Plushie tags implications

Since “plush toy” is an alias of “plushie”, “plushie” should imply “toy”

“shark plushie” should imply “shark” and “toy”

“blahaj” should imply “plushie” and “toy”

The wording of the alias isn’t evidence for anything like that, it just means that people kept writing “plush toy” in tags instead of “plushie”.

Now, the description of the tag plushie says “plush toy”, so maybe. IMO, the tag “toy” tends to be used for hard toys, not soft toys, but that’s not actually spelled out anywhere…

Yes, blåhaj is missing the implication plushie

No, plushie should not imply toy, toy and plushies are separate categories.

@LightningBolt
On a tangent, can you help me understand where doll fits in?

@Background Pony #7D8D
A doll is really its own thing, but it implies toy right now so it’s probably fine to stay that way, tho dolls can also be plushies.

“shark plushie” is still missing “shark” implication, and “blahaj” is missing “plushie” implication

Does a shark plush count as a shark? Also please link the tags you are referring to.

I’m leaning towards no but blåhaj should stop implying shark in that case

@LightningBolt
I think it should. For example, the character plushie tags imply their character, even though it wouldn’t really be that character - so something shark-shaped could be tagged as just “shark”.

If so, then also, ursa plush is missing ursa and plush bunny is missing rabbit

@Background Pony #7D8D
That’s a good point, I forgot about that. Plushies of characters are tagged with that character, but not always with its species, it seems.