Talk:LEXX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
TV This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, which collaborates on television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] External Links

A third fansite is being repeatedly added to this page, in violation of WP:EL. As this is always being done from 207.112.n.n it can be presumed that it is one person. Please, whoever you are, stop it. BreathingMeat 01:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "LEXX" vs "Lexx"

Between this and the Lexx spaceship page there is no consitancy about using all caps to refer to the ship rather than the TV show. In fact, I don't think I've seen anyone use all caps anywhere else. Either the all caps should be used throughout the Wikipedia, or this page should be renamed 'Lexx (TV series)' and the LEXX page to 'Lexx (spaceship)'. Any thoughts about which would be better?

Merge the two articles. - --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LEXX vs Lexx

The title of the series should be "LEXX", but when refering to the ship, I don't think the entire word is capitalized. It's not an acronym, and it is a name, so the ship being called "Lexx" seems appropriate than calling it "LEXX" --DiSSo 29 June 2005 19:10 (UTC)


I quite agree. I was the original designer of the LEXX logo back in the winter of 1996. We had intended to call the show The Dark Zone and all the pre-production design work in the fall of ’95 was so labelled. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortuitously) we couldn’t get clearance to use that name, and so the show’s iconoclastic creator Paul Donovan decided to call it “LEXX” —after his buddy and co-writer, Lex Gigeroff. Though not an acronym, the logo has always been rendered in caps. In the scripts, Lexx was used when characters were directly addressing the ship, and the Lexx used when referring to it in the third person. (At no point did we ever explain where the name came from.)

Personally, I think the two articles should be combined, "LEXX" should always be used when referring to the show, and the ship referred to as "the Lexx". --OldCommentator 16:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


I have put the merge template on this article and LEXX. (I don't have time to do the merge myself, at the moment.) After the merge, the articles can be correctly renamed. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:07, August 13, 2005 (UTC)


Asside from the name issue, shouldn't the Lexx ship be distinct from the entirety of the Lexx series. I vote that the name of the article be changed but that the two remain seperate. However if I am the only one whom feels this way I differ the the speaker whom has actually worked on the show. MaximusNukeage 04:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I've name the renamings now. We now have The Lexx (the ship) and LEXX (the show). I also copied the old talk page text here. I didn't do the merge. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:50, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed — LEXX should refer to the show; Lexx should refer to the ship, or the Lexx, alternatively. I think the Lexx (both italicised) is superfluous, as in the Enterprise.

As well, the two concepts should remain united in one article until there's reason or cause (e.g., enough material) to justify a new article. E Pluribus Anthony 05:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LEXX Vice

Eva Habermann as Zev, and Xenia Seeberg as Xev made the television show Lexx watchable. The scene with Xev working a hand pump for food was amazing and showed some of the interesting points of the show. One theme was titillation with a subtle sexual theme. The nude scenes of Xev helped as well.

[edit] LEXX Movie/movie Episode/episode

As far as this goes, I believe the second word should be capitalized. I know you must have read the Lowercase second and subsequent wordsarticle, but that is only in general aspect. More specifically, the lowercase second words for a TV show and movie can be found at 4.2 of that article, or simply click here. The lowercase word for a TV show follows that article, which in fact has been rejected by the community. To conclude, I must state that the words movie and episode should be capitalized.

DivineShadow218

the MoS states "Convention: Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name)". The word "episode" is not part of the name of the episode hence is not a proper noun. For another thing, there is precedence (yes, I did double-check); try doing a search for "(TNG episode)" and see how many articles come up. Shiroi Hane 21:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The words "movie" and "episode" should not be capitalized, as per the usual Wikipedia standards. Actually, the standard is to use the word "film" rather than "movie" within disambiguation parentheses. Please don't revert war over this, it's a settled Wikipedia practice: there are many existing examples of articles like "Nnn (Yyy episode)" and "Nnn (film)" or "Nnn (2003 film)". Also please don't move pages to nonsensical titles like "Bobfee", that's vandalism. -- Curps 22:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

On IMDB, the four first-season installments are considered episodes rather than movies: [1]; there's no separate listing for them as movies. But that's a minor detail, I guess. -- Curps 22:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

They were made-for-tv 'movies', of a longer length than the episodes in the following three series; I left them as "movie" since there didn't seem to be a need to change it but I don't mind either way. Shiroi Hane 22:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Consistent with the Manual of Style and other genres in Wp, e.g., Star Trek articles, the words "movie" and "episode" in article titles should not be capitalised. Thus:
For consistency, Season 1 movies have been rendered/moved to "episode" (with redirect), but I acknowledge that they have also been billed as movies. I guess they are 'episodic movies'. :) Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Both Curps and I already referenced the MOS and I also brought up the precedence with Star Trek, so I thought the capitalization issue was already done and dusted. As I said before I don't really mind what they're referred to, although I do have a personal preference for movie as they have always been referred to as such. Shiroi Hane 18:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess I was chiming in late, but better that than never to further reinforce consensus. As for movie/ep titles for season 1, I'm fairly ambivalent as well but even the images of the DVD covers use both terms, so what's good for the goose may not be good for the gander. :)
Anyhow, efforts are underway (below) to improve the lists and ep articles. Given that and the recent (failed) nomination of the LEXX ep list for deletion, these articles require enhanced attention. Feel free to participate. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character Summaries

I am wondering if there is any one that can create more character summaries for this show? We basically need summaries from all Movies/Episodes. I can supply the pictures but since I am trying to get all the summaries for the episodes down. It would help if someone could do the character summaries. --DivineShadow218 02:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I intend to do more character summaries (I rewrote the Bunny & Priest pages a while ago) - LeonWhite 05:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Episodes with main body (NOT)

There seems to be a merge template, attempting to merge the episode descriptions back onto the main page. After looking at the Star Trek TNG episode guide, I can see that no expense has been spared in that department. Episode description is a whole page of text - blow by blow. By comparison, Lexx deserves at least a paragraph and a photo per episode. I too can supply photos for each episode, but am worried about the copyright implications. Bipedia 15:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting the descriptions should be merged back into this page. I'm suggesting they should all be merged in to List of LEXX episodes. This has been done for many other shows on wikipedia, including List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes, List of South Park episodes among others. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Having a separate article page for the LEXX episodes (or each season?), and ultimately for each episode, isn't a bad idea. However, most of these articles have yet to be created (which would make summarising them easier), so having the eps listed on the main page seems fine for now. As a contributor to the TNG pages, note that most of those articles have been created or are in various states of development ... but even less so for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager, and Star Trek: Enterprise. And managing them is daunting.
How about this: create a single article/page for all LEXX episodes, build on it and then fork into separate articles when details warrant? All the while, retain the list in the current parent article. As for pix, as long as there's just one per episode (fair use), we should be fine. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I just discovered that there was an article/list of the episodes named List of Lexx episodes (note lower case); I have since moved this to List of LEXX episodes, nixing the redundant list (but retaining the dialectic) from this article, and tweaked both. Have at it! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
You didn't nix it very well. :) You've deleted the overview for series 1 and 2, and deleted my more expansive description of Series 3. I say keep one article for each episode, and that will enable a pic for each ep. You can't have 30 pics on one page. That would be dubious copyright (right?) and strain people's bandwidth. I'm glad you didnt delete my pithy episode descriptions Bipedia 15:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
In the current article, I've moved relevant (not all) details up into the single sxn; in the other article, I've retained and consolidated details. There's really no reason to recapitulate everything in both articles. Pay closer attention.  :)
As for other ways of moving forward, I tend to agree ... but articles need to be created for each of the eps first. For examples, take a look at one of the many lists for Star Trek episodes ... where a plethora of pix appear. Perhaps we should even develop an infobox/template for important data points? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

(cont...) Yes, I know, Star Trek Episodes are very well catalogued, but I'm not sure how seriously to take Lexx, since far fewer people have seen it, and it may not form the backbone of humanist consciousness, yet. It depends upon whether we think Wikipedia is destined to be the sole repository of human knowledge after the future apocalyse. I mean, already we're thinking "what a pity that Socrates put nothing on paper". Could future generations depend on us for accurate philosophical information about Lexx? Or will they just go to Sadgeezer? Bipedia 13:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, these are questions you have to come to grips with. I generally believe that Wp will endure, but nothing is certain and various administrative/community dynamics may yield a different result eventually. And I'm unfamiliar with Sadgeezer.
Anyhow, I cannot lead such a Wp project regarding LEXX episodes, but I'd love to see one place and will assist. I can also craft the infobox template, etc. Given that it's a multinational production that ran over four seasons, I think it should be taken more seriously than various other series. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks like the hounds are at the door. I think the main thing being objected to is the emptyness of the list, and that is a problem. What I think I will have to do is start detailing the episodes on the list page, and put a few small screencaps in there. Individual links to episodes may be politically difficult to keep. I'm not prepared to do much work on something that will be deleted. Howvever, I'm spending more time on politics than writing. Bipedia 13:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The hound(s) need to chew on a new bone. 'Emptyness' is a condition that prevails in Wikipedia – that is, there's always room for improvement. I don't think individual ep articles will be problematic if they are given due attention. In any event, thanks for your attention to this and willingness to help enhance these articles. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
For the time being, I have moved the page to my own install of MediaWiki, and am hacking the ep guide there. I have ripped off the format for the Buffy episode entries, which seems to look fine. It allows for a lot of future expansion. Bipedia 02:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Almost done Series 3 pics and descriptions. Hard work. Bipedia 14:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Business Arising

There are two pages for Mantrid, Mantrid (LEXX episode) The jpg is absurdly large. I also feel like changing the jpg for His Divine Shadow, as I have a much better colour one. Bipedia 13:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Great work on the season 3 list; I'll peruse and copyedit shortly. As for Mantrid: it appears one article deals with the character (which appeared in more then one episode), while the other with just the episode; thus, it makes sense to tweak and retain both (e.g., "Ensign Ro", Ro Laren). However, while not preferred, I wouldn't lose too much sleep if they were merged.
As for pix, go ahead! :) I'm also working on a LEXX episode infobox/template, in the style of the Star Trek ep infobox. Anyhow, thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Almost finished series 4. I thought picture selection would be easier, but it's even more difficult. It's tempting to display the series in terms of the minor cast members, but if you do that you end up with none of the core characters. I've found I have no good pictures of Priest.Bipedia 02:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Finished series 4. Have to do character list now.Bipedia 15:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

DivineShadow218 has appeared to me, and he's done something in the last 2 months, but still hasn't said what. I'm hoping it's season 2. Bipedia 06:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note to future describers of Lexx episodes

Wikipedia strives to inform the reader of greater context, so, where possible, heady allegory/metaphor in Lexx should be noted. (I know this will be difficult in some episodes.) I'm already impressed by the inclusion of the word metonymy. I intend to use the word synecdoche at some point. Bipedia 13:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

He he; I added the note about metonymy ... it was glaringly obvious that Ottawa was nixed by the Lexx due to variable funding of the Canadian Television Fund by the Canadian government (which supported the production of LEXX during its run) and regional disdain for it. ;) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Power Behind the Weapon

The Power Behind the Weapon section has an "original research" tag on it, and I think we should take action regarding it. I have not yet watched all of the Lexx epiodes, but the info in the article seems to be derived indirectly from a combination of broadcast material and college physics, which really does make it original research. If I am wrong, and the physics of Lexx's weapon are explained sometime in the series as described in the article, then could someone please put a reference to the relevant episode(s) in the article? If not, the section should be deleted. BreathingMeat 02:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The way the weapon works is never explained in any episode. - LeonWhite 02:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
While Paul has (iirc) a physics degree, none of the Lexx science is ever explained, it just 'is', e.g. the Lexx's drive is described as a particle accelerator, but it is never explained how this enables then to travel interstellar distances in short spaces of time. I would say 'nuke it' if it wasn't for the fact that it doesn't appear to be there anymore anyway. Shiroi Hane 02:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph on propulsion, which is never described in any detail in the series. The speed of light is also not mentioned at all. In season 2, they could see things happening across the universe in real time, which seems to suggest the speed of light is infinite (or much faster than you'd expect). - LeonWhite 23:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Good work. BreathingMeat 00:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I also concur with the debate over the validity of the speed of light, and the Lexx's mode of propulsion. Perhaps in the Light Universe [which is an alternate reality] has a different set of principles and physical rules that allow for an infinite cosmic "speed limit". This would mean that in the Dark Universe, the effectiveness of Lexx's particle accelerator would be far less. -- Dark Observer 23:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Showcase Broadcasting

I thought I might also let you all know that Showcase is no longer broadcasting Lexx episodes. They stopped [about] two months ago. -- Dark Observer 23:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Combine Minor Character into one article

I think minor characters such as Giggerota, Squish, Fifi, etc, should be combined into one article since they don't really have an indepth background that main characters such as Stan and Crew do.

[edit] Biocode

I've just added that the Key is likely to have the technical name of a 'biocode'. In the first film, Thodin mentions that with the help of 'biocode specialists from the Cluster', he was able to gain a Key to the Lexx. To me, this strongly implies that the Key is itself a biocode (the name of which also appears to fit, given the key's living nature). Beyond Thodin's line, however, this is unsubstantiated.

[edit] Canada First

LEXX was shown in Canada on Space more than a year before the same episodes appeared on Sci-Fi. The original channel was Space: the Imagination Station, not Sci-Fi. (Editors should check facts before assuming shows produced outside the US were shown first in the US.) Avt tor 22:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LEXX (IBM)

What about the live parsing editor from IBM that was used during the conversion of the oxford english dictionary to sgml? LEXX I think was the original name and then came LPEX or something like that. Eh I don't know anything about it really, that's why I found this unrelated page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.251.150.26 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/e/x/Talk%7ELEXX_489c.html"