Not so fast. If I remember my high-school biology correctly, one of the ways to classify bacteria is whether they are spherical or rod-shaped. Obviously the current definition needs improvement, but I wouldn't be so quick to relegate it to a SoP deletion. — Carolina wrendiscussió 21:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Good point. But what are rod-shaped bacteria, if not bacteria that are simultaneously rod-shaped? That's not a rhetorical question, go ahead and answer. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Looking at WT:CFI "An expression is “idiomatic” if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." Is this an expression? Or is it just a word. If rodshaped where attestable it can't be deleted. For rod shaped it can, by precedent although I can't find anything about this in our criteria for inclusion. "Expression" doesn't mean "with a space or spaces in it". That's how CFI is always interpreted, but it's not there! And rod-shaped is between the two, is it an expression or a word? I'd tend to say a word so which would mean an automatic keep. It does make you think. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
At least sometimes we treat hyphens like spaces (in separating "words"). Otherwise we would have lots of entries for attributive phrases like "her holier-than-thou attitude". I'm not sure if this is universal, though, or whether it's been discussed before. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 03:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
This feels like a delete, although I usually prefer to keep hyphenated words. I think we need to start compiling a list of situations where hyphenation does not save an entry from being mere sum of parts. I'd count "X-shaped" and "X-colo(u)red" among the candidates for deletion. --EncycloPetey 04:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Also -like terms such as net-like I would say can be considered SoP. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 16:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep any hypenated term (which, technically, is a single word) if we have three citations for it. And gathering citations may point to specific contexts for these terms, such as that suggested by Carolina above. Ƿidsiþ 12:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Here are some b.g.c. quotes to illustrate why I consider "X-shaped" less worthy than other hyphenated terms:
Cutaway to a Junior High School Classroom, where a Teacher stands next to a skeleton that looks vaguely Peter-shaped.
This paper describes the analysis of deformation mechanisms of hat-shaped composite stiffeners on a plate...
Press the candy-shaped stamps into the different colored sponges and stamp a pattern of candy shapes around the edges of the paper and envelope.
In each case, a descriptive definition could not be written, since Peters, hats, and candies come in many shapes and so cannot be adequately described. A second kinf of problem concerns adjectives derived from proper nouns, such as:
Armand picks up a Statue of Liberty lamp and shakes his head at Hawk's Daffy Duck-shaped phone that quacks instead of ringing.
one of the roads in the Studio, at Burbank, is called Mickey Avenue and the Studio's post office has a Mickey Mouse-shaped mail-box.
Cleaning a central air's outdoor unit — that large R2D2-shaped thing in your yard — should be done once a year at the beginning of the season.
I also consider them less worthy, but I don't think they should therefore be deleted. They're words after all. I'm not sure if all the ones you came up with meet CFI, or if anyone would bother to enter them, but if they are and do respectively then I can't see any justification for deleting them. Consider that they may be attestable without the hyphens – hatshaped certainly gets 55 Google Books hits (and rodshaped over 600), so it's hard to see how you could delete that. (But maybe existence of a non-hyphenated form would be one criterion for keeping the suckers.) Ƿidsiþ 16:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
But I would not consider candy-shaped to be a word. It's two words that happen to be yoked into service together. We define a word as a "distinct unit of language ... with a particular meaning", and candy-shaped does not have a particular meaning. --EncycloPetey 16:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I would consider it to be a word, but it probably doesn't meet CFI. I don't really understand your "vagueness of meaning" argument....I think "candy-shaped" does have a particular meaning. The fact that candy comes in lots of different shapes doesn't seem relevant to me...you might as well say that "coloured" doesn't have a particular meaning because there are many different types of colour. Ƿidsiþ 17:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
My "vagueness of meaning" argument comes from the fact that the object used as reference for the shape in candy-shaped has do set form. As a result, there is not another possible term (except perhaps swett-shaped) to use as a synonym. In contrast, hourglass-shaped and banana-shaped do have well-defined shapes for the reference objects, so those terms do not suffer from being vague and undefinable. Terms candy-shaped, carpet-colored, etc. do not have a set reference to give the term any meaning beyond the transparent sense of the individual components. --EncycloPetey 18:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete as completely determined by its parts, unless it's the case (as I suspect) that some class of bacteria sometimes assume, or some of them have, other shapes, and are nonetheless called "rod-shaped".—msh210℠ 17:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep, per the existence of its hyphen-free variant "rodshaped" (google books:"rodshaped"); this inclusion rule is not yet in CFI.
Digression: The rule "any hyphenated space-free term should be included" seems unworkable to me, leading to an inclusion of a vast array of terms, but what do I know. The rule "any space-free and hyphen-free term should be included" leads to the inclusion of many more German terms than the number of English terms that would be included if all English hyphen-joined space-free terms were allowed for inclusion. But this seems to be more of a problem of what to do with CFI as applied to German and Finnish, a problem that does not currently need to bother the inclusion of English terms. End of digression. --Dan Polansky 09:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep for several reasons. It's not an "expression" so it doesn't have to be idiomatic. It's one word, and it's the more common spelling of rodshaped. I'll update WT:SURVIVOR re coal mine. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept for no consensus. I'd (personally) advise against renominating this because of WT:COALMINE which has since passed. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)