The second article predated the first, and I think it's just another "Oh wait, forgot we already had it" situation.
Mind, there are a few on inanimate toys which aren't really transitional objects in the same sense, just toys i.e. Baby Piggy's dolls and toys in Muppet Babies books (since some of them talk in the standard fantasy scenes, not sure they count as inanimate).
Stupendous Ball isn't a transitional object, I'm not sure Geraldine really fits either list (she's a radish and basically a less mobile Lanford, essentially a pet plant rather than a toy). But those aside, and the cute picture at the top of the page, pretty much everything else is a duplicate or should already be on the transitional objects page if it isn't. So I'd say merge.
Right now, Inanimate objects is actually the opposite of what that title implies... in that it contains *animate* objects (Muppet rocks, plants, furniture; they speak or move and so on). The other pages (toys/transitional objects) are basically for those that remain just objects, outside of the occasional animated or dream sequence. (One reason there aren't any The Christmas Toy/The Secret Life of Toys characters on the inanimate toys list).
I think I like the idea of keeping "inanimate toys" and doing a subsection or just addressing it in the text (although a few, like the blankets and Rocco, are more clearly transitional objects than toys).
I think the purpose of Inanimate objects is that these are objects that are usually inanimate. It's not often you see a cabinet walking down the street trying to eat a man. So, while it creates an inconsistency in the naming structure with Inanimate toys, the title might be better than Objects that are usually inanimate, but are made to be animate... but I'm certainly interested in other ways we might label it.