Talk:Titicaca frog

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Titicaca frog

SoP. Frog from Titicaca? TeleComNasSprVen 21:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No, Telmatobius culeus. Toss an American bullfrog into Lake Titicaca, it doesn't become a Titicaca frog.--Prosfilaes 23:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep per above argument.--Dmol 23:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit like saying "A Chinese toy with a "Made in China" tag in America is not American" to justify the inclusion of 'Chinese toy', or saying "If I shit in Australia, it doesn't automatically become 'Australian shit'." TeleComNasSprVen 23:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit like saying that a fox that is red is not necessarily a red fox. It's a specific species, not any frog from the area.--Prosfilaes 04:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This is one of several minimalist entries by the same anon user. They all need improving. I have improved this one, but have better things to do with my time. SemperBlotto 07:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

See w:Titicaca Water Frog. I don't know if it can be simply called a Titicaca without the word 'frog'. It could be sum of parts in that case. If not, it isn't sum of parts. By way of analogy, google books:"German Shepherd Dog" gets 13 500 hits, but it's sum of parts because of German Shepherd. We don't have a noun for Titicaca, so we must keep this until there is such a noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep per Prosfilaes (unless, as Mg notes, it's actually called a Titicaca, in which case delete).—msh210℠ on a public computer 14:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep per Prosfilaes unless it's frequently called a Titicaca. - -sche (discuss) 03:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I think Titicaca frog meets the CFI's attestation requirements, but it's not nearly so common as Lake Titicaca frog. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

kept -- Liliana • 17:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)