Talk:Jughead

What Happened?

Why did all the info of this episode dissapear?--Agacsakal 12:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There was this flash of light then ... </joke>

Nothing really disappears in a wiki unless it is deleted by an admin. You can see this in History. The info was restored shortly after the "disappearance".

Note: signing your entries with four tildes -"~~~~" puts your sig/username and includes a time stamp for the entry. Makes it easier all around. WCFrancis 13:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Sailboat

The Searcher does not appear to be the same boat Desmond went to Britain with (the Searcher has no mast!). I think this sailboat deserves its own page. elliottthomas|talk|contributions 05:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• • May not be the same boat, but The Searcher was the name on the side of the boat in which Penny rescued the castaways at the end of Season 4.

--Lanpesci 10:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • But it was not seen on the side of Desmond and Penny's new boat. elliottthomas|talk|contributions 12:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • Absolutely right! The Searcher and the sailboat are completely different. (Airedale 20:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

It's also a much nicer yacht than the Elizabeth, the sailboat Libby gave Desmond. Desmond got an upgrade. Robert K S (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Eloise Hawking

• Ever since Jughead aired we have been referring to her as Eloise... did I miss something? Where did we hear Eloise???

It was in the Enhanced airing of "The Lie" and also in the press release for "This Place Is Death".  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  06:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess that makes it obvious what Daniel's connection is to her...--Baker1000 11:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Puts a whole new spin on "I know about Eloise" too, doesn't it? And here we assumed he was talking about the rat... --Litany42 20:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Ellie another name for Eloise? Could this young Ellie also become the old Eloise? If so, this makes the connection to Widmore way more bizarre. --Scottyus 09:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. I really think that Eloise could be Ellie. Would be the right age and understanding of the island and all it's secrets!--Dacka 12:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)dacka1973

She also appeared to Desmond when he was trying to buy the engagement ring for Penny. She took him on that stroll where she predicted the demise of the man with the red shoes.

She seemed certain of the number when she tells Ben exactly how many hours he has left to get everyone back to the island- she is obviously connected to the island and what is currently going on there.Elizcaddy 22:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

after watching the episode again, Daniel mentions to Ellie that she looks like someone when she is walking him out to jughead, only to then stop the conversation midstream. If Ellie is Eloise, then could he be recognising his own mother? OMG!?--Dacka 00:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Locke's birth

I swear he said 1957, not 56, but someone feel free to correct me. --Xbenlinusx 06:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"May 30th, 1956" shrodes 12:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Latin Pronunciation

Just a detail I noticed: the characters speaking Latin are using the ancient Roman pronunciation, not the more commonly heard -- in media, at least -- ecclesiastical Latin. Dingbatty 07:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this observation. It's very interesting indeed. I wonder what is the reason why they use the ancient variant instead of the classical one - the one that is used by medical students and scientists, for instance. By the way, I guess Juliet must have studied Latin in her med school as well. --Mephiztofel 13:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The ancient variation is the Classical one. Also, I have doubts about Juliet's (or her actress's) actual familiarity with the tongue: I thought, though I have to confirm this, that she pronounced some of her "v"s as "v"s (as in Ecclesiastical) and others as "w"s (as in Classical). Also, when she said "Si placet", she placed the accent on the ultima (last syllable) of "placet" instead of the penult (second to last); it should be on the penult, according to the consensus of Classicists. Also, I'm wondering why the page insists that this is Vulgar Latin. Tsunomaru 21:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Great observation! However as point of fact, we can't know what the "true" Roman pronunciation was since it is a dead language and we obviously have no recordings. But if what you say is true about using different pronunciation (I don't know Latin, so it's all Greek to me...), that is an interesting fact.

Also, I have a feeling that Locke knows Latin too. They used to teach Latin in schools as part of your core courses way back when -- Locke might be just old enough to have some Latin under his belt. --Litany42 16:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Locke knows Latin, since he asked Juliet whether she had just said Richard Alpert. If he knew Latin, he wouldn't have asked her that. Ryanimel 21:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that could be a red herring -- Locke could be trying to deceive Juliet into thinking he doesn't know it, so that she continues to speak freely in Latin around him. Gohlkus 21:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Anybody with a grasp of Latin should examine and correct my very poor transcriptions at Jughead transcript. Unfortunately the Latin dialogue appeared in the closed caption stream as "(speaking latin)". Robert K S (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the Latin on the transcript page to the best of my ability (as a Latin teacher). Often when movies/tv/etc. try to put together Latin, it ends up being pretty bad; this Latin was clearly written by someone who knew what they were doing. Most of what they're saying is pretty straightforward, and the actors' pronunciation is pretty good--mostly classical rather than ecclesiastical, with a few exceptions. Here are my transcriptions, with a few comments:

CUNNINGHAM: Quare non sunt vestitus eis? ("Why do they not have clothes?")

This is my best guess for the first bit of Latin. I've listened to it several times and I can't quite come up with anything that accounts for every syllable the actor says. Maybe he's missaying what's in the script? My other guess would be Quare non sunt vestiti ut ei? ("Why aren't they dressed like them?"). If anyone has a better suggestion, I'd love to hear it.

I don't know about yours, but my subtitles gave that line, and I took the liberty of writing in the change above. Tsunomaru 21:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

JONES: Tace! ("Shut up!")

JULIET: Cognoscitis qui sumus? ("Do you two know who we are?")

This is definitely what she is saying, but it contains one of the two mistakes I found in the (otherwise excellent) Latin. I would have written Cognoscitis qui simus, although, if this is supposed to be Vulgar Latin, sumus might be all right (the difference is between an indicative and subjunctive verb in an indirect question, if anyone cares).

JULIET: Nos non sumus hostes vobis. ("We are not your enemies")

CUNNINGHAM: Itaque nos liberate. ("So free us.")

JULIET: Duce nos ad vestra castra. ("Take us to your camp.")

This is the other mistake (which Juliet makes twice). I would have written Duc rather than Duce. (Ducere is one of four irregular verbs that drops the vowel from the end of the imperative.)

JULIET: Si placet. ("Please.")

Latin has no one way to say 'please', but this (literally: "if it pleases (you)") is as good as any other.

CUNNINGHAM: Quare hoc faciam? ("Why would I do this?")

JULIET: Estne... Ricardus ibi? ("Is...Richard there?")

JULIET: Duce nos ad vestra castra. Non necesse est alium mori. Si placet. ("Take us to your camp. It is not necessary for anyone else to die. Please.")

Cmr80 17:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What happens to the bomb

I think this is pretty obvious. We are in 1954...10 Years later dharma stumbles in and the start to build their hatches. They put the bomb in desmond's one, requiering him to push a button for every 108 min. Not because they couldn't automise it, but just because they wanted to turn it into a sick experiment, what dharma is all about.

When they stop pushing the button, no more lead is applied to the leakage and they need to switch the failsafekey, thus exploding the hatch. --TiZon 12:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha good joke guys, funny Integrated (User / Talk)

Could the radiation from the bomb play a part in "other" women not being able to give birth to children?--Zaggs 14:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd question that being the case. I could see it causing infertility, but why would the mothers die in childbirth, and always near the end of the term? I think it's something more than that. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In reading over the wikipedia entries for that perticular type of bomb it says "... it was the only deployed thermonuclear bomb which used a cryogenic liquid deuterium fusion fuel ..." so I'm wondering if that means that it requires extreme cold to keep from detonating. And we have seen the extreme cold in the area of the negative energy area of the Orchid station. Iczer 16:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Although it is a fact that an atomic bomb would not explode even if the hull leaks , it maybe does not have to be an error that Richard does not know this. I believe in 1954 only a handfull of people were capable of understanding how such a bomb works. And since Daniel is already playing along with them, he may uses this lack of knowledge as a chance to keeping himself and his friends alive.

Clearly Daniel thought the bomb was dangerous in some way. But it looks like the portrayal of the bomb wasn't entirely realistic - see [1]--Jackdavinci 07:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Desmond forgetting year?

• How come Desmond forgot it was 1996 when he visited Faraday? He said so in "The Constant" at least once that it was 1996 so he should've known, but when the person at Oxford asked him when he visited he said he didn't know .. weird Integrated (User / Talk) 13:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Did he forget or did he choose not to reveal that information? WCFrancis 13:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • I thought it was more likely he purposefully didn't mention it as by the time of the question he felt he was getting run around. It doesn't seem like he spent a major part of his life in the Army so it would have been easy for him to give a basic time frame.
• I agree. It's quite obvious that he did not want to reveal the information. BeŻet 15:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree. He seemed more puzzled than cautious to me, and it struck me as weird. Why wouldn't he remember? But that's how I interpreted it -- he couldn't remember what year it was. Given the writers' penchant for dropping hints, I think that's a big one. --Litany42 16:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • To add to my argument: we learn that Daniel has memory problems in Season 4, and that he likely suffered a similar experience to Desmond, which is why he knows about having a constant. I think that this scene is a clue that Desmond is starting to have symptoms of his own memory problems. --Litany42 16:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with this one. Remember in "Because You Left" when Faraday met Desmond outside the Swan back door? Desmond doesn't seem to remember Faraday, when, based on "The Constant", they have already met prior to Desmond's boat race and subsequent arrival to the Island. So I guess its just an issue of memory problems. Rotflmao 02:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• I thought Desmond met Faraday in a time flash, so he wouldn't have known what year it was. He just wandered there through time from when he was on the freighter. Of course *I* may be remembering wrong! --Phballou 23:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, that Desmond was the 1996 Desmond. So Des would've known what year it was. Rotflmao 02:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• The Desmond who met Faraday outside the Swan Back door did not remember meeting Faraday when he was in the military becuase that didn't happen to him or at least it hadn't happened to him yet. In his timeline he never went to Oxford before and met Faraday or again he hasn't gone there yet when Faraday knocked on the hatch door. Wouldn't Oxford have put Faraday's Laboratory to other uses and gotten rid of all his old equipment in the past 11 years? I tried to find an article for the laboratory but I guess only special places like the hatch get their own article. Although I am not sure what the criteria is for being specical? {{SUBST:User:jdray/autosig}} 17:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Daniel Faraday references time travel in "Quantum Leap" terms earlier when he compares time to a string; perhaps there is a similar swiss-cheese-ifying effect on the mind and Desmond really isn't sure.

Ben and Penny

• Penny wants to go with Desmond to LA to find Faraday's mother. Ben has claimed that if he ever runs into Penny, he will kill her. Ben is in LA! I'm a little worried... 4s8a15m16a23n42tha 16:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The Janitor at Oxford

• Does anyone have a screenshot when the janitor first enters Faraday's office and his face is briefly lit? I believe it was Brother Campbell. Amandakay1 14:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Nevermind, the actors are different.

Bloopers and continuity errors

AGREE: Claymore mines is NOT particularly a "continuity" issue - being used 6 years before placed in service. Locke, Juliet and Sawyer had not been "placed in service" in 1954 either... yet there they were. The fact that anything seen on the island is not in its' correct time period means nothing anymore. –DocH– my edits

• I second this. I considered that we have no idea when the Army persons are from, especially as the uniforms now worn by the "hostiles" are anachronistic. The claymores are obviously military, so if the (dead) soldiers were from the future, the claymores would be too presumably. I don't think it's a blooper so much as an unanswered question. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 15:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• I disagree. It would clearly seem to be a continuity issue. This isn't Terminator, the time travel aspect is much more circumscribed and the other material which the army was using, such as fatigues, tents, bomb, rifles etc were all closer to the period in question.
• Only Locke, Sawyer, Juliet, Daniel, etc are time traveling. Not the U.S. military, not The Others. LOST-Merick 19:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

-Yes, but who has travelled before them, and brought stuff with then? Juliet has future clothes on. If she had a anti-personnel mine from future world in her hand, it would move around in time with her. If she put it down and "quantum leaped" to another time period, the mine would stay were she left it. That's how the Black Rock guys could have modern weapons. Just because we have only seen LockSawJulDan etc... time travel does mean others haven't - others may still be travelling thru time. –DocH– my edits

• Not true. The Zodiac raft jumped with them when they had all gotten out. Remember Juliet's statement "I guess whatever we had with us...is along for the ride." That's not director oversight - they went out of their way to point that out.

• The rifle Ellie is carrying is a M1 Carbine which came into service in the US Military in 1940 and was in service until 1960. It is not a M14 Rifle, and it doesn't have a synthetic stock. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine) User:SoupNazzi
• The 'claymore-style' mines shown are not the ones that went into service in 1960. T-48's. The ones shown were in use as early as 1952. –DocH– my edits

- Not sure if it's a 'blooper', as such, but when Desmond tells Penny that Daniel banged on the door of the "hatch", shouldn't he have referred to it as the "Swan station" instead? The term "hatch", when referring to the Swan station (and other stations), was coined by the Losties, so it felt odd that Desmond would have referred to it as such, since to him it was called the Swan Station. I'll admit that after spending a lot of time in the company of the 815 survivors that Desmond would start to use their vernacular ("hatch", "others", etc.), but I think is was the fact that he used the term "hatch" in reference to a memory of a time before he met the Losties, so it would have seemed more natural for him to say "Swan Station", or just "the Dharma Station". It would have also reinforced that the fact that it was a memory, rather than a dream. Sounds a bit nit picky, I know, but it just felt wrong.Cunningmunki 17:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know for sure. Desmond spent a lot of time with the Survivors and "hatch" was fairly common usage with them. <shrug>--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we are meant to believe that the 1954 Others are wearing the uniforms of the US military that Richard says they "had to kill". Thus, it would be quite a coincidence if one of the others was wearing a uniform with a name matching his real name. This is why we see the name Jones worn by the Other who is later identified as Charles Widmore. However, during the scene where Jones/Widmore returns to the Others camp after escaping the Losties capture, he clearly states, "Cunningham and I, a group of them outnumbered us..." Cunningham is both the name on the uniform and apparently the name he is referred to by the Others. It's either a major coincidence, a continuity error, or these are the Others' real uniforms. That of course opens another can of worms about the Jones/Widmore uniform. Ugh.... --tripsgame17 21:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of when it was in official service, the claymore mines originated in 1952, so a special ops mission to the Island is not out of the realm of possibility before official use after 1960. This is not a blooper. Removed from article. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• When was the U. S. presence identified as a special ops mission?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Rose and Bernard

• Rose and Bernard do not appear in this episode.

Removed. They're recurring characters, not regulars, so their non-appearance doesn't need to be noted. --Golden Monkey 15:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• They were in the group that was attacked by the barrage of flaming arrows. Their status should be changed to missing or unknown, at least. Elizcaddy 21:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Arrows

I'm not sure how to highlight it, but this season is starting off with a theme of Arrows. We have the flaming arrows, the Arrow of time, and in Jughead, a Broken Arrow. Any ideas how to put this as a theme in the articles? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 15:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

- Tie it to The Arrow - The original purpose of the Arrow Station was to gather intelligence and develop defensive strategies against the hostile natives of the island. –DocH– my edits

• Great catch there, both. Wonder if it is ironic symbolism, given that the Losties are bouncing all over the place in time, i.e. not straight as an arrow? Also, you might tie in some significance with the compass that Richard gives Locke. Though perhaps the writers already answered that question with "It points north". Sometimes a compass is only a compass, as Freud would say... --Litany42 16:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Candidate For Best Episode Ever?

Not sure if this "enhances" the cover page, but I think it needs to be mentioned that this has got to be one of the best episodes ever. I'm having a problem deciding between this and "The Constant" as my favourite. Suddenly, the whole storyline to this point has taken a new turn. Widemore on the island, a nuclear bomb, some tie-ins with Daniel we never knew... Not to mention that we now have a better idea about why Daniel was crying in "Confirmed Dead". Great cinematography too!

Anyone agree? --Litany42 16:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's all a matter of opinion. It was certainly great though!--Baker1000 16:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

- It was very good (Top 10) - mostly because seasons old BIG question are getting BIG answers - closure is rewarding. Plus this episode did not have any of the Drama Queen antics of the OA6 - refreshing, AND we got some fresh faces to ponder WITHOUT any 'tear-jerking' moments. –DocH– my edits

No tear-jerking moment? Pen and Des' baby being born?  :) It was defintely a great episode. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Pen and Des' baby being born AND THEN finding out he is named after Charlie. Precious!

I actually think it is one of the worst episodes when taken singularly. Of course the worst Lost episode is far far better than most other shows best... It felt really disjointed (and I know, on Lost that's a relative thing to say). We got some answers which I think people prefer a whole lot more than not at this stage of the show's evolution hence people feeling it's a good episode. To me, it seems like 'they' were just crossing them off the list of things that need answering as they put the episode together. Maybe on reflection I'll move it up the list, but i don't think so.Humpton 22:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • In my opinion, "The Constant" remains unbeaten!!! (Airedale 20:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Litany42 - Maybe its been a long day, and I'm just not putting the pieces together, how does this episode better explain why Daniel was crying in "Confirmed Dead"? i do think it was a great episode. --LOSTinDC 00:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We always kind of guessed that Daniel saw "bad things" and even guessed that somehow he knew his "future", which is why he was crying. Now we know that he is bouncing around in time, and that he likely did know exactly what was going to happen while he was watching the fake wreckage being found. Plus, we get the hint that he directly hurt someone -- he didn't just see "bad things", he likely caused some as well. Finally, he's quickly gone from an on-the-fringe player to possibly one of the central characters in the story with his association to Eloise. I think that ups the ante quite a bit as to why he's crying! --Litany42 02:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Top 10, yes, but the best episode ever was "Confirmed Dead." A whole new set of people, a whole new set of questions. The images of Daniel crying and Charlotte's Dharma collar were iconic to me. I stayed up all night when I first saw it, just trying to fit it all in my head...--Emissary23 06:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it's in the Top 10 best, but not the best. "The Shape of Things to Come" remains #1 IMO. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 20:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about Style

In this ep we have two characters, Widmore and Ellie, whose names we don't learn till later. What's the accepted style for Lostpedia? Should Widmore be refered to as such all through the article or should we refer to him as something else until the point in the ep where his name is revealed.

Pretty sure that once something is revealed, we want the new info incorporated into all relevant pages, right?--Emissary23 06:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally the way we have done is to use their in episode name (Jones, receptionist, etc) but link to the character's article. That way their status within the article is preserved but their ultimately revealed identity is easily found by clicking on the link. --Jackdavinci 09:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Regularly Spoken Phrases

Did anybody else notice that when Daniel told Miles "That kind of attitude isn't exactly what we need right now." That it was the same thing he said to Charlotte in season 4. I can't remember which episode it was in, but I think it warrants an entry in the Regularly Spoken Phrases section

It was in "Something Nice Back Home". --LOSTinDC 00:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Trivia section: population question

The trivia claims there are only 10 people left from the beach camp... Should it be noted that there are only 7 living survivors of Flight 815 at this point on the Island? By subtracting Juliet, Faraday, Charlotte, and Miles and then adding Locke we are logically at 7. Locke, Sawyer, Rose, Bernard and 3 other people are all that's left if this information is correct. Should it also be added that there are only 6 from the original 48 of the middle section? (Subtract Bernard) I hope there aren't many more deaths...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Weaver55 (talk • contribs) .

• Don't forget that the "Beach Camp" is different from all survivors of 815. There were a number of Tailies like Cindy and the two kids who were captured by The Others, and are still (presumably) alive. So I'm not sure how many 815 survivors are still alive, but there are at least 10 survivors on the island. --Litany42 19:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Are there still only 6 left from the original 48 of the middle section?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Weaver55 (talk • contribs) .
    • Not even sure. There's Sawyer and Locke, and a couple of red shirts that got blown away this episode. Were there any from the middle section that were taken by the Others? Then there's Claire, who is presumably alive and presumably on the island, though not sure how to score that one... So maybe not even 6 left anymore. Just wanted to point out that at least some survivors are with the Others right now, and presumably not dead. --Litany42 20:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Cultural References

I don't get the DOOM reference. Just because the gun appears in a FPS-view it's a reference to Doom?? What about all the WWII FPS's? They relate better, since it is a WWII weapon in the scene. Doom has only the view angle in common with this scene, nothing else! One08 00:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, I don't see the relevance. Delete?--Tricksterson 00:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I concur as well. There are a litany of first-person shoters that have as much (or more if they are WWII era) to do with this episode. Also Doom was hardly the first of these games. I believe Wolfenstien actually gets that credit. --Lanpesci 01:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, the first Wolfenstein was not from the first-person view. However Ultima (1980) did have a first-person view when you went into the dungeons, though not technically a "shooter". Slasher, perhaps? Maybe not the first, either. In any case, Doom borrowed heavily from previous games in its design. --Litany42 02:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • If you're going to call it a reference, you could go back to the films of Dario Argento, the "Italian Hitchcock." In his serial killer films, you often see the killer's POV, you see his hands stabbing or strangling or whatever. (Argento often acted these parts himself.) There's a whole sub-level to the reference thing anyway; sometimes it might just be a suggestion, a subliminal hint that puts you in mind of something you've seen before. Did they mean Doom, Goldeneye, Argento, or all of it and none of it? Layers of complexity...--Emissary23 06:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actual tally

Page current say "[Ellie]] states that there were only 20 survivors at the beach camp before the attack (Actually 27 if you count Bernard, Juliet and, the science team) . Subtracting the 4 known casualties in "The Lie" and the two redshirts killed by the claymore mines, there are now at most only 21 beach camp residents alive on the island." But wouldn't the 20 already include Bernard, Juliet, and the science team? 20 people at the beach minus Rose, Bernard, Juliet, Sawyer, Daniel, Charlotte, and Miles (7) equals 13 redshirts before the flaming arrow attack. 7 distinct flaming arrow deaths were noted on the body counts page (with pics), as well as two mine explosion deaths this episodes, leaving only (13-7-2) 4 redshirts as the maximum still alive. Besides the time travelling significant seven and the fantastic four (and vincent), we have the captured Tailies whose time travel status is unknown, and the oceanic six along with Desmond and Frank who are off island. --Jackdavinci 02:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Regardless of all the above how can there be any certainty that Ellie's count of how many there were at the beach is accurate. It was made from the great distance at which the arrows were shot from and could have over or under counted / estimated rounding etc. {{SUBST:User:jdray/autosig}} 03:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• And Jin -- I believe there is still some hope that he is still alive. And Claire -- what would her status be? --Litany42 03:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Centricity

I don't see the need yet for the "centric" term. So far this season each episode has started out with a flash. I think it's safe to list the episodes so far as 1: Daniel flashforward, 2: Hurley flashback, 3: Desmond flashback. Knowing what kind of flash is in the episode is vital information, and replacing it with a generic 'centric' makes it harder to find this information. How many more episodes have to follow the same trend before people stop this 'centric has replaced flashes' nonsense? --Jackdavinci 03:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Daniel flashback, you meant, right? ;) ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe... lol. While technically it's in the past compared to Daniel's storyline in the episode, it's in his personal future, so I'd consider it a flashforward from his perspective. --Jackdavinci 09:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I would consider that first flash in 5x01 as Pierre Chang-centric. I mean, other than the end of it, it's all from Pierre's POV. Therefore I deem it as a Pierre flashback.--Baker1000 01:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

But Pierre was just a red herring - the twist and ultimate focus was Daniel - who was in the rest of the episode in real time, unlike Pierre. Calling it a Pierre flash would be like calling Cabin Fever an Emily centric episode.--Jackdavinci 05:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think "centricity" has always been defined by who we follow for the "off Island" portion of an episode since the very beginning, with a few exceptions for episodes like "The Other 48 Days," "Three Minutes," or some on-Island Ben & Juliet flashbacks. When you think about it they're still technically using "flashes" too. From the perspective of the on Island events, everything off Island is still a flash-forward. The only difference is that the people in the flashes aren't simultaneously on the Island so far like they used to be in previous seasons (Desmond being the sole exception in the "everyone centric" premiere.) -TimelyPersuasion 01:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• DESMOND OR DANIEL CENTRIC? Do we have any confirmation from the writers/producers of the show that this episode is Desmond centric? I will admit that it follows him around in present time, but it seems more like Desmond was digging through Daniel's past, giving us information on him. And then the on island events seemed to be seen more from Daniel's perspective. In the past, flashbacks/forwards gave this same insight into the centric characters past/future.I admit that while I love the new season, I'm still adjusting to the new format of storytelling LOST is presenting us with.Jnorton 21:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• I think it's misleading to label it as focusing on anyone. In the first several seasons, episodes typically focused on and followed one more more people, showing both on- and off-island storylines for them. This episode, and several others this season, take an ensemble approach. Desmond has a major part, but so do several other characters. Trying to shoehorn it into the "centric" mold implies a greater focus on Desmond than the viewer will find.Cracking 06:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• "Jughead" is certainly a Desmond-centric episode. Daniel is a side character for this episode. However, since the main focus of this series, as a whole, is linear story arc of the Oceanic Survivors on the Island, and in this episode, they are shifting through time, with their starting point being in 2004, and all of the Desmond story events taking place off the Island are taking place in 2005 and 2007, this episode should be considered a flash-forward, not a flashback.--Killermike2178 07:41, April 13, 2012 (UTC)Killermike2178

• • This point covers several episodes. Let's cover it in one place. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 08:47, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Jones II?

Was bow-and-arrow-wielding Hostile who had the bandages on his hands from playing with Jughead also wearing fatigues labeled "Jones"? Robert K S (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Incidentally, Jughead from the Archie comics -- his last name was Jones. When you look at the bomb, it kind of looks like Jughead too, which is probably where the name came from. Take it one step further (one might say too far) and you have blonde Betty (Juliet) and dark-haired Veronica (Kate) vying for the attentions of Archie (Jack). (Told you it was too far...) One more interesting thing: Jughead had a spin-off "Time Police" series, in which he bounced all over time. --Litany42 14:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I thought this was neat but can't figure out the best place to add it to the wiki for the episode: Taking "Jughead Jones" from Archie as the inspiration of the episode title: "Jughead" is literally the name of the bomb, while the fact that "Jones" is really Widmore is the figurative mythology "bomb" the writers dropped on the viewers during the episode. It might just be a coincidence, but if it was planned it's a pretty clever double meaning.TimelyPersuasion 23:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • What you say !! Robert K S (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Mabuhay

"Mabuhay" is a Filipino word for "Welcome" or "Long live", and I don't think the banner refers to the town of Mabuhay, Zamboanga itself. Besides, most people in that area speak Cebuano (a dialect), and not Tagalog/Filipino, which was clearly being spoken by all the extras in that scene. He could've been born elsewhere in the Philippines. Paraluman 05:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. "Mabuhay" is congruent with things like "Bienvenue", seen at ports in the numerous French colonies around the South Pacific - this does not specifically point to the Zamboanga district. Just for the record! AlaskaDave 06:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Number of M1 rifles and rounds shifted at end of episode

At the end of the episode, right after Dan frees Charolette from her bonds and she starts to collapse, the camera quickly flashes back to Sawyer and Juliet. You can clearly see one rifle in Sawyers hands, and the butt of the second rifle being held in Juliet's right hand. This is the rifle they took from Ellie earlier. Juliet also hefts it in her arms offscreen when Sawyer asks if she is alright earlier in this scene. I put the count at 15 bullets, given Sawyer shot his once at young Charles and has not (on screen) come across more bullets or reloaded. --JediJosh 05:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Ellie was carrying an M1 Carbine, with a 15-round clip. --Hallx049 18:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Something kinda funny

In "The Lie" it was night time yet here it's day time .. and Sawyer specifically states they don't have rope to tie up the prisoners (Widmore and Cunningham) with, so it sorta implies they've been standing there keeping them at gunpoint all night long. Integrated (User / Talk) 07:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Widomore kills Cunningham. IMHO, this is the one and only Chuck Cunningham who mysteriously disappeared from Happy Days. Happy Days takes place in the 1950s. Could easily have taken place in 1954. So now we actually have one mystery on this show finally solved! --Scottyus 09:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Was that a hatch?

At the bottom of the tower holding up the bomb was a block of concrete with a circular plate of metal on top. Initially I thought that the concrete was in an octagonal shape, but on closer inspection it appears to be hexagonal. My first thought is that it was a hatch of some sort, but part of me is wondering if this is part of the bomb testing rig to ensure a clean, solid contact on the firing switch. A brief search doesn't turn up any pages detailing how these tests were carried out. Has anyone got any evidence that might prove that this is part of the firing test and not a hatch, or have I picked up on another part of the mystery? Djnrrd 08:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's just a metal piece below the bomb. Anyway, I'm not sure why the bomb would need to land on anything. That would seem like a needless complication in a rig only requiring a timer. The firing tower isn't there to provide a place for the bomb to drop from, it's to give a little elevation to the bomb. The shock wave of an atomic bomb is much more effective at destruction when detonated some height above the ground rather than at ground level. Actually, I think the firing tower isn't nearly tall enough, but that would go in the category of "production errors". Robert K S (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Recognize these Others?

Just wondering if anyone knows who these people are? The woman looks familiar to me but I can't quite place her. Perhaps she's meant to be a younger Eloise? Not sure about the guy, but he looks somewhat familiar as well.

--Hb432 22:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Literary Techniques

Desmond and Charlie. Re: Great Britain

"Desmond appears to be telling his son about the Island when he mentions its special properties and how he hasn't been there for many years, but he is instead talking about Great Britain." was originally marked 'irony'. After I changed it to 'misdirection' (which I think is clearly the literary technique being employed here) it seems to now be set to 'plot twist'. I don't see how this is a plot twist. Can we settle on something? --<BauerUK> tlk | cnt | www | irc 14:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be escalating in importance each time. I suggest changing it to mindf*ck to keep the pattern. frogs.jay@gmail.com 15:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC) edit 02:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Shooting

Is there enough of a similarity between Locke not shooting Widmore on the island and Locke not shooting Undercover Officer Eddie when he betrayed the commune to make some note of it? {{SUBST:User:jdray/autosig}} 17:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so because they were not shot for different reasons IIRC. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 12:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Flashback (late 2005)

Wouldn't a flashback be a time period before present-time 2004? Then why is the section about Desmond talking to his son about Britian titled Flashback (late 2005) labeled a flashback? Am I missing something?--Mistertrouble189 06:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Desmond's current storyline is taking place in 2008. Thus, a scene which follows Desmond in 2005 is a flashback for Desmond. On the other hand, a (hypothetical) scene following Sawyer/Juliet/etc in late 2005 would be a flashforward because their current storyline is taking place in early 2005.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  06:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - Both the on island and off island stories are considered "real time" because they btoh started where last season left off, and because they are progressing linearly, whereas the brief scenes at the beinning of the episodes have been twisty shocker scenes from some other time period than either of the two that are progressing linearly/continiguously. --Jackdavinci 07:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Main image

What's with the lame main image?    CANADA DRY    talk    contribs    email   19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It's customary to have a closeup of whomever gets the flashback/forward/is centric. This week that's Desmond. --Jackdavinci 06:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree on centricity, but compare the main image for this episode to that for "The Lie," where you can read the pain in Hurley's face. In this one, Desmond has no context.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to peruse lost-media or your own video file for a more pensive episode still of Desmond. It's a wiki! :-) --Jackdavinci 07:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

UQ Charlotte

I've removed, for the second time, the question why [the bloody nose, headache, etc.] is happening to Charlotte only, as it supposes the others are not affected as well but with no symptoms yet. Also, do we really need the question "What is happing to Charlotte"? After seeing The Constant, isn't it bloody obvious (pun intended)? Can we remove that one as well? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 13:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that there should probably be one area for these types of questions on Charlotte, since they keep turning up all over the place, but I'd like to point out that what is happening to Charlotte is completely different than what happened to Des in The Constant. 4s8a15m16a23n42tha 17:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Compass Paradox

What disturbs me about the compass is that it's caught in a temporal loop. It only exists between the times when Locke gives it to Richard in the past, and when Richard returns it to Locke in the future. This is an odd sort of paradox that I'm sure the writers intentionally created. Should it be mentioned in the article somewhere? Trivia? --Doc 16:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you figure it only exists in that timeframe? To look at it linearly, (1) Richard gets the compass from Locke in 1954, (2) Richard brings it to Young Locke for the test, (3) Richard takes it away with him again when he is disappointed that Young Locke picked up the knife and nodded it was his, (4) Richard retains the compass until he gives it to Old Locke some time in his future as he doctor's Locke's leg, (5) Locke hops around in time with it until he meets Richard in 1954 and gives it to him, full circle. There is only one compass, and it exists through the whole circle. The more curious thing is where did the compass originate? Did giving the compass to Locke to bring to the past and give to Richard change things in the past? Right things in the past? And why does Richard "remember" that he won't know Locke in 1954, when Daniel caused Desmond to create a new memory by knocking on the hatch door. Why wasn't the compass being given to Richard a new memory? Really strange things, mate. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the whole paradox about where the compass came from originally, the official name for that type of paradox is an ontological paradox. This occurs when an item is passed from the future to the past, and it becomes the same item which is passed back in the future and taken back into the past again.--Baker1000 17:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)\

• Yes. Thank you for reminding me of the term. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we sure it's the same compass? Spiral77 20:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The casing is the same, the needles and that inside are slightly different but I would put that down to a prop error. It's clear that it is supposed to represent the same compass, even if they look slightly different.--Baker1000 20:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Within Lost, it's the same compass. Richard had to recognize it to be convinced he knew Locke. The prop department may be losing track of their requirements, again.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The compass doesn't have to originate (for 1954 Richard) with Locke handing it over. Locke brought the one he was given by future Richard into the past, and then gave it to that Richard who gave it back to Locke in the future, but when Locke gave it to 1954 Richard, that Richard may have had the original version on him, maybe in his pocket or in his tent. So he carries around 2 identical compasses for 50 years, then meets Locke in the future and returns the time-circling one, keeping the original with him from then forward. No Ontological Paradox. Sithboy 01:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting and possible, but how does this impact on Alpert's request that young Locke select items that already belong to him from the six available?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Not possible. If you watch, Richard takes everything off the table and away that he brought with him, including the compass, so There Can Be Only One (wrong show). ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Summary. Alpert gave the compass to Locke, who gave it back to Alpert, who gave it to Locke, who.... There is no accountability for when the compass entered Time. The compass from Richard's items is a separate question and may be a separate item.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The compass is NOT necessarily a paradox. Some pretty cursory thinking is all that's needed to explain it. There are actually two possible explanations. Remember, Richard said "Where did you get that," suggesting he had seen it before, probably owned it. If Locke gave it to him, then there were two compasses until Richard gave Locke the second in the 1990s (last episode), so instead of a self-consuming loop (which is what a paradox is), it's more like a bow or knot figure. The second, and simpler, explanation, is that, as Juliet said a couple episodes before, whatever they had when the last flash occurred, they take with them, so Locke gave Richard the compass but it disappeared when Locke did. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

Agreed, it makes more sense that Richard has two instances of the compass at the same time for awhile, and gives Locke the younger one. That he already has the same compass might be a more effective reason for the handing over of the compass to have meaning. Also, while the writers might not have thought of the issue, any non-biological item that enters an infinite loop would be subject to the forces of entropy and would immediately rust into nothingness. --Jackdavinci 07:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Times on their watches?

• Just been doing a little bit of digging and screen captures Daniel Faraday's watch:

Take a look at the time on Faraday's watch...

Take a look at the image on the right. To me, that time looks like 8 minutes past 3 o clock. Or 15:08.

Now, in this episode (towards the end), you're able to see Charlotte's watch. Except my screen capturing abilities aren't brilliant and I can't exactly pick it out perfectly. So if anyone could make an attempt to - I'd like to see whether or not the times are the same or if they have any relation to the numbers. ——Abcmsaj. Still Lost. And Loving It. 17:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, not everything happens in Lost for a reason. It's likely just to be a normal watch telling the time with no hidden secrets behind it.Wild ste 16:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Actually since the watch is part of the costume it is a PROP, you may be on to something here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asymetric (talk • contribs) 2009-05-02T06:13:29.

Heroes cultural reference??

How is the fact that the bomb's name is painted on its side a reference to Heroes? I would think it's just a reference to the fact that old bombs were often given individual names, and, like with military airplanes from around World War II, the names are likely painted on the actual bombs. Moreover, that font doesn't look anything like the one on Heroes, which is a comic-bookish font. This one looks very regular and ordinary, almost official. If no one disagrees, I'm deleting this. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

I've just removed it. Don't know how that slipped in there, I removed a similar trivia from the Jughead (bomb) page last week.--Baker1000 01:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a big Heroes fan and I'm a little confused about what you mean. Just out of curiousity, what "bomb" is the reference to? Maybe give me a link to the Heroes episode on Heroes Wiki Crash815 05:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Unanswered questions

I think the following questions should be removed:

1. Does present-day Widmore remember meeting Daniel, Locke, Juliet and Sawyer? Don't really see how this is relevent to events in the episode. Without any indication that this will matter later on, it seems like it's basically asking "what will happen next?".
2. Why can't Desmond remember what year it was he visited Daniel Faraday? Memory loss seems to be a side-effect of the time travel. Although I'm not terribly picky if people really want this one to stay.
3. What is the story behind Daniel and Theresa? He unstuck her consciousness in time and she ended up exactly like Minkowski was before he died. This question needs to be more specific.
4. How does Charles Widmore know that Desmond has a message to deliver? Obviously Desmond wouldn't be looking for Hawking if he didn't have something he needed to tell her. I don't think this is meant to be a major mystery on the show.

 Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  23:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Think the question about Theresa might be changed to "Why has Theresa survived being unstuck?"--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, #2 was addressed in "Jughead-Enhanced" (see selected captions). #3 is sort of a shorthand for two different questions: "What was Faraday's relationship to Theresa Spencer?" and "What did Faraday do to Theresa Spencer?" The real question cuts to his culpability and how he feels about what he did to her, i.e., did he really abandon her as recounted by her sister. Was he just irresponsibly using a woman as a test subject, or was the damage to Theresa accidental? Was Theresa of romantic or sentimental importance to Daniel and how did her loss affect him? All of these questions are raised by the episode, so I'm okay with the shorthand "What's the story" version. Robert K S (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Little Charlie

The General section states that "Desmond and Penny's child is named Charlie, sharing a name with the man who kept them apart and the man whose actions helped them reunite." This should be taken off the article since it's completely irrelevant. In the official ABC Lost podcast from 02/05/09 Damon explaines that Charlie is indeed named after Charlie Pace and not after Charles Widmore. The part 'the man whose actions helped them reunite' suggests that this could have been the reason why Charlie was maybe named after Widmore. Now we know it's not at all and the whole relation of Widmore's and little Charlie's name is only as important as the relation of for instance Richard the Psychic's and Richard Alpert's names. It's just the same name, that's all.One08 02:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting trivia and while it may ultimately prove insignificant as far as the show goes, it's still notable--notable enough that the writers addressed it in the script to "Jughead" when they had Widmore asking Desmond why he named his son after him. (The query didn't make the final cut but only because it interfered with the flow of the scene.) Robert K S (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Daniel AND Desmond centric?

I'd argue that the episode focuses on both of the characters and is similar in nature to "This Place Is Death", which was both Sun-centric in its off-island plot and Jin-centric in its on-island plot. If that episode can be named as focusing on both characters, I can see no reason "Jughead" can't, as it follows Daniel on the island and Desmond off the island.

Lostcrazy815 21:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)lostcrazy815

• Disagree Desmond had a flashback (Charlie's birth). Daniel didn't. "This Place Is Death" is a totally different story. Centricity based on who the episode focused on is only used when there are no flashbacks / forwards. --LeoChris 21:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree Watch the episode again and pay attention this time. Desmond had a clear flashback. Thus it's Desmond centric. Daniel didn't. Should One of Them be Sayid and Sawyer centric, since one of that episode's subplots focused on him hunting after a tree frog? Should Whatever Happened, Happened be Kate and Locke centric, because we get a non-flash scene from Locke's POV? No. --Golden Monkey 16:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Agree because on the season 5 BD bonus features, we can see on the whiteboard that they fill in episode names and centric characters on as they progress through writing the season that they wrote Daniel/Desmond under Jughead. One could argue that Lostpedia's criteria for centric characters is different from the writers' criteria, but I think this is worth noting. Nick2010 04:49, December 30, 2009 (UTC)
• Agree because of the season 5 BD bonus features, but also because the on island action is clearly focused on Daniel. Not only that but Desmond's storyline in the flash revolves around him also. 01lander 11:28, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
• Agree because the episode is clearly focused on Daniel, perhaps more than in Desmond. --Daniel990 23:39, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Lost U.S. Nuclear Bomb 1958?

There is a lost nuclear bomb, named Tybee Bomb, in the history. [2]--Agacsakal 12:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Charlie in Oxford?

I'm a little behind with the rewatch and I watched this episode the other day and noticed something after Desmond was asking for Daniel in the library. There was a certain british chin I thought I recognized and strangely enough the person belonging to this chin looked sort of suspicious with his head down all the time - by which I mean the approx. 1sec he was visible but anyway - and his hat and all that. Check this and tell me it doesn't look like good old Dom. Jared 14:03, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

• Not even close, IMO.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  19:16, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Daniel and Desmond again

Apparently on the DVDs (building 23), you can see that Jughead was officially listed by the writers as Daniel and Desmond centric. But I haven't seen this myself. If this is true and the writers & producers consider it Daniel and Desmond centric I assume we have to change it? --Golden Monkey 16:29, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

It's true, there is currently a discussion here. There are also screencaps, but you can't see it that much. It's clearly visible on Blu-ray, but I don't know how to screencap BDs.--Baker1000 17:26, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

Then why is it still listed as a Desmond-centric? MryCrisper (talk) 20:39, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Main Image Change

Main Image needs to be changed. New pic would better symbolize main episode plot which is events in 1954. We dont alway need image to be close up of face.

-- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  22:57, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

• Image should be a picture of the episode's centric character, in this case Des. --LeoChris 23:33, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Why does it always have to be the stupid close up of the centric characters face? -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  23:37, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

• Keep the image as the centric character. It doesn't have to be a close up of the centric character, it just happens that it usually is. It does have to be the centric character in some form or another though, because it reflects who the episode is about. This is a Desmond episode.--Baker1000 23:40, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

You can't see Desmond in the current picture. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 23:42, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Huh? The current picture is Desmond... --LeoChris 23:51, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

• This is a Desmond centric, and, like it or not, there is an established precedent here of only using pictures that feature the face of the person the episode centers on, however loose that centricity may be. --Bish-Fiscuit 14:06, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

We have always used a picture of just the centric character/s for each episode and I am strongly opposed to changing this. If you can find a better picture of Desmond that is fine but it needs to be a picture of him. Mhtmghnd 02:36, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

We should have the centric characters wherever possible. I'm removing the dispute template as there seems to be a consensus on this. Menot 02:49, April 15, 2010 (UTC)