Minifigures. Or are they?

[legostarwars1425]

Ok I was browsing around and found a small amount of "Minifigures" and found a text that said " Any LEGO character that doesn't include at least two of those parts doesn't get to call itself a minifigure." The three parts are a head, torso, and legs of a standard figure. I found 6 minifigures that I question.

The figures are:

E.T.

Martin (Simpsons)

Kapau'raii

Gizmo

Sonic

Stripe

 

 

 

[Robert8]

Well Maggie Simpson is even worse. She has 0 of those

[Littleworlds]

I'd say its purely a matter of definintion and if doesnt seems like Lego is defining a minifig that way obviously, otherwise they wont have made these 

For me, its against the spirit, which is, as I understand it, is part of Lego. Minifig parts should have at least some degree of interchangability between each other and these examples clearly dont offer that anymore (not that they are meant to, but thats not my point). I appreciate the occasional custom head mould for certain characters, but lately they are drifting too far away from the original Lego design. To an extend where it stops looking like Lego actually.

[MAB]

The definition is in the "I love that minifigure" book. Lego will define it any way it wants at any particular time, to ensure that people buy stuff.

 

Other examples are Splinter (from TMNT, torso only) and Gollum (LOTR/Hobbit). Whereas Scutter (from Chima), who doesn't look much like a minifig, is a minifig.

 

[Captain Britain]

Sonic has got regular body and legs though doesn't he? Unless I'm missing something. I haven't seen the fig in person (although I do want one! Used to love Sonic as a kid!).

14 hours ago, Robert8 said:

Well Maggie Simpson is even worse. She has 0 of those

 Stick Spongebob in there too, although I guess he's got those stumpy non movable legs (I hate them).

[Darkdragon]

You left out all the alien figures and many other figures historicly that have all been considered minifigs. But in reality, what's the point of it? Why does it matter? What would you even call a minifigs that doesn't fit that very narrow description?

[Robert8]

Or yeah.... the green aliens. Those were awful as heck LOL

 

Edited January 17, 2017 by Robert8

[General Magma]

Those are all clearly minifigs, simple. No need to make a fuss over a set 'definition'.

[AmperZand]

12 hours ago, MAB said:

The definition is in the "I love that minifigure" book. Lego will define it any way it wants at any particular time, to ensure that people buy stuff.

Exactly.

In fact, LEGO books themselves are inconsistent. In the LEGO Minifigure Year by Year: A Visual Dictionary, skeletons are classed as minifigures because they have one standard minifigure element (their head), while the Standing Small: A Celebration of 30 Years of the LEGO Minifigure book seems not to care how few standard minifigure parts are included. Skeletons, Yoda, rock monsters (2009), Life on Mars (2001) aliens, Mars Mission (2007) alien, Exo-Force (2006) robots, SW Battle Droids, brick-built SW droids, Jabba the Hutt, Hagrid, SpongeBob and friends, and brick-built penguin (2008) are all included with many of them expressly called "minifigures".   

[Wardancer]

I suggest defining figs by family resemblance: 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance

The criteria you all have already mentioned. I would add a few aesthetic principles such as cartoonish simplification, simple colors and certain ratios of dimensions. Plus any number of classic elements like heads or hands. family resemblance is a more open concept then the usual list of exclusive  criteria which definitions are.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Wardancer

[AmperZand]

On 18/01/2017 at 5:02 PM, Wardancer said:

I suggest defining figs by family resemblance: 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance

Indeed. Either a Wittgensteinian "family resemblance" or what mathematicians call a "fuzzy set". In the "fuzzy set" conceit, the classic minifigure would be at the core of the concept with variations in the "fuzzy" periphery.

Whether a "family" or "fuzzy" approach is used, there is still the question of where the line is drawn beyond which something no longer shows sufficient resemblance or belonging to the set to be included. Does an entirely brick-built figure count as a minifigure, for example? Is the criterion aesthetic (i.e. how much it looks a minifigure?) or functional (how much it is articulated like a minifigure?) or maker (how much of it is LEGO vs third party?) or a different consideration, or a combination of them? If a combination, which are the most important and which least - and by how much?