"(neither the team, nor any of its members ever appeared in the US stories)" - Sandstorm and Broadside did appear for about one panel each in #36 and #41 respectively, and Sandstorm even got to talk to Blaster. It's true that they probably *shouldn't* have been there... --Tribimat 09:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Come to that, Springer, Inferno and Broadside all turned up in Generation 2. --Ratbat 03:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is Highbrow seen with the Wreckers on Varas Centralus? --KilMichaelMcC 13:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, took another look at the panel (bottom of their first page) and it's probably just Whirl. Granted it looks A LOT more like Highbrow's copter-design than it does Whirl's but I forgot to take into account Don's redesign, and since we don't see HB at any point later I think it's pretty clear Don just Highbrowed-up Whirl. I'll fix.
Yeah, that's Whirl. The colorist Josh umm... Josh something, aka God Fire Convoy, already confirmed that in an Allspark post. --KilMichaelMcC 15:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Inferno as a Wrecker?

Should Inferno not be counted as a Wrecker? After all, he wandered around with Sandstorm and Broadside in Firebug and CC&J, and was there for their last battle.

By the time Inferno showed up with the remaining Wreckers, they called themselves the Survivors. He's not a Wrecker. It's a common mistake, though. The cover of Wreckers #1 actually included Inferno at the top until it was pointed out and he was replaced by Broadside. --ItsWalky 15:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Strange, cause he joined up with them for the attack on Galvatron, though, which was before they became the Survivors. Much more 'screen' time with them than Whirl got. Oh well. --Cradok 16:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Per the intro text to "Survivors (Part 3)", he's a Wrecker. Chip 01:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
And his bio in the 1990 Annual says in so many words that he is (or was) a Wrecker. I think it's a 'yes'. --Ratbat 12:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Inferno's comment to Broadside in UK #188 makes it clear that he is not a Wrecker. Page 2 panel 4: "I guess Xaaron wants to make sure there's no repeat of the Galvatron fiasco from the last time you Wreckers came to Earth." (my emphasis) If he only intended to refer to Sandstorm and Broadside, he would have said something like "you two". He may have fought alongside them in the Time Wars, but he wasn't on the official team (though the distinction may have been blurred in retrospect). Not that many of the Wreckers or Mayhems distinguished themselves, but Inferno did particularly badly, getting stomped on by Megatron in issue 202 and slowing the others down. I've changed the wording slightly to reflect his 'associate status'. Tribimat 11:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


Shouldn't this be moved to "Wrecker"? - Jackpot 20:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Naw, the plural is part of the team name. You wouldn't put "X-Men" at "X-Man," or "Avengers" at "Avenger," wouldja? - Chris McFeely 21:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how that's any different than Autobot and Decepticon. (Though, now that you mention it, we do use the plural for Avengers, apparently.) Skimming this and its subcategories, I can only find three other groups that are given a plural. I don't understand what sets those apart. Well, I suppose I could count Thirteen original Transformers in there too, but that actually DOES make sense, since singularizing it would require ridiculous grammatical backflips. - Jackpot 21:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm finding it difficult to verbalize the difference, but the best real-world comparison I can come up with is that "Autobot" and "Decepticon" is like "Human," (which you wouldn't put at "humans") while "Wreckers" is liiiike.... hnn... uh... erm... "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals." You wouldn't put that at "Person for the Ethical Treatment of Animals." Does... does that make sense? - Chris McFeely 22:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, no. I like the example, though! I think PETA is similar to "Thirteen original Transformers" - the singularization is just too awkward and unconnected to actual usage. But this wiki's policy is, as far as I can tell, to default to the singular except in extreme circumstances. "Wrecker" is grammatically identical to "Autobot" or "Aerialbot" or a million other faction/subgroup labels. Collectively, it's a plural, but a single member is a "Wrecker." And if you think we should keep the plural because the article is about the whole, not any single one, well, look at ANY of the other group-articles, and virtually none of them start out saying, "An Aerialbot is..." or "A Constructicon is..." They're ALL about collectives, but we label them as singulars because... well, that's apparently just how we do things. It threw me off when I first started editing, but it's the rule nonetheless. I actually wouldn't mind revisiting it, honestly, but I suspect it's too entrenched to ever undo. - Jackpot 22:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.