The line exists, so why not give it a name?
The opening that fooled the world

Yes, it is already named the hopkin's gambit. If you really want a new opening, try
It is named the Daeth Tarp, and it is the most unexpicted opining you ever could pull on somebody.

*snip* It is named the Daeth Tarp, and it is the most unexpicted opining you ever could pull on somebody.
beautiful :)
You missed Tarp bro :)
There's no mention of the Hopkins Gambit of the chess.com opening database (I searched for C77). Unless it's also known by another name?
That move is very bad, a big strategical mistake. After Bc5 black is much better, and you cannot play for d4. And the knight that you would place on d5 will probably have to retreat after c6.

I wouldn't waste much time on this line, but there is a line in the Ruy called the Duras (Duras Attack?--Variation? I'm not sure) where white plays an early c4, but it's not that dangerous for black. And I doubt that you would ever see either line in your career.
I notice that information on the Hopkins Gambit is all over the internet. Do these sites always use Wikipedia as their main source of information? This is not the first time that I know of that a mystery has been created because of misinformation (disinformation maybe? both the above Wikipedia articles have references, so it's probably misinformation rather than disinformation, unless it's a very elaborate hoax indeed) put on Wikipedia. If anyone can put any old thing on Wikipedia, it's no wonder using that as your main source of information is frowned upon by Universities. Are people starting to over-rely on Wikipedia?
There's a fake chess trap too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia/Ruy_Lopez,_Marshall_Attack,_Rombaua_Trap

I've never seen that opening sequence before, not sure if its an officially recognized one, hopefully a titled player can clear this up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia/Ruy_Lopez,_Hopkins_Gambit
Wikipedia recently deleted a long-standing article about a chess opening. Why? because it didn't exist! However, I was thinking about it, and the moves themselves certainly do exist. And looking at the analysis from the WP article, it doesn't even seem that terrible. I mean it's bad, but not that bad. So what do you think? How would you analyze this "opening"?