topic #27688 -
In e621's naming convention, "Plushification" is similar to "alternate_species", "crossgender", or "taurification" - it depicts a character that isn't typically a plush as a plush. Currently, it is being used as plushie_transformation.

To fix this, the following is needed:
1. Move ALL Plushification posts to Plushie_transformation - BUR #5734
2. Edit wiki pages to reflect changes
3. Find posts in Plushie_transformation that meet the NEW definition of Plushification, and move them back. (set #52946 will be used to start)

The bulk update request #5734 is pending approval.

mass update plushification -> plushie_transformation

The bulk update request #5734 is pending approval.

mass update plushification -> plushie_transformation

if we're going to have tags like alternate_form/alternate_species-type tags for specific situations the tags should be *ized/*ified rather than *ization/*ification.

stuff like plushification sounds like it's meant to be used for TF, and not alternate form.

juansanchez said:
if we're going to have tags like alternate_form/alternate_species-type tags for specific situations the tags should be *ized/*ified rather than *ization/*ification.

stuff like plushification sounds like it's meant to be used for TF, and not alternate form.

I do agree with this, i guess we could change all of them to avoid confusion?

juansanchez said:
if we're going to have tags like alternate_form/alternate_species-type tags for specific situations the tags should be *ized/*ified rather than *ization/*ification.

stuff like plushification sounds like it's meant to be used for TF, and not alternate form.

Seems sound to me, gramatically the suffixes *ization/*ification are present tense, implying the middle of a process, while *ized/*ified are past tense; they imply something has already happened. Makes more sense when a character just is X without showing them becoming X.