Astrology conundrumEdit

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? CzechOut | 07:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As it's written (currently) in the article is fine as it presents both bits of information.
However if you wanted to analyse it the information regarding Draconia not having any form of astrology comes from The Dark Path which is set in 3375, while Mr Smith's information comes from Sarah's laptop or his own knowledge (from the 'distant past'). So in theory both pieces of information are correct given the amount of time that passes between stories they could have developed away from astrology. --Tangerineduel 13:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.