What qualifies for an opening to have a "name"?

This probably seems like a strange question, but take the following example:  The Indian Game (defense).  White plays d4.  Black plays Nf6.  This defines the "Indian Game".  Then white c4, black e6.  White Nf3, black d5.  According to the opening database, this is the most common sequence of moves in master games to this point.  Yet, after the move Black d5, there is no "name" for this position.  Yet, two of the six most prevalent next moves do.  Instead of d5, if black moves b6, it is called the "Queens Indian Defense".  And if instead of d5, black moves a6, it is called the "Dzindi-Indian".  Even though over 20,000 examples of black playing d5 and only a little over 200 moves where black plays a6, a6 has a name, but d5 doesn't.  Why is this?

Basically just that someone bothered to give it one. The bongcloud for example, is a terrible opening, as is the Sodium Attack.

lim x→∞⌠⌠   Σ ε^iπ + 1 δu
             ⌡⌡     δx

Moot point dude the only "names" that matter anymore are ECO codes for openings

The ECO codes make sense, the antique system of identifying openings by names is just as outdated and as english descriptive notation is.

While most names like QID are understood by all chessplayers many variations have more than one name for instance Wilkes-Barre Variation in the US is Traxler Variation elsewhere

But nobody calls openings by their ECO codes.

Nimzo, thanks for the explanation.  So, forget then that I am asking about "names".  In my example above, the openings explorer on this site likewise does not give an opening "sequencer" code (grasping for the right verbiage here), for the d5, which is in 20,000 master games, but does give a sequencer code for a6, which has only a little over 200 examples...  is there an explanation for this?

I like the antique system.

If we give in to this eco nonsense, then the next step is that we will call people by their social security number. Soon we won't bother to give our children names no more, because the number is all that matters. Names will be an antiquity.

I refuse to give in to that. Please join the resistance and resist ECO coding.

As I said I wasn't aware that anyone ever said "hey, I played a great D17 last night." Even here on the forums people use the names, never the ECO.

While I am certain there is some profound and deep logic to the ECO codes, to me it is one more pile of garbage I have to learn. Everyone knows what I mean when I talk about the Accelerated Dragon, but I'll be damned if I know what its code is.

B35-37 ?

And is it ALL of those numbers, or that exact sequence, or one of them, or what?? More crap I have to learn...

If you are just blocking check with the horse, by all means don't call it the nimzo indian.

To say you are playing an opening more or less suggests that you are playing a system of moves that is somewhat theoretically explored, and usually some number of typical moves and themes apply to it. 

If you are just blocking a check with a horse (which may be natural), you are not naturally playing the nimzo indian. I wish it were different, because then I'd be adept in a lot of openings .

Oh, I wasn't dissing the opening. I mean, who doesnt like to get ripped and play random unsound crap?

I was merely trying to demonstrate that an opening does not have to be "good" to get a name.

Wait...this...?

It's a QGD.  Where's the mystery?

 I'm with ya bro!  I even change the algebraic notation back to the descriptive in all my chess books to keep that from happening.

by the way i think it is called the wasted king attank not the bongcloud or howeveryou say it k 1.e4  e5  2.ke2?! k