Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

They're not dolls. Sometimes it's not clear cut as to whether something can be called a doll or an action figure. There's some overlap. The original GIJoes were dolls for boys. And then there's the She-ra toys which were doll-like action figures. But both modern incarnations really escape being dolls. I think the lack of "hair" and changeable clothes is really the key here. There's also the overall look of the figure as well; while making a text definition can be tricky you'd never mistake a doll for an action figure (or vice versa) in modern toys. It just wouldn't happen. The overlap doesn't exist much today as boys shun anything viewed as "girly" so people make dolls more dollike and action figures more .... action figurey.

TFs, by and large, can't really be put into the doll category. Too inhuman, too hard and angular, and you really don't play with them in the same way we you'd play with a Barbie. You'll really have to go for an antiquated, outdated usage of the word to fit the average TF into the "doll" category.

Legos aren't entirely their own thing. They are building blocks. They've become sophisticated, but at their core they still are the same as their wooden ancestors with letters carved into them. Nowadays Lego doesn't even have full rights to their own design. Not with Mega blocks and Kre-o and any other block you can toss in there. You may even be able to cross Legos with model building, but they aren't entirely their own category.

TFs relating to car models ... I can buy that to a point. Certainly the original line had some of this, and then there's alternators, the MPs, and the movie lines that further this. But nowadays I think it's pretty incidental.

I don't think clip-on armor or Starscream's coronation parts is in the same vein as putting on cloth clothes. Again, it bears similarity on paper, but in practice it's quite different.