What is a minifigure?

I think a construction that is basic while using at least one minifigure-designed part (like a Star Wars droid or the early Sebulba) or a character made entirely of non-standard but obvious "character parts" (like Cooper or Jabba) count as minifigures. And obviously, minifigures with molded heads or alternate leg pieces or assemblies still count. Small pieces probably count as characters while not being minifigures, and anything entirely composed of System parts (like Nixels) or that has a large, complex System-majority build (like Metalbeard or Steppenwolf) don't count as minifigures.

Honestly, I only think a case-by-case basis works for the non-standard minifigures. However, I would undoubtedly rule into the minifigure category traditional bigfigs like Hulk and Thanos, since they have a standardised system of specialist parts. Because they are not made of specialist parts, I don't think this definition should extend to "maxifigs" like Giant-Man. Similarly, if they represent a specific animate character, I think a trophy figure like those in Hogwarts Castle should generally count.

This is pretty interesting to think about!

Just FYI, the dot point "I do think Mermaid, Poppy and all the other colourful characters that utilise at least one standard minifig part, of a substitute for it if their form does not suit them e.g. twt011 Cooper, are minifigs." Has a typo in it where it says "minifig part of a substitute"

The LEGO year by year states that a skeleton and mini doll aren’t minifigures as they don’t contain enough standard Minifig parts, so there is some consistency there, but pretty much everything else breaks that (books, set descriptions, etc)

Are you sure it is a Bigfig?https://brickset.com/minifigs/ang020/mighty-eagle

Thia is only my personal view and it is not database oriented. I personally think that a figure is anything that represents a persona / character. By this "definition", even the biggest Bionicle character is a figure. I am not sure about the origin of the word minifigure but I always assumed it is a label that separated the then new small "specialized" figures from the until-then quite common homemaker-style figures. There were some sets where the two could be seen together, usually the smaller minifigure representing a child character. https://brickset.com/sets/208-1/Mother-with-baby This type of small figure (minifigure) became so common that it makes people think that they are in fact more than just LEGO parts, they are a "thing". I respect this view, but do not totally agree with it. In fact when I look at the whole issue from a collector's standpoint, I think there are no "figures". There are only LEGO parts. If you see a figure in it, fine, but at the end of the day it is just some LEGO parts, that use some other-than-stud-based connections. (Which is not even unique to fugures, it can bee seen in other composite LEGO parts that include sub-elements) There is no spoon.

I think there should be a definite distinction between the general term “character” and the specific term “minifigure.” I like the idea of interchangeability mentioned above, and I think it might be helpful to think of “minifigure” as a platform comprised of a system of certain elements that can be mixed and matched. That is to say, a character with specialized elements would be considered a minifigure, so long as those specialized elements are interchangeable with what we may call “standard” minifigure parts.

I might even further refine that definition to specify that a character must contain at least two such elements connected to each other in order to qualify. Thus, the various droids, Jabba the Hutt and Tiny Diamond would not meet that definition, but Pythor and Cooper would. This would also disqualify the mini-dolls despite their minifig-standard hair pieces, and certain other edge cases such as the Power Miner rock monsters, which have arms (if I remember correctly) that can connect to the standard minifigure torso.

The Xalax Racers figures indeed interacted with 'real' Minifigures and were set in the same universe according to LEGO Racers 2!

For me, personally, I count every character as a minifigure. I find it very annoying that the animals in the Disney Princess theme aren’t minifigures. I know, I know, they’re animals, but they represent a character each. The word “minifigure” is for me “a figure in mini format”. The German company Bullyland call every of their humans and animals for figures, so in LEGO they are just tiny figures. In the end, every piece in LEGO that represents a character should be considered “minifigure”, not Bionicle or BrickHeadz as they are brickbuilt characters and a totally different size not to be compared.

What about this?:

Minifigs = humanoid, this would include battle droids, seeing as pythor is a humanoid-ish snake I migt count him as a minifig or misfig.

Misfig = (play on word misfit) A figure that doesn’t fit elsewhere.

Moulded fig = Made of 1 or multiple special moulds that do not include or contain very little standard figure parts (such as jabba and animals)

Minidoll = friends, elves, etc

Big fig = Hulk, thanos, gorilla grodd, etc.

Duplo fig = Any Duplo figure.

Brick fig = The animals in creator sets, mixels for example.

@Minifig290 said:
"One thing I've heard people debate about is the Super Mario figure and all the brick built figures from that line which on Brickset are labelled as Minifigures."

Simplify some names and this is great!
>Brickfig - A character made out of bricks (R2D2 IS a Brickfig)
>Gamefig - From games
>Nanofigs - Throopies

Huw, I absolutely agree with you on the analysis of the Trolls line. TWT003 Biggie & Mr. Dinkles is (are?) a minifig because he has legs but specialized part that resembles a torso and head. Same with TWT008 Hickory, where he has a normal torso but also has special parts for a head and legs (albeit 4 of them!)

On your question of bigfigs, I fear they will be put into the 'Other' category. If so, then how will we be able to search for these characters on the Brickset database? I used the word 'character' just now. If minifigs represent people or characters (ie, R2-D2), surely that applies to bigfigs.

Jabba the Hutt is a minifig or bigfig. But he's a fig. LOL. When he was introduced in 2003, he was made from special pieces to form this character. He's a character, a sentient one not just a slug creature. (Are droids sentient? Debatable amongst fans, but these too are characters.) And also, Jabba is not a brick-built figure. This is the same for droids. They have specialized and specific parts to represent SW characters (like R2-D2, IG-88, 2-1B, D-O, and battle droids). But I agree with you Huw on pit droids not being counted as minifigs. That goes for Gonk & Buzz Droids, the Demolitionmech, and medical & probe droids. In my list of owned minifigs, I see Star Wars' B'Omarr Monk (SW0412) and Doctor Who's Dalek villain (IDEA024) appear. I am undecided whether these two are figs or not!

Are brick-built figures counted as minifigs? There's Unikitty from The LEGO Movie. Her character is created from parts. But she has parts thats's her tail and conical horn that were created for her. I guess that's 'part' of the question you are posing here. How about all the characters in the Super Mario theme? They're brick-built but they also are characters.

I don't understand why skeletons are not counted as minifigs. So confusing! You've got a difficult task ahead of you in defining minifigures. Good luck!

@CarolinaOnMyMind said:
"^good point. Tilefig.
From the LEGO press release/description:
“Includes 3 LEGO® figures: a gingerbread man, gingerbread woman and gingerbread baby.”"

thanks for having found the official description ;-)

If the box or set description lists it in the figure section, it’s should be categorised as such in my opinion.

FYI - in your Game (microfigures) link - https://brickset.com/minifigs/category-Game

There are defiantly some mini figures, so you can’t just filter out with that category without reviewing its content for specifically.

Has nobody at Bricklink thought that a Minifig/Minifigure should be categorised by whether or not they fit into a "Minifigure Scale" Set/Build? Minifigure Scale doors/door-frames, chairs/seats, steering wheels, and buildings were designed for standard Minifigures, and somehow I don't think that "Cranky", Jabba, Thanos, and others that have been categorised as "Minifigs" can fit through those door-frames, sit on those seats, or be able to stand-up in those buildings.

@GrosPanda1979,
Mermaids, Serpentines with ophidian lower bodies and figures with the short, unarticulated legs cannot sit on those seats. Do they not count as minifigures?

I find it a bit of a strange discussion. As someone also mentioned above, I'm much more interested in how many minifigure-scale characters are in a set, rather than how many "official" minifigures there are in the set.

Also, sets such as Ninjago City contain full minifigs that are not characters (mannequins). These are listed as minifigs in the database. Yet, the description of the Lego set does not take them into account: "Includes 16 minifigures", while there are 19 minifigs according to the database.

A lot of the debate seems to be on the question of Minifigure vs Character. With minifugure being a very specific subset of character. R2-D2 is a character but not a minifigure for example. The gingerbread baby is specifically not a minifigure but a ‘LEGO (r) figure’ ie a character.

I think besides the design and the number of pieces, the number of minifigures in a set is also a factor to justify whether a set is worth the price.

For this usage, big fig or nanofig should be in their own categories, whereas minifigure and minidoll should be the same category. Maybe a name should be introduced to include both minifigure and minidoll.

Meanwhile, the wampa and rancor aren't categorized as bigfigs for some reason.

How should we classify the 3 carbonite figures BrickLink rates as minifigs, the printed Han Solo and the the stickered human and mythrol from the Razor Crest? Are they technically brick built if they comprise single pieces? Although they're to scale and represent identifiable characters it seems a bit of a stretch to consider them as minifigures. But I do.

You can define what a minifigure is based on its form, or its function. As I said, I primarily look at them as plain old LEGO parts, but in my eye a LEGO part is a window or a wheel if it functions as such. Of course a wheel can be used as something entirely different in a set - it that set it does not function as a wheel but the part is still a wheel. So if a minifig represents a statue in a set, then in that set it is not a figure. It is a bit of a paradox, because in real life a statue can represent a character. Admiral Nelson's statue is a figure, but it is not Admiral Nelson. So in a LEGO set, a statue is a figure of a figure of a character, not a figure of a character, therefore it is debatable if it is a figure. I would say it is not a figure.

Thomas the Tank Engine is not the only franchise where vehicles are anthropomorphized. In TtTE, humans and vehicles "live" together. In the Cars franchise, there are no humans, all characters are vehicles. In the LEGO Cars theme, brick built vehicles represent the characters of the movies, they are figures. Now I would not say they are minifigures, if we define minifigure in the strict sense, based on the form alone.

This is why I would first look at the function, i.e. does this thing represent a character? If the answer is yes, it is a figure. What type of figure it is is a secondary question, and minifig is just one of the many different forms figures can have. Not all figures are minifigures, but all minifigures are figures, if they function as such in the set. (Statue minifigs are not figures.)

I feel like this is an area that requires several stages of sub classification. Aside from stuff like Minidolls and Microfigs you've already listed in the article there's a few subcategories I'd propose.

Standard - Uses the classic minifigure legs, torso, and head.
Sub-standard - Uses custom molded heads or legs, such as mermaids, Yoda, or genies
Re-molded - Has the same general footprint as a minifigure but is made of different parts like Battle Droids, R2-D2 or skeletons
Animal - Specially molded parts that make up a non-humanoid figure like elephants, scorpions, or crocodiles
Brick-Constraction - Things that are still characters/animals but are made out of stud-connections. Mixels, Groot, Sparkks, Mario enemies, ect.
Technic-Constraction - Things that are still characters/animals but are made out of pin, axle, and ball joint connections. Mindstorms, BIONICLE, Hero Factory.

I've wanted a system like this on Bricklink for quite a while now. Every so often people will make specialty listings (that I cannot remember the name of) for brick build figures like Groot or Sparkks, but a lot of those creatures you'd either have to part out or buy the whole set for. I'm sure there's a lot of people that would like a few extra Rathtars do go with set 75180 but buying them on their own isn't always an option, and keeping track of characters like the Heligoyle or Great Devourer can be difficult when they aren't on a list with the others.

I would contend that Specialized character heads such as those used in the Trolls line should be considered a 'head' as per the definition, as well as any part that uses the 'legs' connection, since that is a unique connection style used for no other part type. so things like the mermaid tail fall under the category of 'legs' despite being a specialized piece.

Also Tiny Diamond is a nanofig.

I'll echo the several comments above that a very general "Character" descriptor may be more useful and less fraught with technicalities. Surely R2-D2, Cranky, and mini-dolls are characters, regardless of how else they are classified. I'd argue this is what most people are looking to find when searching for "minifigures."

Only if such a category was put in place would I think it's safe to incorporate a stricter definition of minifigure. This could be very strict or very loose, but I don't think it would ruffle too many feathers as people could still find what they need with the "characters" category. I would include the "classic" concept of a minifigure for sure, and the skeleton. Beyond that, I shudder to speculate.

Best of luck!

@baabswed:
Ah, now you're exposing their hypocrisy! Yes, from a design perspective, they have a long-standing rule of what constitutes a minifig. Marketing doesn't adhere to that rule. They've started listing SW astromechs, Battle Droids, and yes, a 1x2 tile, as minifigs on promotional literature because minifigs sell sets. But, if you stick strickly to any two of standard legs, standard torso, standard head, do the old Pirate captains count with their peg legs and hook hands? The CMF theme is rife with characters who don't meet these criteria, particularly Disney, Looney Tunes, and Simpsons. Disney 1 has the Claw Alien, Stitch, and Cheshire cat with non-standard legs and sculpted heads. Disney 2 is worse, with two chipmunks and three ducks that have non-standard legs and sculpted heads, plus Hades who has a tentacle base and a non-standard minifig head (it's dual-molded to incorporate the flames). Between the two Harry Potter waves, only Dobby breaks ranks, but Looney Tunes has two pigs, Speedy, Taz, and Tweety who all have non-standard legs and sculpted heads. S8 has a pirate captain and an alien queen who each only have one standard minifig component. S14 has the Fly Monster and Zombie Pirate. I'd argue that the Unikitty packets aren't part of the CMF theme (though they were sold under the "Minifigures" listing, they aren't branded as such, and had a unique packet design that fell between the end of the "China only" packets that ended with HP2, and the "world production" packets that started with TLM2), but TLM2 includes one Unikitty. And finally, Simpsons has two Barts, two Lisas, two Milhouses, Itchy, Maggie, Nelson, Ralph, Moleman, and Martin that don't fit the strict definition. That's a total of 32 characters released through the Collectible Minifigures that aren't technically minifigures, according to their own in-house definition. Not one of these packets has a disclaimer saying, "May Not Contain Minifigure". Now, if you relax the definition to include anything with _one_ standard minifig component, 30 of the 32 fit the definition, excluding only Maggie and Unikitty.

But this gets really messy when you start applying the definition to things that nobody would consider a minifig. In the official definition, they don't strictly specify that it has to be "any two _of_the_three_" vs "two parts that fit into any of those categories". Therefore, 30448 includes a Venom minifig because it has five standard minifig heads. And 10189 and 10256 include Taj Mahal minifigs because they each incorporate 16 standard minifig heads.

Finally, there's the issue of sentience. Should Lotso be excluded while the statues from 5974, 70912, 40221, or 60207 count because they all include all three of the basic minifig components? What about all the times they've put a blank head on a Batman costume or Ironman suit to represent that it's just the outfit and not an actual character?

@PurpleDave said:
" @baabswed:
Ah, now you're exposing their hypocrisy! Yes, from a design perspective, they have a long-standing rule of what constitutes a minifig. Marketing doesn't adhere to that rule. They've started listing SW astromechs, Battle Droids, and yes, a 1x2 tile, as minifigs on promotional literature because minifigs sell sets. "

They actually don’t do that. They mention minifigures specifically as such and things like Astromechs as LEGO figures.

From the Resistance X-Wing set “ The buildable starfighter toy comes with a Poe Dameron LEGO® minifigure with a blaster pistol, plus a BB-8 droid LEGO figure to inspire creative role-play fun.”

Thanks for this article.

If it has a torso piece that you can attach a head to, that defines a minifig to me. I would have included "legs" too, but as in Maggie Simpson, the torso piece is modified so no "legs" are needed, but still requires a head piece to be attached to it. As does Cooper from Trolls, torso piece includes legs but still needs a head piece to complete it.
A "minifig head" piece, would need to be able to connect it to be considered a minifig. A mini-dolls head piece attachment is smaller so wouldn't be included as a minifig.
I think minifigures and character figures get blurred in descriptions and can be confusing at times. I would not consider Tiny Diamond to be a minifig, a character yes, same for Jabba, not a minifig, but a character figure.

In addition: whatever the stance on brick-built characters, though, I do think it's a bit awkward to count the unstickered versions of said characters as the ones included in any given set, and the stickered versions as a 'variant'; particularly when the sticker represents the character's face. In every other regard, minifigures are counted as distinct with all attached parts and accessories included (except for those they hold in their hands); however stickers are presently a strange exemption from that.

(As are the *clothes* of Scala dolls, but that's a whole other topic I don't want to get into!)

I understand it in cases like the minifigures from 10121 where there were multiple different sticker decal options provided, for different teams, and it simply makes sense to list the base minifigure instead of having multiple different variants of each. But on characters like Cogsworth, as the first example I think of, where the sticker details make him who he is, it doesn't quite seem right to me to call dp029 more accurate to the set he comes from than dp029s.

I define minifigs more from their purpose than from their pieces. To me they've always represented characters, animals, robots and whatnot, usually "alive" things that move around. The only exception to me is fully brick-built characters like the Cloud Guy. They are characters, but not figurines since they are brick built.

So all the corner cases like Mickey, those weird trolls, and even Jabba all count as minifigs to me. I could however subdivide further: bigfigs are already a natural subselection, very easy to spot, and the micro ones (1 stud) like the Nasa astronauts, are another category whose official name I forget. If you really insist, I'm fine with minidolls being a subcategory as well because their shapes are slightly different, but they are definitely still figurines.

Whoever thinks the battle droids and the skeletons are not figurines are completely insane! To the stakes!

In my opinion, a very important point has already been brought up and I would like to second that: what a "minifigure" is or is not is probably a technicality and can be defined along the lines of Lego's own definition, but may not be the kind of information that a lot of people are actually interested in.

For that reason, we probably need a generalized "figure" concept that includes more than just actual minifigures.

With respect to Star Wars, such figures should in my opinion include R2-D2, battle droids, the child, Jabba, Wampa and Rancor. They should definitely exclude anything that is brick-built.

I am however not sure what to do with a Dewback. Does a "figure" need to be "human-like" in the sense that it (at least effectively) walks on two legs?

"LEGO does not consider battle droids to be minifigs, but I would, because its form requires specialist elements."

With regards to this question, I'd suggest considering which figures Lego presents on boxes.
Astromechs or battle droids are not classed as "minifigures" in set descriptions, but they still stand in the lineups alongside regular minifigs, e.g. in sets 75301 and 75233. So did Jabba the last time he was produced (75020). Meanwhile figures built out of mostly or entirely regular elements are usually excluded, e.g. the mouse droid in 75251 or the FX-7 med droid in 75203. It's not entirely consistent (the probe droid in 75185 is included, for example), but I think it certainly speaks for figures like battle droids, astromechs, or Jabba – even if they're only second-class figures in Lego's eyes.

In the Lego Minifigure Visual History book (updated and expanded with orange astronaut) it considers Metalbeard from 70810 as not a minifigure but 30528 as a minifigure. What the heck, be consistent, the coveted orange Classic Space minifig is not masking stupid errors in the book like that.

I wonder why no one else commented this, but it seems as if arms, hands, hips and legs are counted seperately. If you break a basic bald minifigure down it actually has 9 pieces. Thus if any assembly has 2 or more of those pieces, it is officially a minifigure.

Skeleton is not a minifigure. If it was by virtue of its head, then modular building lamp posts would also count. Older versions of Hagrid are not minifigs (1 part), but newer versions are for using standard hands (3 parts)

TLDR: a minifigs parts must include 2 or more of the following: head, arm, hand, torso, hips, leg.

My vote is that a minifig must contain at least one of the assemblies or elements of a traditional minifig (head, torso, legs) or maintain the form factor (Toy Story figures from 2010), and must be separate from the model, i.e a head used as a wig stand in a model wouldn't count as a minifig.

If none of these definitions are met, in order to qualify they must be defined as minifigs in an official LEGO publication like a catalog. This would make characters like Axel from Nexo Knights minifigs, but Lotso would not be a minifig; let's call him a big fig. Hagrid would be a minifig because he contains the head piece and is a separate construction. TeeVee would be because of the legs. A snowman in a winter village set wouldn't be a minifig unless it was a separate construction from the model.

Chunk, the scurriers and goblins from Nexo Knights and Elves respectably, and most minifig sized robots/androids would fit the classic minifig form factor while not containing any of the traditional parts. Astromech droids, while not maintaining a minifig form factor, would be considered minifigs because catalogs from LEGO advertise them as such. With this convoluted but thorough definition, I can't think of any exceptions that should be considered minifigs (don't forget minidolls are separate).

2 parts to be an official minifig, huh? So then since 6285 Black Seas Barracuda has that figurehead at the bow, that means the WHOLE SHIP is a minifig. The figurehead just has a pirate ship for legs! :D

Seriously though, I think the way Bricklink has started to classify so many characters as minifigs is abuse of the minifig category. I remember years ago when it started with the little robots in classic space sets. I was looking for part 2342 (control panel,) but I couldn't remember what it was called. I knew that it was in set 6894 Invader, so I looked up the inventory for that set... and it didn't show up. I *knew* that that part was in that set. Eventually I saw that they had just classified the robot as a "minifig," and that's where the piece was—in that robot's inventory.

I do realize that in Bricklink's inventories I can click the "Break Minifigures" link, and it will show the set's inventory with the each of the minifigs' parts as regular entries, but that's annoying to me. There are also ridiculous inconsistencies. For instance in set 40414-1 Monty Mole & Super Mushroom it lists the mole and stone door as minifigs, but the mushroom guy (who to me is more of a minifig than the door) is not classified as a minifig.

Anyway, I thought there might be a lot of bickering and conflicts of concepts in this comment section, but I've seen a lot of great ideas and noteworthy examples of exceptions to the rules.

@jsworpin:
I had this discussion with someone else a while back, and I remember doing a deep dive on the SW theme to track down where some change happened. I don't remember what it was anymore, but I think it had something to do with the character inset panel changing over the years. I know currently that any droid characters are included in that panel. Was there a time when it was specifically labelled "minifigures" and excluded most droids?

If that's not it, it probably had something to do with set descriptions, but they can retroactively change them, even for retired products. I think around 2015 is where Retired Product listings cut off completely, but sites like this would still have old press releases preserved in their original form.

Regardless, I swear I've seen them count astromechs as true minifigs at some point in the past. I do now see that they're just "figures" in the product descriptions.

Anyways, there's still the issue of how they define "legs" and "heads". Do short legs or midi-legs count as "legs"? How about merfolk tails, snake tails, octopus bases, or the new minifig skirt piece, all of which use the same pegs to connect to minifig torsos? Do sculpted heads count, or just the standard head? Do older keychains count as minifigs even though they're held together by the keychain post? Do newer keychains count, with neck posts that are incorporated into the hips and torsos that have a hole where the neck goes?

LEGO has trademarks and patents to protect. Our community definition of minifigure is not beholden to those concerns. The definition from that book is largely irrelevant. What matters is "What do LEGO fans - particularly the fans who visit hobby sites like Brickset - care about tracking in their collections or searching by?" and that tends to be by "character" or by "unique presentation of character" - the latter of which appears to be the working definition for "minifigure" today.

And it's worth noting that this is basically the working definition that LEGO uses on its own boxes, too, which often include non-"minifigure" characters in the lineup of figures in the lower right corner of the box art.

This is an interesting debate, however I feel like all of us are simply giving the answer of 42 without knowing what the question is in the first place.

Are we suggesting that at the top of the page it says you own 312 sets, 852 minifigures, 12 mini dolls, 33 astromech droids, 1 hutt, 1 demigod (Maui)? Obviously that would be rather absurd and would degrade the quality of this site.

Now I have no problem providing a strict definition to the term minifigure that would eliminate all of the above (and more), but in that case perhaps the terminology should simply be changed to characters: I own 937 characters. This set has 5 characters.

I suppose at the end of the day what I really care about is how many characters I have.

But let’s dive a bit deeper into what a “character” is, Star Wars droids are an excellent subject.

C-3PO is definitely a minifigure, standard torso and legs. He is arguably the most important character in Star Wars having appeared in all 9 movies, only one other character holds that distinction. That leads to R2.

As a character in the movies, no one else even comes close to the importance of R2. Arguably the entire saga revolves around him, he was involved in every single important event and arguably every single action is what drove the entire story. Sure the Skywalkers wielded the lightsabers, but without R2 there wouldn’t have ever been any Skywalkers. Therefore I would argue that R2 simply has to be a minifigure.

If R2 is a character, then clearly all other astromechs (including BB units) must be as well. If we can include astromechs with specialized parts, none of which are minifigures, then certainly battle droids, super battle droids, and IG units should count as well.

If battle droids and super battle droids are characters, then you can’t exclude destroyer droids. So it would only seem logical then that probe droids, interrogation droids, mouse droids, gonk droids, pit droids, and any other brick built droids be included as well.

But now we’ve opened up another can of worms. Scale obviously needs to be a factor in this as we don’t want to count the UCS R2, the technic R2 or 3PO, or the the K-2SO buildable figure. Although those are all characters. So really we only want “mini” characters. In other words they must be at a similar scale to the standard minifigure (which I would argue should be a Classic Space man).

Clearly there is no doubt that Jabba is at this scale and is indeed a character. So these characters can be larger if they represent larger characters. So big figs (Hulk and Thanos, as I’m not aware of any Star Wars big figs) are characters.

Now things get really interesting. If a big fig is a character, a big fig can be defined in the way it is built. Technic pins are used to attach arms to a body, but these arms and body don’t have a standard mold. Hulk, Thanos, Maui, the Goblin King (Hobbit) are all big figs. But Wampas also fit into this definition, but they are animals. Does that mean animals should be considered characters, they do meet the criteria. And we can’t say it only applies to sentient beings, because while a good argument could be made for R2 being sentient, the same could not be said for battle droids, especially the ones on Naboo in Episode 1.

If we allow Wampas, that then opens up the doors to other animals such as tauntauns and Corelian hounds. But we also allowed brick built droids, so why not brick built porgs.

Oh no, I forgot about brick built characters. Since we are allowing larger characters if scale requires them to be larger, and we allow brick built characters. Vulture droids are built on the same scale as all the other characters. So are the Hailfire droids. So by definition these “sets” should be included as characters.

Well I could probably go on and on, but I think we can all agree things are getting pretty absurd.

But seriously, I personally consider Duplo figures to be minifigures. They serve the same exact purpose, only at a Duplo scale and are fully assembled to make them safe for younger children.

As Sigmund Frued once said “sometimes grown man arguing about what constitutes a platisc figurine is just a grown man who hasn’t grown up”.

In all seriousness, keep up the discussion. Personally, it’s a “you know it when you see it” classification for me.

As there’s no way everybody is going to be satisfied with whatever decision the Brickset team comes up with, why not have a “tick what you consider to be a minifigure” option in the account settings?

How about generalizing “figures” and using subcategories for true minifigures, minidolls, brick-built characters, bigfigs, and specialized figures? Jabba could be considered specialized, or maybe include subcategory of creatures (leading unfortunately directly to the question of Blue, Wampa, and other animals...) I like the idea of being able to see Sweet Mayhem and Unikitty with the Lego Movie 2 figures. Good luck!

The first step is: collect a bunch of strange and edge case minifigs, like the one you mentioned, or all the half minifig/half brick built ones. Make the set as varied as possible. Then run a poll on which ones people instinctively categorize as minifig and which not. Now define a rule that encompass those cases.

Tiny Diamond by the size and that is made of one part would be (more elaborate) microfig (games figs).
IG-88 and Cloud Guy are brick build, so not minifig, no mater that have humanoid look.
Pythor I would put under minifig too, minifig that have modified head and modified legs.
Maggie is rare, extreme, example of minifig with modified torso. And have modified head too. No legs part.
Jabba the Hutt no, not one minifig part.
Bigfig is bigfig, got its name.
It is OK formula for minifig, at least 2 minifig parts (that can be modified).
Baby minifig, one piece, would be (more elaborate) microfig.

I don't have the answer, but I do know I now need 3301 Cranky on my desk..

@nicola80 said:
"The first step is: collect a bunch of strange and edge case minifigs, like the one you mentioned, or all the half minifig/half brick built ones. Make the set as varied as possible. Then run a poll on which ones people instinctively categorize as minifig and which not. Now define a rule that encompass those cases."

I wondered about suggesting something like that, too. It might still be a bit hit-and-miss - with Brickset's last set of polls, to determine the "best" set of the last 20 years, I remember there was a certain amount of contention over whether the end result was fair or not, and I could see the same happening here - but it would certainly be an effective way to judge popular opinion to build the rules around.

Also, I want to say something about Bricklink's categorisations. While I won't deny they look like stretching the minifigure category to breaking point, I also understand why they doing it: because Bricklink is first and foremost a marketplace, they need to have distinct catalogue entries for anything that they think people are likely to want to buy separately, whether those things officially be minifigures or not. Brickset, with its primary purpose as a database, doesn't necessarily need that consideration, so can afford a more specific categorisation scheme if need be ^^

@Huw

If you look up the set on Brickset but it is missing characters that are displayed on the box like the minifigures, that is wrong and should be corrected. This is a weirdness of Brickset compared to Bricklink that always bothered me.

Ideally every autonomous being should be visible in a tab on the sets page. This includes Big-figs, 1-piece figs and fully brickbuilt characters, everything with sentience and/or personality. The tab exists so people must not own the large set builds but can look up and get a wide variety of characters to play with or display, doesn’t it?
I find it discriminatory that Cloud guys and Jabba are suggested not to be figures because it suggests that they aren’t human when they are very much vital characters to their stories and thus, just as relevant to the figures tab as regular minifigs.

If one really wants to be pedantic about what a minifig actually is, create a category called “Figures” that is displayed on the sets page next to the inventory, then use the “two minifig parts” definition for the sub-category “Minifigures” and create other sub categories like “Mini-Dolls”, “Trophy Scale / One Piece Figures”, “Droids”, “Clip-based figures”, etc. so that all theme relevant sentient beings that can be collected separate from their playsets or vehicles are ackknowledged but the minifig category isn’t cluttered with jokes like 6 variants of Mouse Droids just because one part was changed from grey to dark grey between 2 sets.

Ideally this would also be expanded to Bionicle / CCBS figures which have multiple cases of recurring characters or multi-packs, meaning the set list isn’t a good character indicator by itself to collect the characters. Matorans especially are often hidden in larger sets with no obvious indicator unless you look for them thoroughly. Maybe create an action-figure scale category and that includes sub categories for Toy Story, Bionicle, Hero Factory, etc.

Which is also why animals/large creatures like the Rancor and Tauntaun should have a category where they can be called out, if that is in the figures tab, just a well moderated tag or an animals tab is debateable. But especally since Creator started putting out so many nice, tiny builds of dogs, deer, giraffes, etc. that stand entirely on their own and could be collected seperately from their sets animals deserve more acknowledgement. Basically everything that can stand on its own, separate from its set, should be called out on a tab like the inventory or figures.

The line should only be drawn at minifig scale for animals and creatures. The mythically large Creator sharks should be ignored as a model whose size is intended mostly for the human building and displaying it, but dinosaurs and dragons are mostly relevant because they are living beings that can interact with minifigures, exceptions being those that are too large like the raptor in the 2015 creator set. Rahi in Bionicle should also be separate from its humanoid figures, especially because sets like the 2002 creature building set make it so that you can’t just build all officially designed creatures with one set, making it necessary to purchase extra parts to really make and collect all animals.

Now I also remember Overlord from his first Ninjago appearance. The current entry has him as a Minifig with a brick for legs. But the set has him with a huge model with golden spider legs. As I understand it this assembly is not a robot suit like common in Ninjago but actually just as much part of his body as the minifig parts. Cases like this, a theoretical Darth Maul with Spider body from TCW Season 4 or a theoretical, logical conclusion like a Lego version of Apocalymon from Digimon who is a guys torso on a skyscraper sized cube obviously defy all size limits but would be minifigs as by the two parts definition and should be figures as by the logic of the story, because taking away the robo suit, spider legs or cube you would only be left with part of a character, not something complete. This defies the point of lis

Now I also remember Overlord from his first Ninjago appearance. The current entry has him as a Minifig with a brick for legs. But the set has him with a huge model with golden spider legs. As I understand it this assembly is not a robot suit like common in Ninjago but actually just as much part of his body as the minifig parts. Cases like this, a theoretical Darth Maul with Spider body from TCW Season 4 or a theoretical, logical conclusion like a Lego version of Apocalymon from Digimon who is a guys torso on a skyscraper sized cube obviously defy all size limits but would be minifigs as by the two parts definition and should be figures as by the logic of the story, because taking away the robo suit, spider legs or cube you would only be left with part of a character, not something complete. This defies the point of listing figures separate from their sets.

I can understand some people wanting to split the first Overlord due to size but he really should only be a whole figure with his full assembly and the current entry should be degraded to a specialist entry like “Cloud guy without sticker” compared to the Main, stickered version. Specialist entries should be a bit more hidden maybe a variant on the main figures entry. Both versions shouldn’t share space in the figures tab of a set unless there is a clearer separation in that tab. Most of the time it looks like you need two of the same figure.

A variant tab inside a minifigs entry could also take care of unofficial variants like Quira from Solo with her back having a Yoda torso print.
Or the countless versions of Stormtroopers that mix and match different helmet prints and colors for the head underneath to create more variants than minifig collectors actually need, because you can only spot the difference when you take the helmet off which you are not supposed to when the head is blank.

*And on that note, there is still is no distinction on any Lego fansite between black mouth Stormtrooper helmets from before 2005 with a large split in the mouth and those from 2005 to End 2007 that finally had a full mouth line printed because Lego changed their printer.
Brickset has incorrect photos, SW0036 for the yellow blank head and SW0036A for the flesh head should swap photos because no 6211 set came with the broken mouth and no set before 2005s 7264 came with the full mouth.
Bricklink also treats this variation as the same part despite smaller variations on other parts getting separate entries despite my objections years ago.

Lot of good comments and a lot of different views. I think part of the problem is the mixing of the general idea of a "figure" versus a "minifigure" specifically.
"Minifigure" is actually a protected LEGO copyright, with a specific form cosisting of:
- Head (with or without a stud on top) such as part 3626
- Torso assembly (torso, left & right arms, standard hands) such as part 76382 (973c00 & variations on BrickLink)
- Leg assembly (hips, right & left legs) such as part 73200

And then there is the database tagging and what purpose that's being used for.

If it were my database, I'd try to be purist to some extent and do it like this:
- General category of "figure" (I don't like the term character in this context)
- Category of "minifigure" to cover those based around the standard trapezoidal torso unit (comprising a head, torso, upper limbs - including things like wings, lower body - not just legs)
- Other categories for other groupings that were distinct enough: skeletons - based around the skeleton torsos, battle droids - likewise based around the droid torso, minidolls etc etc

Even with @Huw's exclusions in the list above I note that my figure OLD012 shows up as a minifigure as it comes from set 425 where it is defined as a minifgure entry.

Does it have (minifig) legs, torso and head? THEN it qualifies to be called a minifigure.
-And only then :)

I guess if our collection database listed “figures” instead of minifigs it may avoid confusion. As it stands now my collection of so called minifigs includes everything from Antman (nanofig), Stephanie (minidoll), Batman (minifig), Dalek (brickfig), uni-kitty (brickfig) to the Hulk and Thanos (bigfigs) as well as skeletons and droids. Not to mention the minifigs included in sets as mere ‘statues’ within the set build.

So personally I just read the brickset statistic info as “a set will have a collection of various ‘figures’ that may be of various types”... ie: nanofig minifig minidoll brickfig bigfig etc. (either representing a character or sometimes even a statue) and I don’t have any real issue with the way things are now.

I like @Huw's definition, and would be satisfied if the "Minifigs You Own" page were presented that way. I wouldn't mind if Tiny Diamond was listed as a minifig, but I would prefer if it were not. If he is included as a miniig, then should statuettes be included as minifigs? E.g., Jack from the 21315 and Leah from 75208 should be included if Tiny Diamond is. Then what about unnamed and non-printed statuettes? Similarly, I wouldn't mind if big-figs were included, but I would prefer they were not. "Mini" is not the same as "big", after all. I also prefer if brick-built "figs" are not included. That said, the box art for 70620, Ninjago City, does include a brick-build Sweep in the depiction of the included minifigs.

Above all though, it would be nice if there was an overarching umbrella group, say, "Character", that included minifigs, mini-dolls, recognizable brick built characters, etc.. I would be happy to see the Duplo Crane from Thomas included in that list too. Perhaps that already exists and I am unaware of it?

As mentioned by a few others here, I think it's more important that the use case is fully understood behind solidifying a definition.

When I think about searching on Brickset for minifigures belonging to a set, I'm really thinking "characters". If wanted to see what "minifigures" were in 21326, I would expect to see Eeyore in those results.

If we're going to get strict on what constitutes a minifig, then I think there needs to be a separate classification for characters, including brick-built, which seems to be how Bricklink has approached things.

'Characters' seems like the best option, since Disney Cars are represented as such, and so are some of the characters from TLM2.

It is fascinating reading people's comments on this and of course, there are plenty of different angles to look at this from.

It is clear that the definition of needing to include at least two of the basic three elements (head, torso and/or legs) is flawed in the current era of diverse characters from such a myriad of different universes or franchises.

To me, there are two avenues that need to be looked at to satisfy any modern definition.

The first is a rewriting of the definition for utilisation of the three basic components.

Correct me if I am wrong but the head, torso and legs pieces were originally designed as bespoke elements for use in creating a character. If we stick with the limited view that these three and only these three components and constitute a minifigure then we are not adapting to the developing nature of LEGO over time.

I agree that any figure that displays at least two, possibly even only one, should be considered a minfigure. But here is my point. The head, torso and legs were designed to be a character model. Any variation of designed element that replaces one or more of these three should be allowed if it is only used as a character piece

This allows for the inclusion of droids as minifigures as they have specifically designed pieces that are used exclusively for creating character models, including Astromech droids. Are their legs used anywhere other than as Astromech droid legs?

The second point to take note of is scale.

There have been some excellent discussions in this thread about scale, so I will not restate what has already been said but it should be taken into consideration.
Jabba, Thanos and The Hulk are examples where they are larger because of their scale. They are produced using bespoke pieces and should count as minifigures for that reason alone.

Cranky is made of bespoke parts and is in scale with his universe.
Is there a maximum number of parts that can be used to create a minifigure?
Would anybody argue with 5002946: Silver Centurion because it contains 12 pieces? Probably not due to the inclusion of a torso and legs.

Brickheadz would not qualify however as, although they may contain one or two unique character building pieces, they are primarily comprised of regular components.

I'm sure there are flaws in any way of looking at this and there will undoubtedly be a random set somewhere that confuses the issue further.
Stay calm people.
Enjoy your hobby.

In my opinion: The "other" category should be divided so that there is a section for things like Skeletons, Battle Droids, and Astromecks, and a section for characters that are purely made up of standard system elements such as the cloud figure mentioned above and the Droidecas from Star Wars. And of course, a section for Big-Figs such as the Castle Trolls, The Hulk, and Thanos. But what about the dragons?

The way I see it, centaur figures do in fact count as a Minifigure.

I consider Artoo & Battle Droids to be minifgs. Big figs, specialized, like Jabba, babies(Groot as well) are not. This is a cool idea for an article.

@A_Dilophosaurus said:
"I think it should be:

A figure constructed using at least two standard minifigure elements, or any figure whose form does not lend itself to being portrayed using them, so is made up of AT LEAST TWO specialist elements.

Which would exclude game figures and Tiny Diamond but would still include Maggie Simpson."

NO! Centaurs such as Tiny Diamond DO count as a Minifigure!

Kenner produced both Luke Skywalker and R2D2 "action figures," and LEGO makes both Luke Skywalker and R2D2 "minifigures."

Im not sure how some of these of even questionable,

"about twt001 Mermaid which has only a torso? I think, despite this, most people would want to see it in a list of Trolls minifigures"

It clearly has a head and torso. That is 2/3 so by the books definition a minifigure. Her 'legs' are molded as fins, so she still comprises 3 parts just a different shape for the leg molding.

For Maggie and the Tiny Diamond consists of a single piece. Same question. Minifigure or not.

They are not they are known as microFigures. Same as the game pieces made for various LEGO board games and statuettes.

@the_phasmid:
Oh, what a can of worms you just opened...

70804, used to mount the giant ice cream cone.
5943 (yes, Belville), just sitting in a pile of loose parts.
5942, _one_ used to mount the video camera.
70735, used as chin guns (usually it’s the body that’s used as a cannon, but whatever...).
10669, used to mount the Dyson Bladeless Swamp Boat Fan.
41253, just one again, used for the helm.
71711, used for some seriously chiseled cheekbones.

Of course, even SW repurposed the R2 torso, with the engines on Anakin’s speeder in 7133. And what _hasn’t_ R2’s head been used for?

@N_MCMXCIX said:
" @A_Dilophosaurus said:
"I think it should be:

A figure constructed using at least two standard minifigure elements, or any figure whose form does not lend itself to being portrayed using them, so is made up of AT LEAST TWO specialist elements.

Which would exclude game figures and Tiny Diamond but would still include Maggie Simpson."

NO! Centaurs such as Tiny Diamond DO count as a Minifigure!"

There was clearly a misunderstanding somewhere along the way. Hickory is the centaur. How the names got mixed up I'll never know. How does one go about removing comments?

@Glacier_Phoenix said:
"This questions actually came up at Brickcan last weekend when talking with Matthew Ashton. He was asked about the lack of special legs for roadrunner and he said that since it had a custom head and chicken wings if they didn't put in normal legs it would stray too far from what is considered a minifigure. "

They included Unikitty in the minifigure assortment for The Lego Movie, so this reasoning seems inconsistent. (I do not think Unikitty should qualify as a "minifigure", but had no objection to that character being part of the minifigure series for The Lego Movie.)

@PDelahanty:
TLM2 came out a few years ago, so Legal may have imposed a new guideline on them since then, for purposes of defending the Minifigure trademark. Maybe Unikitty wouldn't fly today.

But that does suggest they don't count tails, tentacles, or skirts that are designed to replace standard legs as contributing to minifigureness. I'd love to have been there for that conversation, as I would have asked about midi-legs, short legs, and all the leg substitutes. I also would have asked how many Collectible Minifigs don't actually qualify as official minifigs. Clearly Unikitty doesn't meet their criteria even a tiny little bit. The closest she gets to having minifig parts is the fact that the horn has a bar connection that can fit in a minifig's hand. It wasn't an issue for them when designing TLM CMF, because nobody knew she'd be such a break-out character during development, but there's no way they could have left her out of TLM2 CMF right after giving her her own TV series, line of sets based on that series, and CMF-like blind bag series to go with those sets.

As with most things, the best course of action is probably the simplest - does it have a yellow smiley face?

Yes = Minifigure
No = Other

Simple ;)

@PurpleDave said:
" @the_phasmid:
Oh, what a can of worms you just opened...

70804, used to mount the giant ice cream cone.
5943 (yes, Belville), just sitting in a pile of loose parts.
5942, _one_ used to mount the video camera.
70735, used as chin guns (usually it’s the body that’s used as a cannon, but whatever...).
10669, used to mount the Dyson Bladeless Swamp Boat Fan.
41253, just one again, used for the helm.
71711, used for some seriously chiseled cheekbones.

Of course, even SW repurposed the R2 torso, with the engines on Anakin’s speeder in 7133. And what _hasn’t_ R2’s head been used for?"

I do like opening those cans of worms!

I was pretty sure that there would be sets somewhere that threw the bespoke argument part into shaky water.

Bear with me, but I think there is still legs (pardon the pun) to this argument.
R2's legs have been repurposed and the research backs that up but what was their design function in the first place?
21307 Caterham Seven 620R uses a blank head as an engine component, most likely a water tank but nobody would argue it is a minifigure because it has a head.

The bespoke argument is based around the original intention of the component.
My next question would be how long the Astromech parts were used solely for droids before they were repurposed for the other uses you have pointed out?

I do not think it changes the fact that they were designed (as the basic head, torso and legs were) for minifigure construction but have since been used else where.

Fantastic research PurpleDave.
Love it!

@the_phasmid:
The two Belville sets used the legs in 2004. Anakin’s speeder used the torso in 2003. And of course nobody would argue that a minifig head makes the Caterham a minifig. You’d also need to incorporate either legs or a torso to meet the official definition of a minifig, like that pirate ship that was mentioned previously.

On that most recent subject of classifying astromech droids, I think I stumbled upon another complication: the droids from sets like 7143 and 7256.

They both have droid heads: ONLY heads, attached directly to the ship. However in both instances, the head distinctly represents a character: R4-P17 (albeit not in her usual colours) and R2-D2, respectively. While Arfour's case is somewhat justified, as she was similarly built into the ship in AotC and didn't get a full body until the subsequent movie, Artoo canonically had a full body in the context of Anakin's starfighter, it just didn't make it into the set due to limitations of the build design.

Which means, assuming for the moment that astromechs are to be counted as minifigures in one form or another, how do these two fall in with that?

They're both distinct characters, and both use the dedicated astromech heads. Should they then be classified somehow, even if the character themselves each have only one piece present? Or are they discounted on the grounds of being incomplete if detached from the ship?

I'm not sure where I stand on this particular consideration, but I thought it might be worth making note of.

Frankly, I think the "uses two standard minifig elements" definition is too restrictive. I think a minifigure collector *would* expect to see Jabba the Hutt alongside other minifigures, as his is designed explicitly as a standaline miniature figurine that is in-scale with and expected to be played with and displayed alongside standard minifigures, and features the use of standard minifig parts.

To this end, I would propose that any buildable character which uses even just one "minifig part" constitutes a minifig. I also propose that "minifig part" be defined differently from bricklink's definitions for the purpose of this sub-definition; a "minifig part" is one that uses one of the minifig-exclusive connections, such as leg/torso connection, neck pin, shoulder joint, or hand/wrist joint. I cannot think of any character that fits this definition that I would not consider a minifigure, and it conveniently excludes minidolls and other types of miniature figures because hair connections are not minifig-exclusive, they're just a stud.

@ThatBionicleGuy:
I don’t really know for sure about the Ep2 fighter, but the wing on the Ep3 fighter is too thin to accommodate an astromech body, just like the only way they can fit in the Naboo Starfighter is to pivot so the legs are front and back because there’s no room for the shoulders if they’re on the sides.

I do collect LEGO figurines for quite some time now and have come across that they indeed have gone through some changes or better to describe, improvements in the amount of variations.

If i think back, what LEGO figurines looked like in the past, i prefer some of the new versions nowadays.

However i do not differentiate in my LEGO figurine collections so much, whether they are those of traditional Minifigurine style or all of those mentioned new types.

What is more important to me is that 1.) It is made by LEGO, 2.) It is a figurine, it is in the LEGO building instruction mentioned, therefore 3.) It belongs to the Set line, it belongs to the Theme and it has a role to play.
4.) despite that some LEGO figurines come in all sort of shapes and forms nowadays, the traditional Minifigurine has expanded itself in its appearance and also i do collect them as well, they are all manufactured by the LEGO company.

In this said, i do not exclude brick-build, big, nano, micro, maxi or what you want to name them, as long as they fit in the manufactured LEGO figurine category, despite other variations.
I do collect them, it is my hobby, why shall i limit myself to a definition, which may have reached its limitation as the figurines have evolved.
Yes, of course, those figurine variants will be always surrounded by the most traditional Minifigurines, but excluding those, that means i cut out R2-D2 from the Star Wars story line as if he is non-existent.
As a collector, as myself, it is for me more important that all those LEGO figurines, which have appeared in the LEGO building instructions, themes, sets and you name it, are being listed for collecting purposes only.
It is not important for me what a naming convention definition rules in or out. I am a collector of LEGO figurines, the product of a toy company, which can be collected.
Like other people collect stamps or coins. However, where do you find ever a complete list of all LEGO made figurines, when some are ruled in and some are excluded, because they did not fit the ruled description.
I think a definition is a guidance, but can be used quite relaxed and is also still helpful, but not for those new variations, which might need some further classifications, but that's all. They are still fitting in within the LEGO playsets or themes or story lines as they have got a story character to fulfill.
I mean, dual headed Minifigurines for example, do you list the Minifigurine with both face impressions in the listing or shall you just do one picture? I collect the Minifigurine with a dual face twice as each face side makes it look different, even though it is the same Minifigurine character, just with a different face impression.

Please expand the Brickset list for LEGO figurines depending on the LEGO themes, story line or role it is playing for the Set?

By the way, i do not consider LEGO Bionicle's buildable Characters as a LEGO figurine as it doesn't fit into my LEGO figurine collection, despite that i have them all anyway.

As someone who has been trying to get to 90% of Star Wars minifigures, using this catalogue, the idea of suddenly a large portion of my collection not counting as a minifigure scares me.

As I said before, I prefer function over form, if it represents a character, I take it as a figure. I jsut realized that there are items that fit the definition of 2 or more minifugure parts is a minifigure, but they are NOT considered minifigures. These are the minifigures that are modified to be keychains or magnets. Some of them are perfect minigures, legs, hips, torso, arms, hands, head, headgear, etc. but they are glued and have a chain affixed to their head. The hips/legs and the head/headgear are glued to the torso. In the case of magnet minifis, they are also glued and either there are magnets glued to the inside of their legs, or the minifigures are glued to a magnet-brick. Are these minifigures in fact minifigures?

For example https://brickset.com/sets/3961-1/Johnny-Thunder-Key-Chain

You can play with the magnetized-leg minifigures, except you can't take them apart which is not necessarily a problem when strictly playing. The ones that are glued to a brick are not easy to play with, unless you pry them off the base, and they will not look nice if you did that. As for the keychains, you need to remove the chain to allow "normal" play, as the chain and ring would be in the way. (I have a few "broken" keychain minifigures that prove that some kids would rather "unchain" the minifigures to play with them, they obviously did not care for a minifigure keychain.)

So these glued minifigures are representing characters and they also fit the 2-minigure-parts yet they are not listed as minifigures. There seems to be an unwritten law that a figure must also be playable to be listed as a figure. Unplayabe/decorative/integrated/embedded figures such as keychains and magnets are not figures.

@Akos:
Keychains and magnets are classified as Gear, which pretty much no site classifies as minifigs. In some cases, like books, and the 2nd gen minifig magnets before they started gluing the minifigs to the magnet bricks, it's a regular minifig, and may be inventoried as such, but these days the minifig keychains aren't even made the same way as regular minifigs. I've de-chained a few of the Lou Ferrigno Hulk keychains, and the early ones were standard minifig parts, with the torso glued to the hips, and a keychain stem sunk down inside. Later ones had the neck post attached to the hips and extended all the way up through the torso.