Talk: Real Gear Robot

Do we have a reason to consider Toaster a RGR? Chip 14:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you know which Toaster I'm talking about?

He's the prototypical 'animated by the Allspark' Transformer. -Derik 14:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Derik, the Chevy Autobots are not Real Gear Robots. RGRs are a throwback line to the Microchange toys put out in the first two years of Hasbro's Transformers line. Period. Full stop. --Rotty 17:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed that the original Real Gear article is Real Gear Robots. The material here that isn't wrong so totally needs to be merged with that. -Rotty 17:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I am of two minds on this. Fictionally speaking, Real Gear Robots are ordinary Earth machines brought to life by the power of the Allspark. Period. Full stop. However, Real Gear Robots also being the name of a toyline with the specific attributes Rotty notes, applying that term across the board to other examples, or possible examples, of this phenomenon does seem a bit iffy. Hmmmm. I think I would probably lean towards coming up with a different title for this article rather than to merge it with the toyline article. --KilMichaelMcC 17:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Everything relevant to the RGR subgroup needs to be moved there, just as we don't have an article "Mini-con" (or "Pretender") for the subgroup as a concept within the fiction and "Mini-cons" (or "Pretenders") that only describes the toys. -Rotty 17:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussion here should have been allowed to continue a bit before the article was deleted. I think I would have come down on the side against deletion. I can see the value in keeping this article, albeit moved to another title. Something like "Allspark-animated Earth machines." Real Gear Robots would be just one example of this phenomenon, and this article could cover the others without applying the toyline-specific term to them all. --KilMichaelMcC 18:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that even what the Chevy Autobots are? Derik didn't cite any source for his claim that they're ordinary Chevys animated by the Allspark. -Rotty 18:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I put them under probables because, though their nature isnt' really defined (a conciet of the game w're nto supposed ot look at too closely I think) they seem to be somehow Other than Bumblebee's clutch of Autobots- and BB refers to recruiting them.

Of course, Sphinx, Ridge, et al are also Chevy models... (albeit in different colors,) and they were wedged into the timeline. But I find that a lto easier to swallow than thousands of Autobots on Earth- who are all aparently newbies and have to undertake training under the generalship of Bumblebee.

There isn't any proof- but they're a great big "Bwuh?" that making them Allspark-animated 'new' Transformers fits perfectly.

(It's possible the game will reveal somethign new int hese newsbytes to change my mind- for all I know Flash and Ridge, the advance scouts who seem to have been working with the Chevy engineer, were somehow tied to their creation.) -Derik 20:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"There isn't any proof- but they're a great big "Bwuh?" that making them Allspark-animated 'new' Transformers fits perfectly." Sure, that fits okay if you want to write a Rise of the Chevy Autobots-themed fanfic. It has no place on this Wiki, though. When something is confusing, like the presence of lots of Autobots on Earth before the movie starts, we don't get to make up explanations and call them 'probable' in an encyclopedia. Also, you keep claiming "Bumblebee refers to recruiting them", but I've been playing this game and I don't recall any reference to them not being Autobots already like you insist. Please cite sources. -Rotty 23:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

you keep claiming "Bumblebee refers to recruiting them", but I've been playing this game and I don't recall any reference...

"If every Chevy Autobot recruit is as persistent as you, we may actually win this war against the Decepticons." - Bumblebee, 05.09.2007 Transmission

"...the fight has begun. Decepticon Drones are attacking these sectors. You've had weeks to develop your skills and upgrade your powers. Now we put them to the test." - Bumblebee, 05.25.2007 Transmission

Oh snap! I went there! Isn't it wierd how he calls them 'Chevy Autobot recruits?' Not like they were Autobots he recruited to become Chevys... but almost like they were somehow Chevys first that he recruited to become Autobots... And he talks about training in his green recruits- not Autobot fighters gather from around the galaxy.

Oh and his first transmission, not meant for human eyes where he appeals for an army, includes a precis on Cybertron, the Autobots and Decepticons-- all things any Transformer from Cybertron would know (and thus it would be insane to include) but concepts a Transformer created on Earth would have no idea about.

Oh- and Optimus Prime explains who he is to the Chevy Autobots in terms of Bumblebee (his CO)- like they were some native army raised by an officer sent into find insurgents, and would know nothing about the great leader of the Autobots.

But, even with all the evidence pointing to the Chevy Autobots being native to Earth... you're right, there's really nothing to clinch them as RGR's. Oh- it'd be a logical explanation- but they'd also be the largest RGR's (the size of full Transformers,) and RGR's are usually random-- why are they all Chevy cars? So the possibility of them being RGR's should be a mere footnote... when discussing their Earthly origins. I had already moved them from 'probable' to merely 'ehh, could be' on the RGR page I'm editing before you posted.

I'm restoring Toaster's RGR tag though. Get the stick out of your ass. -Derik 00:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't even see the article that was apparently deleted? As Kil says, "Real Gear Robot" means TWO distinct things. One thing it means is a real-world "the toy subline" and the other is a fictional-world "Earth machines animated by the AllSpark". There is no need to have two different articles for this, but both meanings should be covered. It is not at all a stretch to use the term to refer to fictional transforming devices which are known to have been animated by the AllSpark. Dewbot might be a RGR, or he might be a Cybertronian, as noted in his article. This movie toaster we're all talking about, which I actually don't even know what it is, if it was brought to life by the AllSpark, is most definitely a Real Gear Robot going by the definition given by copy for the toyline. --Steve-o 21:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Title

Okay, I've now got an article Toaster (Movie). As he appears to be a Read Gear Robot who is not a toy... that means either the Real Gear Robots article has to also cover the concept behind the robots (as Micromaster does,) or we need another name for these guys for it's own article. (Steve-O seems to support the former.)

For the moment I've moved Real Gear Robots to Real Gear Robot, bringing it in line to naming conventions used on pages such as Pretender. Sadly, I no longer have the article that used to be here- so if whoever deleted it would be so kind as to fold the general description ad timeline notes back in here (since I no longer remember which RGR I referenced for that, and I had to look it up,) by all means, please fold them back into this article-- 'cuz I ain't lookin' 'em up again on my own. -Derik 22:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I restored the original article here for you. --Suki Brits 22:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll fold it in now. -Derik 22:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now that the Toaster article is up... It is speculation to call him a RGR. He might be a Cybertronian. There's not really any basis for making that judgement, aside from saying that the number of actual Cybertronians on Earth in the movie-verse seems to be pretty small. But for all we know the commericial is not strictly in-continuity with the film, but is more of a micro-continuity branching off from it. Personally I don't mind listing him as "probably" a RGR, but we do need to be careful not to declare him so without more evidence. The movie itself will, I assume, have a bunch of actual RGRs that we can make amusing little articles about. --Steve-o 22:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I am cognizant of the need to be cautious about such lebels- but his small size, non-verbal nature, lack of clear faction affiliation, and altmode as a piece of domestic hardware all point him being a RGR. Even movie Scorponok is non-verbal by choice... Toaster just babbles. Cybertronian doesn't fit for all the reasons RgR does.

It is difficult to have this conversation without discussing spoilers for the movie. Have you read the novelization? (or summaries of the events relevant to RGR's) -Derik 22:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

All of the RGRs have clear faction affiliations. --ItsWalky 22:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"Your new robotic companion SPEED DIAL 800 is a hyperactive fast-talker" --M Sipher 22:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. He has an Autobot symbol on him, and two more on the front of his packaging. How is his allegiance not understood? --ItsWalky 00:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Sipher is responding to the notion that RGRs don't really speak except in gibberish, which Speed Dial's write-up contradicts. It was a badly-placed reply. --Sntint 01:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

The RGR robot toys are apparently older RGR's (one of their bios mentioned it has existed for several years.) They had been around long enough to mature, become individuals, and choose sides. The ones actually seen in the movie are feral killing machines with no allegiance. Toaster is only barely beyond that.

Is it- seriously- is it that complicated? The RGR toys are means to represen the phenomena of the creating-mindless-feral-machine-life as seen in the movie. As the RGR toys are not mindless killing machines, they must get better as time goes on. (Asshole-Simmons, at least in the novelization, says they're always mindless, so it's not likely the toy RGR's can be exceptions to the mindless rule-- and we saw no non-mindless RGR's when there were a bunch of them created at once either.)

...and if you were avoiding spoilers- sorry, but this deals squarely with them. -Derik 01:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In both cases those are RGR's that have been around long enough to grow into more mature individuals. The ones seen will see in the movie are much closer to Toaster.

And at any rate, the deleted article addressed that contradiction. -Derik 22:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Are they ALL evil (and if not, why...)

After watching the film last night I made a comment wondering why all the RGR in the film were evil. My brother, who was with me at Botcon, said that the screenwriters explained it in their panel ( I missed that one). According to them since all modern Earth technology was derived from retro-engineering Megatron, all Transformers created from it are inherently evil war-like monsters. That works great for the film, of course, but gives us a bit of trouble with the Autobot RGRs in the anticillery material. Just not quite sure how to integrate the idea into the existing article.--ZacWilliam 00:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I assumed they were just feral, being born into completely capable bodies with no real minds developed yet.

And frankly, I'm not a big fan of author intent when it doesn't mesh with what actually made it on-screen. Or of declaring that 'decepticon schematics' are inherently evil- which seems like a pretty major change to the fundamentals of the ways Transformers works to infer from the loose thinking behind a minor plot point that never made it ononscreen and it better explained by something else. -Derik 00:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Not much to worry about really, the extra-film stuff definately negates the "Decepticon derived tech = evil robots" since we have plenty of Autobot RGRs out there, I just think the screenwriter's thought processes that shaped the film portrail at least deserve a mention. I guess a trivia factlet would be the best fit.--ZacWilliam 01:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you were asking why...

That makes my response unnecessarily snippy now, doesn't it? Oh well, I'll just blame it on wading through all the idiots on the transformersgame.com forum. -Derik 01:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The writers had more than one panel, but at the one I went to their explanation was a little different -- the RGRs were mindless, not evil, because they were not built in such a way as to host/hold a spark and have consciousness. Sort of like... you can't just imbue a lump of matter with "life" and expect it to be sentient. It needs to have a brain capable of sentience. This still raises the same sort of problems with the toy RGRs, though. Also, I am starting to feel like we really need a different term to for the toy guys and the general concept "random machines animated by the AllSpark", but I don't know where to get one. --Steve-o 15:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I suspect we may not get a satisfying one. For now, I'd just use something like "machines animated by the AllSpark" or "animated machines" or the such for an article. If some secondary media gives us a better term later, we can switch to that, but I'm not exactly holding my breath. --Suki Brits 15:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this notion. The explanation we are given for the RGR toyline is that they are Earth machines brought to life by the All Spark. Attempting to explain the discrepancy between the toys and the fiction and attempting to differentiate them strikes me as rather... fanficky. All we are presented with is that the All Spark can animate nonliving machines, and that the toyline gives them personalities and allegiences while the movie does not.

That being said, if we DO decide to propose an explanation, I would agree with the notion that the toy RGRs are just "older" and matured in time. Perhaps if you imbue a lump of matter with life, it is feral initially but given time it will... well, transform part of itself into a brain. Go figure.

I stand by my initial notion to *not* try and explain it, though. Use one article for both types, and simply point out the discrepancy in the write-up. --Sntint 16:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sntint. The toyline fiction specifically defines Real Gear Robots as those brought to life from Earth machines by the Allspark. That's what the term means. Just because the different movie continuities (toyline/games vs. film) differ as to some of the minor details of their nature does not negate the usefulness or scope of the term.--ZacWilliam 16:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Chevy Autobots

*sigh* The Allspark Power line can't come fast enough to give us a name for Earth-born vehicle Transformers that isn't Derik. -Rotty 01:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And when it does- we will doubtless port all the relevant sections of this article over to one for whatever that term is/will be. Removing items you don't like in the meantime not only makes the Wiki temporarily less accurate, it will make the content-port that you see forthcoming harder to do. Suffer.

By the way, when I said 'you need a better argument' I didn't mean just for using a better term. There is a better argument to be made for why the Chevy Autobots, for reasons alluded to in the text, were not animated by the Allspark. (It dawned on me the other day.) Unfortunately that reason depends on both authorial intentionality and story elements from earlier drafts of the movie script that were abandoned (and thus invalid) so it's completely inappropriate to document as fact on this wiki. Mwahahahaha!

...go write a Chevy Autobots article and I'll put my reason in as a trivia entry. You can lobby as you see fit to yoink the Chevys from the RGR article based on whatever leverage it gives you to formulate a a better argument for removal. (I don't insist that the CA's be RGR's, I just never thought you presented a logical alternative before-- this does, mired in redacted plot elements though it be.) -Derik 02:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Removing items you don't like in the meantime not only makes the Wiki temporarily less accurate, it will make the content-port that you see forthcoming harder to do. Suffer."

Don't you dare tell me what to do, Derik. Even if you hadn't been useless to this Wiki from the beginning, you have absolutely no right to speak to me in imperative sentences. People frequently insult you both to your face and behind your back for the gibberish you spout and then revert when sane people try to undo the edits that spew out of your brain and into your fingers. I'm struggling to think of any reason you don't deserve that. You're so useless, you haven't even voted for the Wiki you do your best to ruin in the Featured Wiki voting going on right now. So now I'm going to edit out all your mental diarrhea about Real Gear Robots, because things have just gotten beyond ridiculous with you. -Rotty 02:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey cool footnote about Cybertron product line, and it clears some stuff up! Way to go! I mean, there's more than a little Autherial Intent involved- but the RGR term was hanging by a thread, I grant you that this is probably enough to snap it! Clearly the fact that these molds were created for Cybertron means that we should disregard their movie packaging, and the fictional setting described there! Quicky! Someone remove the Mutants (BW) from the wiki, they were repurposed from another toyline! Go boy, you've got a lot of links to edit, guided by your divine revelation that what toys were intended for in pre-production overrides the toyline and fictional setting they're actually released with!

That said- since you excised the general-Allspark-created-'bots from this page, they do need to be covered somewhere. They needed to be split from this article, not stricken from existence. I suggest Pseudo-Real Gear Robots, to reflect the toy blurb definition technically covering them- at last until a better term comes along. (Also, * AX9-8946-09SU-1 and "Samuraï" Nokia need to go there since you're restricting this article to a toyline that is in no way related to consumer electronics brought to life by the Allspark-- it was created for Cybertron after all, ignore the inconvienient blurb. Oh, and the movie dewbot needs to go there too. Chop-chop!)

As for the hissy-fit. *shrug* I suppose you were trying to be hurtful, but I really don't care if you make fun of me. My viewpoint is part of the great consensus, and if only 1 part in 10 is precieved as adding value to the wiki- well than, that's still value added. For what it's worth? I can assure you I only make fun of you to your face, Drama Queen.-Derik 03:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and again: make yourself useful for the first time and go vote for us to be the next Featured Wiki. We'd then be tied for first place with Legend of the Five Rings. http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Featured_Wikia/vote#Transformers_.28aka_Teletraan-1.29 -Rotty 02:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't particularly see how being a featured benefits Me, you, the wiki or even Transfandom except in the most abstract 'maybe seeing this link will get someone else drawn into the fandom' sense, but I can see that it's important to you so... *votes* -Derik 03:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Rotty, take a time out. You are being a colossal douche and, exactly as Derik says, making things worse by changing contested information without proper discussion. I've reverted your changes to the article aside from moving your comment about the toys coming from the Cybertron timeframe to a trivia spot. Can you please make the citation more specific than "Hasbro rep"? Was this reported somewhere that you read it? Also, you owe Derik an apology for insulting him. He is troublemaker at times, but to claim that he's "useless" to the Wiki is completely absurd. --Steve-o 03:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Steve-o. Okay, so I was a douche. Derik is still wrong to be forcing his "all Transformers born on Earth are called Real Gear Robots" fanon on this Wiki. If there's any way to make him stop without insulting him, I'd like to hear it. I wish I could make the citation more specific, but I can't remember which of the four Hasbro representatives at their panel at BotCon 2007 told us that the first Real Gear Robots toys were not designed as a tie-in to the electronics Transformers sequences from the film, because they were conceived in line with the Cybertron franchise.

And apologize to Derik? That sounds risky to the Wiki as a whole. -Rotty 03:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually going to have to agree with Rotty on this one. Such an action would only encourage me.

And I realize this point has been lost on you up until this point Rotty- but most of the reason we're butting heads is not because I want the article on Allspark-from-Earth-machines-robots to be called Real Gear Robots- I don't, it awkward and confusing-- but it's also the only official term for this class of robot, coming from the linewide blurb which says 'these are the qualities and origins that a RGR has!' and all those qualities are shared by these 'Allspark power' robots. It's not an in-fiction term, which would be preferable, but it is literally the only offical term we have, and I'm tired of you forcing your "the definition given by the RGR linewide blurb should be ignored" fannon on the wiki. -Derik 04:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not blame this on Derik. As you can plainly see by looking through the talk page, he is far from the only person who advoctaed this, nor is he especially attached to it. The way to "make him stop" is to follow the policies of our wiki by discussing contentious issues and offering constructive solutions instead of asking for people to be banned. Re: Hasbo... are you saying they stated this during the panel? How could I have missed that? --Steve-o 04:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm hallucinating, but I'm 90% sure it was Eric (but it could have been Aaron or another rep) during the Q&A at Hasbro's Sunday panel. Did you skip out of the room before the last question? -Rotty 04:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I was there the whole time, taking careful notes. It is still possible that I missed something, but, I would be pretty surprised. Are you sure you didn't hear it somewhere else? --Steve-o 04:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If I did, it was definitely from Eric. He and Aaron Archer were the only two Hasbro guys I spoke with this year, and I didn't hear it from Archer in any non-public way. -Rotty 04:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Catching up

All the fun happened while I was waiting for the movie to come out, when Derik had read the novelization apparently for the sole purpose of getting to run roughshod over the wiki. So now the movie's out, I've seen it, we've all seen it, and I'd like to be able to comment without having it all buried in threads from weeks before the movie was out.

1. What justification do we have for calling all Allspark-animated-on-Earth robots Real Gear Robots? Is it not every bit as likely that the term applies only to a small group of robots being repackaged and resold as consumer goods, as is the case with the toyline? Are all Transformers not Allspark-animated? Would G1 Jetfire qualify as a Real Gear Robot? It just seems like a really bizarre distinction, and the use of the term seems like fanficking.

2. I have no problem with the notion that the Chevy Autobots were animated on Earth, but I think they're the example that makes the Real Gear term silly. "Gear", in this context, denotes personal equipment; "equipment consisting of miscellaneous articles needed for a particular operation or sport etc.", as per Princeton's WordNet. No human has ever used "gear" to refer to an automobile. Chip 02:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

1)The only justification for including them that I know of is this: "Uncover one of the most closely held secrets on Earth, known only to very few humans. The power of the Allspark has been unleashed, and machines all over the world have come alive. Unlock their secrets and join the battle!" The package quote from the RGR toys that says RGRs are robots brought alive by the Allspark on Earth... So, to put it in classic terms: All Real Gear Robots ARE brought to life from machines on Earth. But does it then follow that all robots brought to life on Earth are RGRs? Possibly, but no, not necissarily, from only that info...

2)I think the problem comes that there ISN'T any other official term for robots brought to life on Earth by the Allspark. The general feeling seems to be that they rate a page, but right now it's call them all RGR or have nothing *to* call them. It's a very tenative iffy connection butthe only one we got. I can go either way, but I WOULD like to see the other (non gear) TFs brought to life on Earth get some sort of page. Maybe they should be a Trivia note here, saying "they're not quite RGRs but something linked/simmilar" would cover it?

(While we're at it, where exactly *is* the line for Gear. A soda machine (Dewbot/Dispensor) is not "gear" by the definition you give either. So he should be off the page (or to the trivi note) too if we're handling it that way.) --ZacWilliam 03:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to the boxback blurbs for the RGR toyline, which tell you exactly what the term is supposed to mean, a paragraph so important that it was quoted, ferbatin, as the first thing int his article. RGR's are Transformers brought to life by the Allspark that used to be Earth machinery. Explicitly.

No one is happy about using the term to refer to both the toyline (a specific subset of robots created from Earth machinery) and the and the overall class (all robots created by the Allspark from Earth Machinery), but consensus decision was that it was better to use what appears (because of the quoted description) to be an official term for this type of robot rather than call them something generic like 'Allspark-animated Earth machinery' because doing so would essentially be saying- "Yeah, we have an official term, but we don't like it, therefore we are going to pretend it does not exist." As a partial compromise (and a reflection of how grudging the consensus to use the term RGR was) the RGR-toy and RGR-other were made sections of a single article in the fervent hope that some better term could come along (and we'll take anything, maybe even a nickname the production staff had for these things in a DVD interview) and they could be split off.

So, why are they in one article? Because we can't put them in their own article without either making something up or depreciating the one official term we do have for this type of robot.

...not that I really expect you care about that fine distinction. After all, your main argument against it is 'a car is too big to be gear.' Well so's a Vending Machine, but that demonstrably fits in the class or robots described by the RGR toyline blurb that was so important it was quoted as the first line of the article.

And the Novelization's version of the scene had a Best Buy, with lots of consumer electronics come to life (and this was probably the original scripted scene which they abandoned when Best Buy wasn't interested in sponsoring the movie and Mountain Dew was-- just like the bizarrely almost-absent credit card gag in Qatar. Guess American express wasn't interested in ponying up for an "I never leave home without it!" from Epps) Best Buy is 'gearier,' so I construe that you wouldn't object to the term if that had been the version we got in the movie? Which means you're arguing connotation should override the only official term we have. -Derik 03:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

We can call them "Allspark Power robots", because "Allspark Power" is an official Hasbro term given at BotCon 2007 for Movie franchise toys coming in 2008, which will be based around the theme of "Earth vehicles from the film become Transformers". It's going to have the V-22 Osprey (Incinerator (Movie)), the Sector 7 SUV (Stockade (Movie)), the Sector 7 buggy (Landmine (Movie)), etc.

Let's not forget that the tow truck from the film (Longarm (Movie)) would have had to be given life by the All Spark in Mission City, making this Deluxe truck a Real Gear Robot by the rules of Derik's ridiculous fanon. -Rotty 03:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I find that term acceptable. Go to it. (What? you removed 'em from this page, you get to complete Splitting the article. Stub it in.)

And no, Longarm from what we can see of the Game and other extended fiction is an unsparked Autobot Drone created away from Earth. I don't know where you were even getting that from.-Derik 03:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait- no- DAMN! Longarm is a sparked Autobot, and there are also Autobot and Decepticon drones of the same model! ...fuck, I fail at Wiki. -Derik 03:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to say don't "get to it" quite yet. Before making these changes we need to wait for other people to see the discussion and weigh in. Personally, I'm not sure why naming these robots after a DIFFERENT toyline segment that they don't really belong to is better than naming them after this one, but I'm open to the idea. Also, Rotty, it would have been nice if you'd just suggested this from the start instead of doing reverts and throwing a fit. --Steve-o 03:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I cited my revert. I'm sorry I can't remember if it was Aaron or Eric or one of the other two Hasbro reps who said it, but one of them said it and it explains why the RGRs don't fit the Movie aesthetic. Furthermore, we still need to revert this page because, as pointed out, Derik's definition of a Real Gear Robot makes Longarm the Deluxe truck an RGR, something demonstrably false. -Rotty 04:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Nnnno, it doesn't. Longarm would be a RGR if he was created when someone used the Allspark to bring life a pickup truck on Earth. He seems to come from Cybertron; all the Longarm-type drones arrive on Earth from space, Swindle and Dreadwing and whatisname, the armored truck... are all sparked Transformers from Cybertron who also have copycat-drones that arrived on Earth in protoform mode from Space. Longarm almost certainly came form Cybertron just like they did.

And you seem stuck on this 'so any drone created on Earth is a RGR' objection. Ignoring that the drones weren't created on Earth- drones aren't RGR's anyway because drones are unsparked. -Derik 04:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, what the toy designers had in mind when they started drawing the toys that eventually became RGRs has nothing at all to do with what the definition of a RGR is or what fictional constructs it applies to. It's nice to have that info in the article, but it doesn't say anything about the debate we're having. I'm not sure why you say that considering Longarm a RGR is "demonstrably false". Is it because he will have a toy that is not marketed under the RGR label? Couldn't one turn that around and argue that "Allspark Power robots" isn't a good term either because the toy RGRs have toys that aren't marketed under that label? Am I even understanding your suggestion at all? I thought you were saying that our working definition about Earth machines animated by the Allspark should be moved to "Allspark Power robots", but that would make RGRs a subset of APrs, wouldn't it? --Steve-o 04:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I thought Longarm was an Autobot from Cybertron, who just had a deco that homages the movie tow truck. I didn't think he was supposed to BE that truck. --KilMichaelMcC 04:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

He's a different type of truck, so I'd personally say that he's just disguised as part of the same fleet as the movie truck. Of course, the discrepancy in vehicle models is meaningless; it's not as if cartoon Tracks was a Corvette Stingray. Chip 04:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

All RGR's are Transformers brought to life by the Allspark that used to be Earth machinery, but it does not follow that all Transformers brought to life by the Allspark that used to be Earth machinery are RGRs. Come on, it's one of the basic logic questions on the SAT. Chip 04:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

We're all aware of that Chip. That's what all of the debate on this page has been about all along. The problem is that there isn't anything else to call them for now. --Steve-o 04:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of being outed as Satan's third cousin, I don't see anything in the RGR packaging blurb that suggests the possibility of anything other than "All Transformers brought to life by the Allspark that used to be Earth machinery are RGRs." Yes, it is basic logic, but I also feel that it is basic logic that, with no contradicting evidence and no fault caused by doing such, we can assume a = b until proven otherwise. I ALSO do not think we can *empirically* defend an opposing position for the purposes of this Wiki. --Sntint 04:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaand I had not noted the popular meaning of the word "Gear" here, which lessens my point a bit. I'm leaving the comment for the sake of the discussion. --Sntint 04:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, all of you need to stop typing while I'm typing.

I just wanted to make sure we all accepted that point, as Derik seemed to be ignoring it. I would like to note that I'm fully aware of having betrayed this sort of logic by for years calling all Seekers Skyraiders, when we only had evidence of the two G2 characters using that name. In my defense, Real Gear Robots just doesn't seem to WORK for all the characters it's being applied to. Also, consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Chip 04:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As Steve said in less words while I was typing, that's Very True. I don't think that's what anyone's arguing. But you're overlooking the second part of the issue, which is what's causing the actual problem.

• 1) Robots created from unliving Earth vehicles by the Allspark are a distinct group.
• 2) We want to give them a page.
• 3) The toy package blurb says esentially "Real Gear robots are Earth machines brought to life by the Allspark."

No one was saying it's a great fit, I think, just that it was the only official term we had that fits at all.

My feeling is that Allspark Power robots "might" be a better choice (I can't say it rolls off the tounge either). Honestly I would leave it all the one RGR page for now and change it if/when the AP subline confirms that designation. But eh, what do I know. --ZacWilliam 04:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess it feels to me that an artificial distinction is being created; aren't all movie Transformers created from unliving machines by the Allspark? Why not "Earth-created Transformers", or suchlike? We could even have subsections for characters from other continuities. Am I alone in this? (Yes, clearly)Chip 04:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I had assumed that the pre-existing TFs were machinery built specifically to be Transformers, but... that is fanon, plain and simple with what we've been shown. So I can't rebute you. --Sntint 04:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The difference comes with the perspective of the film. One group are preexisting, living aliens that come here from afar, the other are normal devices innanimate manufactured here on Earth that that are "magically" and instantly brought to life and totally "transformed" into living robotic humanoid beings by the Allspark's power.--ZacWilliam 04:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Earth-born Transformers

We currently have three official subgroup names applied to Movie continuity Earth-born Transformers.

• 1) Real Gear Robots, applied by Hasbro only to the 1:1 scale Transformers toys of 2007.
• 2) Chevy Autobots, applied by official corporate sponsor General Motors only to the seven mass-produced Autobot car types in their online game.
• 3) "Allspark Power", applied by Hasbro to the Movie franchise Transformers of on-screen Earth vehicles coming in 2008.

My position is simply that using "Real Gear Robots" as an overarching term for all three of these groups plus all Earth-born Transformers without official names is an arbitrary fanon, and as fanon beyond the scope of this encyclopedia. In addition to being arbitrary fanon, picking "Real Gear Robot" as the overarching term goes against Hasbro's internal use of that term and against established English usage of the word "gear". Does that sufficiently sum it up? -Rotty 04:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem with your argument that I think is causing the problem.

• 1) The Real Gear Packaging blurb does not specify that the term refers "only" (as you say) to the 1:1 scale (which they aren't, to totally digress) toys. It says simply that RGR are "machines brought to life by the Allspark on Earth."
• 2)Chevy Autobots fit the above descriptor.
• 3)This line isn't out yet and what fictive details it will contain in its final form we will have to wait and see.

So. What do we have? One Official Term that isn't a great fit (because of the word "gear") but IS OFFICIAL and has an OFFICIAL DEFINITION that covers the scope of all three. One subset. And one future possibility that's a null until it's realized. That sums up the arguments against I think.--ZacWilliam 04:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)