Talk:Hamptophryne boliviana

	Hamptophryne boliviana is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 12 October 2017

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: Moved — Amakuru (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon sheep frog → Hamptophryne boliviana – The name most commonly used in reliable sources, cf. WP:COMMONNAME, is Hamptophryne boliviana. I cannot find a single reliable source for the vernacular name "Amazon sheep frog", even though the many sites mirroring Wikipedia content can give an impression that the name has some validity. The only independent site is CalPhoto page (I am assuming that iNaturalist got the common name from Wikipedia, whereas the CalPhoto page seems to predate the WP article). Vernacular name "sheep frog" usually refers to a different genus (Hypopachus), so it is a mystery to me where this vernacular name actually comes from. The only vernacular name recognized by the Amphibian Species of the World and IUCN is "Bolivian bleating frog", a name that was introduced in 1995 by Frank and Ramus. However, this name is much less common than the scientific name. Simple Google search gives 14,400 hits for "Hamptophryne boliviana", 273 for "Bolivian bleating frog", and 350 for "Amazon sheep frog". Although Google includes reliable as well as non-reliable sources, the difference is so overwhelming that it should be clear that the most common name of this species is its scientific name. Micromesistius (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:COMMONNAME: The scientific name is more commonly used than any vernacular name for this species. per Consistency: scientific names of amphibians are more consistently used as article titles than vernacular names. per Conciseness: scientific name is one word shorter (but five characters longer) than current title. per Precision: Vernacular names may refer to multiple species, and a single species may have multiple vernacular names (as does this one). Scientific names are the only way to precisely title articles on the vast majority of the world's organism. per Naturalness: In spite of being a redirect, the scientific name has more incoming links from article space than the current title. per Recognizability: The title should be recognizable to "someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area". This is not a well known species. The only people who are familiar with it ARE experts in the subject area, and they are more likely to recognize the scientific name than a little used vernacular name. The current title is slightly more recognizable (it's a frog) to people who are completely unfamiliar with the subject area, but that's not the audience specified by the recognizability criterion, and I doubt there is a single person on the planet who would recognize "Amazon sheep frog" as a name they had heard before who wouldn't also recognize the scientific name. (side comment: looking at the edit history, Wikipedia got "Amazon sheep frog" from iNaturalist, not the other way around).01:50, 14 October 2017 (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.