Talk:Here We Are Juggernaut

Seriously, do the last two sentences need other references than the actual video which is already linked on the page? If so, then why do the other sentences and details not need references? Nineinchsin (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on your talk page. Rehevkor ✉ 02:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the Starland one makes more sense now. How would you suggest I cite the Keywork. It's at the end of the video, so I would think a separate link to an image of the keywork may suffice.Nineinchsin (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would still be original research. This is why such analysis and description of videos should really be avoided. Rehevkor ✉ 19:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even though there's a picture of the Keywork on the front of the Coheed page? By your reasoning, the whole description should be taken down.Nineinchsin (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. On reflection I'd be willing to let the Keywork bit slide common sense should apply in that case. But there's still other issues, how do you know the phenomenon is called the "Black Rainbow"? I don't recall that being mentioned in the video. PD's cameo would also require a source for sure. A brief and neutral description is about the limit that can be sourced to the video itself. I have trimmed the description and given it a more neutral tone, I am in the process of looking for sources for the rest, but am having little luck so far. Rehevkor ✉ 02:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until a website or other source describes the video, I don't think there will be any way to put a thorough description up. I personally know for sure that the phenomenon is called the "Black Rainbow" for numerous reasons, some common sense and others not so much (like reading the book that was co-written with Peter David entitled "Year of the Black Rainbow"). Until I happen to come across one, I'll just leave it aloneNineinchsin (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]