• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Does anyone know why Reed doesn’t have his own Wikipedia entry?

Sumire

Sumire

Commander
Red Shirt
I know next to nothing about the inner workings of Wikipedia but it seems odd that Malcom is the sole main cast member to be relegated to the “List of recurring characters in Star Trek: Enterprise” page. Travis and Hoshi, whose pages both cite how (criminally) underutilized the characters were, have Wikipedia pages for their character.

Anyone know why this is? Was there some massive firestorm about Malcom Reed’s character I missed due to popping into fandom 20 years late? Was an influential editor never able to get Dominic Keating’s signature on their cast picture and vowed Malcom Reed wouldn’t get his own page until they did?
 
If I’m parsing the argument correctly, it looks like there weren’t enough sources mentioning the character beyond passing references? Interesting. So, if journalists and scholars find the lack of character exploration notable enough, it will net you a Wikipedia page. Meaning a fictional character has to be either notable enough to get written about or not notable enough for the lack of notice to get written about and Malcom Reed landed right smack dab between the two.
 
I'm not sure people writing about a lack of character exploration would inversely be enough for a character to get a Wikipedia page (what would they say other than that Reed didn't get a lot of character exploration?), and there's always Memory Alpha in any case, but otherwise, yes, it looks like the issue with an article about Reed is simply that not much has been written about him.

Though, given how old the series is at this point, if there aren't already sufficient sources, I doubt there will be in the future unless ENT undergoes some significant reconsideration by the general public, which doesn't strike me as being very likely.
 
I am honestly surprised to learn that any of the characters from Star Trek: Enterprise were considered important enough to warrant their own Wikipedia entries. None of these characters are exactly on the level of Mister Spock or Captain Picard or Seven of Nine in terms of pop culture impact.
 
DonIago said:
Not sure what this has to do with the rest of the thread?
Click to expand...


Report it to a mod then :rolleyes:

It's because they were talking about how no Ent characters had a big effect on the franchise, an instant sign that it's not as strong an entry, the same can be said of any new series except SNW that has PIke, but he isn't even a new character.
 
Not sure why you apparently got riled up about my simply asking for clarification regarding a post that seemed more interested in trashing ENT and later series than in discussing the actual thread topic, but given your reaction I'm no longer interested either.
 
Sumire said:
I know next to nothing about the inner workings of Wikipedia but it seems odd that Malcom is the sole main cast member to be relegated to the “List of recurring characters in Star Trek: Enterprise” page. Travis and Hoshi, whose pages both cite how (criminally) underutilized the characters were, have Wikipedia pages for their character.

Anyone know why this is? Was there some massive firestorm about Malcom Reed’s character I missed due to popping into fandom 20 years late? Was an influential editor never able to get Dominic Keating’s signature on their cast picture and vowed Malcom Reed wouldn’t get his own page until they did?
Click to expand...

He wasn’t one of the big three (Archer, T’Pol, Trip). He wasn’t a new alien species (Phlox). He was not criminally underused (Travis, Hoshi). He's nether a major fan favorite or a polarizing character.

But reducing him to a recurring character as Wiki has is incorrect, as he was a part of the main cast and had his share of episodes focused on him. I think its just elitists on Wiki that aren't fond of the character.

Sci said:
I am honestly surprised to learn that any of the characters from Star Trek: Enterprise were considered important enough to warrant their own Wikipedia entries. None of these characters are exactly on the level of Mister Spock or Captain Picard or Seven of Nine in terms of pop culture impact.
Click to expand...

I don’t get this post. Why would you be surprised?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Like all encyclopedias, its going to have information on all sorts of topics. Not just pop culture figures, and limit focus to only the popular topics.

And if ENT had any pop culture relevance, it would be because they were the final series at the end of Trek’s 17 year run on tv. There is intellectual value studying the events as to why Trek’s run ended then. And ENT and its characters would be a part of that discussion, fairly or unfairly.

Even haters of ENT would realize your position is straight nonsense.
 
Last edited:
^I'm not saying I disagree entirely, but just because ENT as a series may or may not have pop culture relevance doesn't necessarily mean that all of the main characters have pop culture relevance, in the sense of meriting their own articles.

Or, as they'd put it on Wikipedia, "notability is not inherited".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sci
You know, if it weren't for that awful opening theme.

Plus, I have to say, Scott Bakula was just not right. The only other Captain to have been more wrong was Michael Burnham.

Think about it:

Pike
Kirk
Picard
Sisko
Janeway
...Archer ‍
Burnham

Thank goodness for PIC S3, Strange New Worlds, etc...
 
FederationHistorian said:
I don’t get this post. Why would you be surprised?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Like all encyclopedias, its going to have information on all sorts of topics. Not just pop culture figures, and limit focus to only the popular topics.

And if ENT had any pop culture relevance, it would be because they were the final series at the end of Trek’s 17 year run on tv. There is intellectual value studying the events as to why Trek’s run ended then. And ENT and its characters would be a part of that discussion, fairly or unfairly.

Even haters of ENT would realize your position is straight nonsense.
Click to expand...

It's not about hating Star Trek: Enterprise. It's about the simple fact that Wikipedia still has standards of notability before they'll generally make an article about something. There is, so far as I know, no article about the character of, for instance, U.S. Navy Commander Francis "Frank" Bartholomew Parker, the main character of the 1998-2001 UPN television series Seven Days. Nor is there an article about Amy Abbott, Emily VanCamp's character on all four seasons of the 2002-2006 WB television series Everwood. Both of those series strike me as roughly equivalent in popularity, longevity, and pop culture impact as Star Trek: Enterprise, and there are plenty of other comparable shows from the same era whose characters don't have Wikipedia articles. So, yes, giving Wikipedia articles to characters that just aren't very notable in the broader context of pop culture does surprise me.
 
I do like Bakula. Except Enterprise was all wrong. T'Pol was obviously a 7/9 substitute. They actually had a good story going: "what was earth like b4 the vulcans?

Well... According to EWR, earth was shit. Not that I disagree with him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top