Talk:Draconian

Astrology conundrum
Okay. We have a problem here, and I don't know how to handle it. There's a direct contradiction between two sources. SJA says that Draconia had a form of astrology. A Missing Adventure novel says that Draconians did not have a form of astrology. I don't know how you best reconcile these two sources, and yet still stay in-universe and in the past tense. Personally, I think it might be slightly better treating the televised SJA account as the higher form of canon, and then relegate the MA to a "behind the scenes", out of universe statement. Something like:


 * According to Mr. Smith, Draconia had a developed astrology.
 * This is directly contradicted by an MA novel, in which Draconians were said to have no'' form of astrology.

To me, that parses more clearly, but I think it might be a violation of the Manual of Style. Even if it does, though, I think readability is of greater concern than strict adherence to the MOS. Anyone have any thoughts?  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  07:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)