Talk:Love Hurts

Specs or not?
Umm...ok, here. There is one of Darkel's mission like this one on the article but the name is unknown, although they said that the mission name was Love Hurts. Ok, a speculation, correct? and there is some said that the mission objective is like flying a dodo to a building with a businessman in it. Check out in some videos in Youtube, probably. Don't sure in vids maybe pics too maybe there is some. --Blaff 60 22:50, November 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * Kid, that's just fan speculation and theories. Rockstar themselves have never mentioned this supposed mission or even given it a name. Provide an official source from them before you create a page. MarkAldred 2009-11-30T16:45:41‎

Why don't you put a "Speculation" template in the page instead of deleting the page in all. It's just a waste of hard work and space. Contact the administrator of this wiki to delete the article if u want and i'll be putting the page back (again) and you'll be putting a speculation template or I myself will put it. If you find PROOF that this mission never exist then delete it and I'll find my proof that the mission was cut. --Blaff 60 16:50, November 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * Any online references? If there are none, there's not much of an argument to keep it. - ZS 17:05, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Here it is: Donald Love. Just read some argument about the Love Hurts situation. Many said that DL went protection or get assassinated, only a small portion of the posts said that the beta name was Love Hurts, though. Blaff 60 2009-11-30T17:16:05‎


 * That's good enough for this article to stay (as long as you cite that page). But since it came out from an unofficial forum, you may as well keep the speculation tag on. Finding information about GTA3's pre-history is pretty difficult, so let's just give this article the benefit of the doubt. This is not Wikipedia, and we're not a bunch of Wikifaggots. - ZS 18:12, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

That's a fan website, Albert Einstein. That's not an OFFICIAL source. It's full of speculation. That's not enough proof that the mission existed. If the website said Osama Bin Laden is dead, would you believe that too? By the way, I never called you a Wikifaggot. That's a new word I learned today. I know this is not Wikipedia but it's annoying when fans make up names or post ridiculous stories without proving proof. That Filipino guy is definitely a gullible person. --MarkAldred 22:36, November 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * Though that would be "FAN Site" is enough to be proof, even most of all knows that Darkel gives a MISSION that would teach Claude how to fly the Dodo which links the scrapped idea oh c'mon just posts or something means that the mission REALLY do exists since how did they get the name? and since how did they know it? Think, just really think. It's basic, it's a SPECULATION, a really SPECULATION and BTW why would remove ALL the article it's even ok to put a speculation template as soon as there are info updates about the mission then the template will be removed and yeah the argument is just a name of the mission it's not specific the mission is the same but many said the mission name is Love Hurts, it's a pretty chessy name though. It MAY link with Love's disappearance. Maybe I COULD send all PROOF even just a LITTLE but still u don't want bcoz it's not enough. Ok here a video with some information about GTA 3 Beta see here in 2:06 to 2:09. --Blaff 60 23:10, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

We allow speculation if it's an obvious conclusion, if a lot of people believe it, or if there is some evidence (eg ingame, a R* website, or a magazine article). If we know that the mission exists, but we don't know the title, then obviously it has to have *some* title. The policy for titles is that we have the page named after what the thing is usually known as. So if this mission is known as Love Hurts, even if that's not official, the page might as well be here (since there's no better option). Also, to request that a page be deleted, just put at the top - do NOT just empty the page of content. However, thank you for discussing this rather than starting an edit war - I'm glad we're not turning into Wikipedia. Gboyers talk 02:16, December 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. By the way, Darko Brevic did not give the alleged mission. Please fix the error. MarkAldred 2009-12-01T14:07:55‎

Love Hurts deletion
Why are we keeping the Love Hurts mission page, again? The user who placed the deletion template on the article was right, Rockstar have confirmed the mission isn't real, also, it's based entirely on speculation, from the fact that it was given by Darkel to the fact that it was named "Love Hurts".

EDIT: Just read the talk page discussion on the page that you linked on the warning given to the user who placed a delete template onto the page. I still don't understand what's the point of keeping the article. Aren't we actively removing speculation from articles? Then why do we keep this page that is entirely made out of speculation? Why does the  template even exist? This mission was confirmed to not be a thing by Rockstar. I'd somewhat understand keeping the page if it, if it wasn't already proven to be fake. Slash M ,C 13:07, November 18, 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Slash, it's really inappropriate to have this page considering that 1) it's full of speculation, 2) Rockstar denied it existence, and 3) the mission name is not even confirmed, that's apparently just a fan theory. The statement at the end of the relevant talk page "We allow speculation if it's an obvious conclusion" is too far-fetched. Maybe people in the past used to do this for minor things, but major speculations like this one are definitely not allowed right now. Such theories should to go the GTA myths/fanon/whatever wikis instead.
 * Also, Smurfy, I have to remind you again that you need to behave more responsibly when dealing with edit reverts. You do realize that you just left an arbitrary and inappropriate warning of "edit warring" on TWRAddictYT's talk page (implying that he will be blocked just because he was adding a perfectly justified deletion template - only twice), yet when you reverted his edits in the first place you didn't even bother to explain the reasons in the edit summaries. Seriously? Also, a one-month protection on the relevant article over a one-off edit war is way too excessive.
 * Moved discussion from my talk page.
 * Sorry this response is over a day late, it was my birthday yesterday and I wasn't about to spend it documenting and re-debating this.
 * Firstly some invisible history... The page was first created in 2009, deleted in July 2012 and the current iteration of the page was recreated (without the following history retention) in 2013:


 * Now, unfortunately, all the discussions around the validity of this article from 2011-2012 when it was deleted and again in 2013 when it was recreated were conducted in user talk space instead of here on the article talk page where it belongs (as usual for this wiki) and I haven't had a chance to compile it all here but let me summarize the position which hasn't changed now in 2019, especially since there has been no new evidence presented:
 * This speculation was widely believed from the first release of GTA III and is worthy of documentation, provided the documentation concludes with the official denials (as it has since June 2012). Without wanting the wiki to creep into the realms of the Myths Wiki, there are some widely believed falsehoods about the GTA series that deserve to be documented here on the GTA Wiki and be clearly debunked. This 9/11 censorship is one of them. Prior to GTA V, the Bigfoot/Sasquatch page was similar.
 * This is why we still have and Unofficial templates and why we still have content for Modifications like Hot Coffee Modification and Multi Theft Auto despite the current policy disallowing such content.
 * The protection on the page will remain in force for a month, given this week there have been two new-to-the-wiki accounts attempt sock/meat puppetry attacks on it. My warning to the user(s) will also remain in force. Smurfy: illuminate - communicate - spectate 00:22, November 20, 2019 (UTC)