The tag alias #47410 plush_transformation -> plushification has been rejected.

Reason: "Plushification" is used to describe a transformation piece where a character transforms into a stuffed animal, so "plush transformation" is merely another way of writing this that is less populated.

EDIT: The tag alias plush_transformation -> plushification (forum #298341) has been rejected by @Millcore.

I think I'd prefer the reverse, so as to keep the *_transformation tag theme for transformation-related posts. There is inanimate_transformation, but I don't think a plush transformation necessarily implies that (an animate plushie isn't inaminate).

Though now that I think, it's possible these should be kept separate. plush_transformation for a non-plush creature changing into a plush, and plushification for a normally non-plush character drawn as a plush (in the same sense as furrification, not necessarily a transformation).

watsit said:
I think I'd prefer the reverse, so as to keep the *_transformation tag theme for transformation-related posts. There is inanimate_transformation, but I don't think a plush transformation necessarily implies that (an animate plushie isn't inaminate).

I was under the impression that the inanimate transformation tags are meaning animate_inanimate, but I could be entirely wrong on that.

watsit said:
Though now that I think, it's possible these should be kept separate. plush_transformation for a non-plush creature changing into a plush, and plushification for a normally non-plush character drawn as a plush (in the same sense as furrification, not necessarily a transformation).

+1 for this though. That seems the most fitting, for how the tag names are phrased, and I've seen plenty of plush versions of characters without any transformation involved. (This is, assuming, it includes just normal every day plushies that resemble the character, and aren't necessarily the character in question themselves.)

watsit said:
Though now that I think, it's possible these should be kept separate. plush_transformation for a non-plush creature changing into a plush, and plushification for a normally non-plush character drawn as a plush (in the same sense as furrification, not necessarily a transformation).

This was what I came here to say.

I don't mind whichever direction they're aliased, but I definitely do think they should be aliased together. If we go the other way around, that's fine by me. I only did it this way because "plushification" was by far the more popular term currently.

If we do decide to make "plushification" be a non-plush character drawn as a plush, every single post in that tag would need to be looked at and edited, the description changed, and then there'd have to be an understanding that that's how people are now meant to use the tag now as opposed to how it was before. It... seems a little late for that? The editing of the tags and description are easy, but I think the context of the term "plushification" has already been set in stone on other sites and communities. Usually when I see the word "plushification" used on say, furaffinity/sofurry/etc. tags, it's specifically for plush transformation. Feel free to confirm this yourself.

That is to say–I think reading the term "plushification" like that makes sense in terms of how "furrification" is read, but the term itself has already been heavily in use both on this site and elsewhere to describe plush transformation, as opposed to "furrification," which seems like it was more-so invented on this site to describe the specific concept of a non-furry character drawn as a furry. It would be redefining a term that is already in use, not creating a term to describe a specific concept.

tldr: Defining plushification as "the plush version of furrification" seems, to me, like it'd end up in ample amounts of mistagging and misunderstanding on the term since the term has already been established as the equivalent of "plush transformation" in other furry communities.

post #2113433

meowmcmeow said:
Feel free to confirm this yourself.

I'm seeing an awful lot of these that are just characters drawn as plushies with no visible transformation-process element. I don't see what's stopping both tags from coexisting: plush_transformation for the process and plushification for the result?
The only problem I'm seeing is that plushification seems to be also getting used when a character is just inside a (usually-bondage-related) plushie with zero transformation, but that's likely a matter of cleanup. (I'm not really into that area enough to know all the tags but I found encasement, plushsuit, and bitchsuit.)

There are always going to be some people using tags wrong, and it looks like the reason these tags haven't already been structured is they're so small.

magnuseffect said:
The only problem I'm seeing is that plushification seems to be also getting used when a character is just inside a (usually-bondage-related) plushie with zero transformation, but that's likely a matter of cleanup. (I'm not really into that area enough to know all the tags but I found encasement, plushsuit, and bitchsuit.)

There's also a toyification tag for that with 66 posts.

EDIT: just noticed the wiki lists things this tag supposedly "implies", but none of these implications have actually been created. It's just text at the bottom of the Wiki. That's kind of misleading.

The tag alias plush_transformation -> plushification (forum #298341) has been rejected by @Millcore.

With this rejected, then, what's the next step? Currently "plushification" has a description and image set that matches what "plush transformation" is. How are these supposed to be fixed, then?

Probably rewriting the plushification wiki to more clearly mean "a non-plush character depicted as a plush", and comparing it to furrification and humanized. Then get together a tagging project to clean up posts with plushification that should have plush_transformation instead. Though I'd wait for a moderator's go-ahead before doing that.