Talk:Wreckers

"(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 states in Firebug that Xaaron wants no repeat of the Galvatron fiasco "from the last time YOU Wreckers came to earth". He is still part of the surveillance unit at the start of Time Wars with no indication this gives him Wrecker status. After Time Wars he becomes a survivor. The text in Survivors part 3 is ambiguous and could be taken different ways and a bio in the 1991 annual, considering it has no back up in fiction, could be considered a micro-continuity. Considering this section covers the UK Comics I don't see how Inferno can be included on the list.Mister Jazz 12:23, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

I guess we should remove Scoop from the IDW line-up then, as he's never explicitly called a Wrecker either. He's just there with them. --Nu-Priest 12:28, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

I would agree with that! If we list everyone who works with them or fights with them we could include Xaaron and Ultra Magnus on the G1 list and that would be clearly wrong! Mister Jazz 12:42, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

I don't necessarily agree, but I'm just pointing out that this becomes a slippery slope. --Nu-Priest 12:53, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

I know but then it would clear up some of the questions regarding Scoop... I suppose the difference is there is nothing in the fiction itself to say Scoop isn't a wrecker so it could be assumed he is whereas Inferno's lines in Firebug make it obvious that he is not. Mister Jazz 13:00, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

If Scoop were just hanging around with the Wreckers on Varas Centralus only so he can help them dig stuff for that specific mission, and isn't part of the group proper, I wouldn't think that when Optimus called them out of action there so they could defend Cybertron, Scoop would still come with them. At that point, if he's not a Wrecker, he's disobeying orders. Bluestreak didn't come with the rest of his Infiltration team to Cybertron, for example, so Scoop can't be one of his. --ItsWalky 13:12, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

I agree it is sensible to assume Scoop is a Wrecker and sometimes we have to rely on reasonalbe assumptions. I just think that we have it from Inferno's shiny metal lips that he is not a Wrecker and he should know! Mister Jazz 13:24, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

Plural?

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)

Deceased

We have a listing for the Wreckers killed in the IDW continuity, but not the others. Do we want to add "(deceased)" to the other continuities or remove the IDW ones to make a more consistant look? --Bluestreak7 10:54, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

Separate articles

It seems like a better way of presenting the information would be splitting out the different continuity families, like how we're not trying to shoehorn all of the Constructicon groups into one article. —Interrobang 17:45, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

I suppose what I'm trying to say is: Why aren't we splitting this up like we do to every other subgroup? —Interrobang 17:47, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

We don't split up every other subgroup. Check out Elite Guard, Autobot Mini-Cassette, Decepticon Mini-Cassette, Spychanger.... It doesn't help this page to split it up, and, frankly, I think I'd rather see the Constructicon articles (for example) consolidated. So many of them are, well, tiny and identical. --ItsWalky 18:04, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

That's mostly an artifact from the earliest days of the wiki - we didn't really know what we were doing and so we made a billion different Constructicon articles. -hx 19:22, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

I think having to prune the intro down to a one-size-fits-all paragraph would be detrimental and the resulting article would be too big and unfocused. It's like trying to combine the Optimus Primes under one article, with just "heroic Autobot leader, etc." as the intro. —Interrobang 20:23, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

Prime Wreckers

Is it necessary to give them there own articles?

Yes. —Interrobang 11:24, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

Leaders

So apparently there are two former leaders of the Wreckers other than Impactor. But both the Wreckers and Impactor articles state that Impactor was the first leader, and Springer was the leader after Impactor was imprisoned. So, uh. --ItsWalky 01:06, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

I rewrote it a bit to try and make it clearer --Emvee 05:15, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

This is just speculation of course, but perhaps Impactor WAS the founder and original member, but Crest and Hyperion were brought in by outside sources (like Prowl) to "course-correct" them. Impactor let them take the lead, knowing they'd wash out fast and he'd be in charge again. Well, it's an easy retcon-in-waiting, in whatever case! --Nu-Priest 10:01, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

It seems more that people on the wiki just got a little sloppy and didn't account for the fact that in IDW there have been a lot more ill-fated Wreckers lineups than most continuities. We didn't really know about Hyperion and Crest until the bonus material for Last Stand of the Wreckers started coming out.--Rosicrucian^Talk 10:06, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

Yeah I dug out LStoW #2 and there's no mention of him being the first leader at all. Most likely he signed up, served under Hyperion as seen here and went on to become leader afterwards. --Emvee 10:12, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

Heh, y'know what, you're right. For some reason I could have sworn that Impactor was mentioned as the "founding member" of the Wreckers in either Bullets, Out of Bullets, or Zero Point, but I can't seem to find it. So I was probably thinking of the articles. --Nu-Priest 12:09, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

Hammer?

Does anyone else notice that the nose and forehead of the wrecker insignia take the shape of a hammer?

Also, did anyone notice that the insignia is blue? --ItsWalky 01:14, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

Should Smashdown get a mention?

We don't know much about them, but one of the few definite facts we do have is that they're a Wrecker in at least one continuity. --Wheelbug (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2020 (EDT)

Wreck 'n Doom Collection

I know the Wreck 'n Rule collection was included because it focused primarily on the team, but could a mini section for the Wreck 'n Doom Collection also be included? It's basically a sequel to the Wreck 'n Rule Collection. --TFEarthConquest (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2025 (PST)

I'd say it should be. --Arren Meuchel (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2025 (EDT)