Talk:Hope Williams Brady

Hope Williams
Shouldn't this just be Hope Williams? Soap characters get married and divorced so much it seems to not make sense to make her article include her currently married name, especially since her and Bo are headed to divorce. --99.142.6.124 (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No, she is still legally married to Bo. It has not been stated whether they will get divorced or not. The editor's on here only change a page name if she is addressed by that. Like with Melanie Layton, on the credit's she was titled Melanie Layton Kiriakis which allowed for the name change. -Gabi Hernandez —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabi Hernandez (talk • contribs) 04:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The credits still list her as Hope Brady. There's no evidence that she is changing her name, and not only that, if you read WP:COMMONNAMES, it states that characters must be known by the name that is most familiar. She has been Hope Brady for over 20 years. So, I don't see the need for a name change. Rm994 (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Follow up to my previous comment, now that John and Hope are "married" editors keep changing her name to Hope Williams. It has NOT been mentioned on screen that Hope has changed her name, or that she has any intention doing so. Also, adding Hope's marriage to John in the infobox section and claiming brainwashing is speculation. We don't put unnecessary parentheticals in soap infoboxes. How do we know she was brainwashed? Stefano said she wasn't...how do we really know? We don't even know when this supposed "marriage" took place, as it never gives the date. This is the problem by not requiring sources for storylines. Sigh. Rm994 (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Marriage speculation
Recently, the writers of Days of our Lives have expected viewers to accept an ill-conceived retcon that John and Hope are married. During this time, it has also come to my attention that third party sources are not required for storyline sections of fictional articles, as the show itself acts as a source. So, with that being said I am using the show as a source to assert that they are NOT married, as the July 12, 1999 episode of Days (which can be found on youtube) clearly shows Hope (as Gina) telling John on the submarine (AFTER his marriage to Marlena) that he should make an honest woman of her and marry her. Therefore, it is impossible that John and Hope are married based on this. If you are going to use the show to source that they are married, I'm going to use it show that they are NOT. Now I understand that we are expected to believe they're married, but it makes absolutely no sense, and the writers have not paid attention to detail regarding the story. The only way that John and Hope could be married is if she turned him back into the pawn before he married Marlena, and then lied to him later on about, which of course, is SPECULATION, and has NO place in an encyclopedia. If the community decides to list this illconceived marriage, then I will not object, but I have done the right thing challenging the addition of unsourced controversial material by placing this here. Thoughts? Rm994 (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While I can see what you're saying, it's a common mishap of soaps of re-writing the past. I've seen several soaps redo their pasts and isn't that what they do with they SORAS kids? Is make them older than they really should be? Plus, I've seen soaps make the older siblings the younger ones in return. I think it's still too early in this ill conceived storyline to decide if they are truly married or not. I do not believe that they are married, nor do I personally believe this storyline is believable. I vote no on listing their marriage until more information is given per the storyline from SOD or SID. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 17:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Gina Von Amberg should be merged into this, as it was a brief storyline in a character with a much large history. Gina doesn't truly stand on her own as major Days of Our Lives character like Hope does. 69.120.200.207 (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed already that Gina is to remain as a stand alone and not be merged with Hope. 71.233.227.127 (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Anyone who has watched the show knows that Gina IS a standalone character. The storyline from 1999 shows Gina is NOT a persona of Hope's but an entirely different character. I completely oppose such a merge because Gina is a different character all together. Rm994 (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No to the merger. As discussion on the talk page for List of Days of our Lives cast members, it has been discussed that Gina from 1999-2011 is a separate entity from Hope. So no to the merger. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 17:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, so pretending there is no merger proposal and Gina is just a standalone character, is she really a major enough character to merit her own article? I'd argue no...  69.120.200.207 (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This argument has already been presented, and the consensus was to keep the article. Look at the talk page. If you argue no for Gina, you'd have to argue no for half the characters on the show. Rm994 (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No to merger. Gina von Amberg is a separate person from Hope Brady, even though Hope Brady sometimes assumes an identity based on Gina von Amberg. However, I don't think Gina merits her own article; she should probably be a section in the minor DOOL characters article. --DavidK93 (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No to Merger.... Gina has a long (off screen) history that has NOTHING to do with Hope's character..... Hope as Gina can be added here to Hope Brady's page, where as in Gina's page it can only be a one line :In 1999 Gina comes face to face with her Doppelganger, Hope Brady, who has been impersonating her.... or something to that affect. There has been enough fighting between anti-Gina Fancyface fans and Kristian Alfonso all characters fans about how Gina's actions do not reflect on Hope. --Laprinsipessa1 (User talk:Laprinsipessa1|talk]]) 09:57, 21 June 2012 (CAT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.213.199.122 (talk)