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it isn't your site; I'm just saying, we should really only use reliable sources; in terms of reviews and criticism, sites like IGN and Gamespot. With regards to Gerstmann's firing, Kane & Lynch and Eidos had nothing to do with it. We should limit that to the articles of Gerstmann and Gamespot. Will (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yea, I agree there's two problems with this: the first that the controversy (or what little there is of it now) is confirmed to be only between Gerstmann and Gamespot; K&L is not the proper place to do into details, though as I note, I think a footnote to K&L is appropriate.  The other aspect is that if K&L are getting terrible reviews post-Gerstmanngate, then there needs to be reliable sources to talk about that.  A site called "kaneandlynchsucks.com" by name alone is likely not reliable and reviewing the content certainly confirms that.  If there was more reliable coverage of this, then it could be added, but I haven't seen any (in fact, I think Gerstmanngate is no longer a major issue any more).  --MASEM 17:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gerstmanngate might have dwindle down, I don't realy know nor care, and yet I do see the critical phenomenon which seeded anti-K&L sites is worth mentioning, not withstanding the truth about Gerstman's firing - it has nothing to do with it. As said before, the kaneandlynchsucks.com is just one, highly extreme manifastation of this, and was brought as example. Other examples were already linked to in the above posts re Gerstmanngate. While of course established sites as GameSpot and so on should get a higher regard than amamateur sites, but if there are many of the latter - that should be here as well. 83.130.247.58 (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A string a user-created websites based on an event would follow the same reasoning why we require a high level of notability for internet memes.  If we went by a low standard, any web-site with a concerted fanbase could likely orchestrate an approach to get a very non-notable topic onto Wikipedia by having users create the buzz around it.  Whether in jest or in serious anger over something, it needs more than just the large existance of such sites to be worth mention. --MASEM 19:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reliability of these sites is in serious question, trying to state it is notable ("which seeded anti-K&L sites") due to the number of these sites is original research, and even though they exist, we have to consider Wikipedia:Undue_weight.--BirdKr (talk) 08:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I know this isn't a forum but I have to say this is an extremely great game and should get way more recognition. By the way, can someone add that Kane is voiced by Brian Bloom. == --69.124.58.112 (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GameSpot incident - Act II - other sites 

message: Why is their obviously bought score of "9.0/10" in this article? 212.147.119.42 (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First off its 8.0 not 9.0 and that alone already exposes the already obvious fact you're a troll. Game Trailers is a respectable well known source. Such theories and opinions of yours areinvalid here. Stabby Joe (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GameTrailers

message: Is it just me, or Lynch's face is almost exactly like that of Sam Fisher from the Splinter Cell series? Just compare Fisher's look from Double Agent and a bald Lynch. I personally think that Lynch's face was modelled after Sam's. 86.121.44.122 (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just you. :P SplinterCell37 (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes it's just you. Both have the same gloomy expression, as they all do. Probably even Master Chief - we'll never know... 195.212.29.83 (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lynch looks like Sam Fisher

message: No seiriously, I wasn't sure who was who for a short time. Don't just tell me who's who, I'm pretty sure others are curious, and this is an atricle which I feel needs appropiate imagery, if not just one picture.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.168.202 (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need Images 

message: I did a retooling of the plot section to try and cut it down, as well as make it more accurate and readable.  It still could use a little trimming however.  If no one else has any thoughts on it then I'll make another edit on it later. Levid37 (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Overhaul 

message: The article does not address bugs of this game. I read on many forums unanswered questions about slow FPS bug on any configuration even very powerful. Even on Eidos forums, questions are unanswered : http://forums.eidosgames.com/archive/index.php/t-73508.html 
--Vspaceg (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obvious slow bug on powerful PC 

message: The word 'dead men' generally use by civil engineers in sub head 'Earth work'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.60.162.148 (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead men 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Kane & Lynch: Dead Men. 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/20080829165817/http://xbox360.qj.net/Kane-Lynch-free-DLC-The-Dope-Bag-coming-on-April-17-to-XBL-PSN/pg/49/aid/117682 to http://xbox360.qj.net/Kane-Lynch-free-DLC-The-Dope-Bag-coming-on-April-17-to-XBL-PSN/pg/49/aid/117682
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 21:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Kane & Lynch: Dead Men. 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/20080729224724/http://www.kaneandlynch.com/ to http://www.kaneandlynch.com/
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) 16:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kane & Lynch: Dead Men. 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://archive.is/20080330163014/http://www.ntsc-uk.com/review.php?platform=360&game=KaneLynchDeadMen to http://www.ntsc-uk.com/review.php?platform=360&game=KaneLynchDeadMen
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The redirect Kane & Lynch(film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 05:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Kane & Lynch(film)]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]