Talk:N-Space

Proposed move
This page has been earmarked for a move since last September but, as a final check, are there any objections to renaming this article Normal space? Personally, I would prefer to see it titled N-Space as this is the common name for it, in the same way E-Space is not named Exo-Space. However, if others are set upon the current title, and if there is no legitimate reason to the contrary, the case should be lowered.-- 15:13, September 6, 2014 (UTC)


 * I've changed the proposed destination on the template to N-Space as this is where it should end up.-- 21:30, September 17, 2014 (UTC)

Images
So User:Esparza3368 has been adding images that are entirely unrelated to the main topic of this article, and, bearing in mind T:NO WARS and T:WRITE POLICY, we should have a discussion about it. (Rather than, as they suggested, "let an admin or moderator make that call".)

It is entirely unhelpful to the user reading this page that I'm scrolling through an article about a universe, and we think the most salient parts to illustrate of it are pictures of a individual time lord and two races that live within the universe. I give as reference points the articles Thirteenth Doctor, Dalek, and Cyberman, the three things they're attempting to put as pictures here. Each one of which only has pictures that feature the entities the article is about (or, well, Kaled Mutants/partially converted individuals/a toy Dalek - but the analogue would be a picture of, say, Davros or the Doctor on the Dalek's page).

Obviously we can't do something analogous here, as we can't take an image of a universe in its entirety. But that doesn't mean that we should intentionally use the worst images possible for the article - we should instead focus on theoretical or cosmological images if there are to be images at all, rather than images of individuals or races. What we have is the worst possible option. Najawin ☎  05:19, October 30, 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Just because things exist in the universe doesn't mean they represent them, even if they're mentioned. I think some images for things that represent, demonstrate, or affect N-Space as a whole are better. For example, the Dark Times were a period in the history of the entire universe, so an image of that fits. The TARDIS causing a total event collapse affected the entire universe, so that fits. But even though Daleks are something that exist and are even somewhat prominent in the universe, they don't represent it completely. And anyway if someone didn't know what a Dalek was, they would go to that page. These images don't serve the article in any way. It would be like if we said on the page for The Aztecs "the TARDIS arrived in Mexico" and showed an unrelated map of Mexico. That's good for the concept of Mexico but it doesn't help The Aztecs. Not to mention none of these images are sourced. Chubby Potato ☎  05:34, October 30, 2020 (UTC)
 * Time-out, folks! These images are proper, in my admin opinion. We don't want a map of Mexico on a TV story page that doesn't include it — but for an in-universe page, we'd want a picture of "the Thirteenth Doctor in Mexico" on the page Mexico. We would want a picture of Davros somewhere on "Dalek". Etc.


 * Some images (used with restraint) are better than no images at all, and asking for something that illustrates "the whole thing" is placing an undue burden on editors in the business of finding an image that correctly illustrates "the whole" of the bleedin' cosmos.


 * The Doctor is prominently mentioned in the lead of this page, I think it's fair to say she's worth including somewhere. And using the Thirteenth Doctor is all the more proper because of the running theme in her series that she is somehow an incarnation of the universe. ("She was the universe" in TV: The Haunting of Villa Diodati, her equation to the rest of her homeworld to the Solitract in TV: It Takes You Away.)


 * Of course, the images should be sourced like any other. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  10:50, October 30, 2020 (UTC)


 * While I can kind of understand the placement of the Dalek and Cybermen pictures, considering the adjacent text, I don't see the relevance of the Thirteenth Doctor's picture. It just seems to be totally random. There is no mention of the Thirteenth Doctor anywhere near the picture. LauraBatham ☎  13:02, October 30, 2020 (UTC)


 * Please disregard that last comment. I'm tired and did not read the article properly and now realise that there is a paragraph about the Doctor in general right next to the picture. Sorry. LauraBatham ☎  13:05, October 30, 2020 (UTC)


 * Good morning admins, I'm the one responsible for starting the "controversy" regarding this Tardis page, referenced earlier in the start of the talk. I put up quite a number of images originally which per the policy was incorrect which I then corrected. Glad to see that I was on the right track with putting images on the article but not when it came to the number. Is the one image per section (major section) a hard or fast rule or is their some leeway (as I noticed that right now there are two images in the history section of the N-Space article, plus one image in the previous section and one image in the later section)? Esparza3368 ☎  15:47, October 30, 2020 (UTC)

T:GTI states that we're only allowed one image per section (unless said section is sufficiently long). In the lead, if we have a picture about the Doctor, we're implying to the reader that the Doctor is the image that best represents the entire concept of N-space. SOTO's change to the images in History leads me perfectly content with that section, but this first bit is utterly absurd. (Indeed, we have pictures already that better represent this, such as a rift between N-space and another universe, in Image:Tardis passing through bubble universe Rift.jpg) Najawin ☎  16:08, October 30, 2020 (UTC)


 * The above comment is partially incorrect. T:GTI states: "The general guideline is no more than one image per section, with smaller sections receiving no images." But User:Najawin's later points are correct. Images should always illustrate the article in question. A close-cropped image of a person or other species in an article about space does nothing to illustrate the topic. Shambala108 ☎  17:20, October 30, 2020 (UTC)

Name for N-Space
@Scrouge MacDuck: The Earth-5556 comes from when Doctor Who comic stories were being published by Marvel Comics under license. Marvel finally gave that reality its own number (Earth-5556) in All-New Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe #7 (published in 2007). Esparza3368 ☎  14:34, October 31, 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid source, so you didn't answer his question. Najawin ☎  19:00, October 31, 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm quite aware of where "Earth-5556" comes from, but All-New Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe #7 sounds like it completely fails Rule 1 of T:VS. Although we should probably have a page about it as a reference book, come to think of it.


 * It's also worth noting that this idea of the Doctor's Earth being a separate world from the "regular" Marvel universe of the 1990's UK comics is a retcon, at that. Back in the days of the actual shenanigans with Death's Head and so on, there was no hint of multiversal travel in the actual stories (except between the Transformers universe and the rest of the titles). That's not especially relevant to the validity of All-New Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe #7, but I'm just putting that fact out there to clear up any potential misconceptions. --Scrooge MacDuck  ☎  19:15, October 31, 2020 (UTC)


 * I know this conversation is kind of over, but I also want to clear up misconceptions and say your latter paragraph isn’t really true. By the time Doctor Who had crossed over with Marvel, Marvel's multiverse was well established (though obviously not as much as now). In fact, Marvel's "Earth-616" terminology debuted in The Daredevils in 1983 and continued in more Captain Britain content such as Excalibur, which is already tied with the DWU in several ways. The multiverse also played a large part in 's storyline, which our old friend Death's Head . While the official designation didn’t arrive until 2007, I find it highly unlikely that the authors of Time Bomb!, for example, intended the Doctor to bring Death's Head to a Fantastic Four living in the Doctor's home universe. That said, it's been retconned by the reference books anyway... I suppose my point is, "Earth-5556" is a name that refers to "the Doctor's universe", which has probably always been intended to be separate; just not one that is valid here or would make much sense to use. Which has already been agreed on above.


 * (And I'm intrigued of your idea of pages for Marvel reference books, but this isn’t the place to discuss that. For reference though, if anything becomes of it, said reference books and their articles with connections to the DWU are: (Merlyn),  (Earth-5/Order of the Black Sun),  (Saturnyne), and  (Technet).)   Chubby Potato  ☎  07:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to say that the idea of the Marvel Multiverse per se was that late a retcon. Rather, I am very much saying that when the Marvel UK stories began using the Doctor, they acted like he existed in Earth-616, strange as the idea might seem in hindsight.


 * The absence of any statements about the Doctor having dimension-jumped is already noteworthy, but the primary reason I think this is the whole deal with Bonjaxx's birthday part on Maruthea as seen in The Incomplete Death's Head. Here we have a party whose attendance is 50% Marvel characters (among other sundry cameos), and the logic behind its existence is that Maruthea is a planet in the middle of the Time Vortex. Clearly the default conclusion is that the birthday party is a party outside time, and that all that separates all these people is, accordingly, time. (The whole business with the Special Executive is also difficult to square with Rassilon's universe being distinct from Captain Britain's universe in Alan Moore's mind.)


 * And again, given Doctor Who ' s relative obscurity in the 1980s comic-book milieu, I don't think it is at all a stretch that Marvel would just have plopped the Doctor in Marvel continuity, leaving the readers to assume that the TV series was applicable to the Marvel universe, mutantis mutandis. After all, this is pretty much what Marvel did with Godzilla in the 1970s when they acquired the rights to him — Marvel's Godzilla #1 clearly assumes that the events of at least the first Toho Godzilla film are "applicable" to the lizard as he appears fighting S.H.I.E.L.D. and whatnot.


 * Anyway, feel free to create these pages about the Marvel reference books if you have the time and inclination! This doesn't really need discussion, it's completely within policy. Thanks for the sleuthwork. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  09:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Name change
This might be overly-simplistic, but could The Doctor's universe or something like that work? OS25🤙☎️ 19:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I do prefer this, but I have heard some people wanting it to be named The Doctor's World, in line with other universes on the Wiki like Pete's World and so on.


 * The only downside to The Doctor's universe or anything similar is that is isn't particularly compliant with T:NPOV, where a lot of stories cannot mention the Doctor, but this is a minor issue, as most spin-offs claim "From the world of Doctor Who" or "From the universe of Doctor Who" etc etc. 📯 📂 19:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The biggest issue I can see with the idea, is that technically there is more than one Doctor. But I suppose people will know what we mean. OS25🤙☎️ 20:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Well — the Doctor's World is a name given to this universe (to distinguish it from Donna's World) in one valid source, TV: Turn Left, and it's already a redirect for this page. I think that's a very strong contender that most readers of this Wiki would instantly "get". If we had a source for "The Doctor's universe" that'd be fine too, although the capitalisation of "the Doctor's World" makes it a more appealing title, but the thing here is that a name used in valid sources is instantly superior to a "conjectural" one (albeit a common-sense description).


 * To quickly look through other contenders:


 * • Third Universe is snappy, and has the benefit of being unambiguous — there are technically other universes with versions of the Doctor in them (like the "Unbound Universe" of the David Warner Doctor), whereas presumably these numbered designations for universes were decreed by some in-universe party with a holistic view of the Omniverse. Inconveniently, however, PROSE: A Thousand & One Doors instead says that the Doctor's native universe is the 503rd Universe, which is much less snappy and also creates a conflict between sources as to which of "3rd" or "503rd" is the appropriate figure. The spirit of T:NPOV would recommend we steer clear of either, except as redirects.


 * • The Totality, used in Cwej: The Series, would be an interesting choice but doesn't have the same level of clarity as "The Doctor's World". You could easily believe it actually meant the "totality" of the Multiverse, for one thing.


 * I do think the rename is very much in order, whatever we decide upon, though. The information which has come to light makes it clear that N-Space is a term that any universe structured like the Doctor's universe calls its "normal" side; it's not a name which stands up to scrutiny as being on the same level as fourth universe or Pete's World. Reference guides have been wrong to use it as a fancy, in-universe-sounding synonym of "Whoniverse," and we've been wrong with them.


 * I don't think "The Doctor's World" is the T:NPOV-hurlde it might first appear, though, for the simple reason that we also have the "prime" Doctor at The Doctor. So by the same token, an undabbed "The Doctor's World" would logically be the world of that Doctor, not any other Doctor. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  20:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * While The Doctor's World is a pretty good candidate, I do feel that is worth pointing out that in the script for Turn Left, "world" is not capitalised, so it really ought to be The Doctor's world. 📯 📂 20:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, we've used the Pete's World analogy to create other pages with this naming scheme: The Trickster's World, Godfrey Porter's World. While we'd be guided by the use of the phrase in Turn Left, we would, as you mentioned, also be aiming for consistency with those. Especially considering that scripts are not, in and of themselves, valid sources, I figure it'd be fine to capitalise it — and if we can find a capitalised name, it'd certainly make for a much more elegant dabbing term for T:DAB OTHER purposes (e.g. Doctor Who (N-Space)). Scrooge MacDuck ☎  20:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * In that case then, I think I'm pretty won over to The Doctor's World. While I don't think it should be used to disambiguate too many pages, on big pages like Doctor Who (N-Space) it would be the most preferable. 📯 📂 20:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * While I'm not too fussed, I would prefer "The Doctor's universe" over "The Doctor's world". Mainly because "world" makes it sound like one planet rather than an entire universe. I know we have Pete's World and Donna's World, but those adventures were very much Earth focussed. And if you want an in-universe source for the "universe" option, Rose Tyler: The Dimension Cannon by Big Finish has Pete calling it "the Doctor's universe". You can hear him say it in the trailer (the 2 minute audio one, not 1 minute the video one") and I'm pretty sure the sound clip is from The Endless Night. LauraBatham ☎  03:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'll never understand the people who readily associate "world" with "planet". While I'm certainly aware of that usage of "world" ("clinging to the skin of this tiny little world…") it's always registered to me as a florid, figurative sort of use of the word; somewhere between calling a galaxy a 'universe', and calling your home town "your own little world". When used as a serious, literal sci-fi term, I've always taken the default meaning of "world" to be "parallel world". If you mean planet, say planet, is what I'd say!


 * But that's just my personal opinion. You're not the first person I've heard voice this sentiment about "World", and if people really feel that strongly about it, The Doctor's Universe would probably be fine. I do think we ought to go with a capitalised form, here, albeit slightly speculative; again, we'll occasionally have to use it as a disambiguation parenthetical, and "Doctor Who (The Doctor's universe)" is just ungainly in a way "Doctor Who (The Doctor's Universe)" isn't.


 * Still, I will note that the names Pete's World and Donna's World unambiguously use "world" to mean "universe", not to mean the specific version of the planet Earth in those universes. Note how the callback to Doomsday in Utopia has the Doctor speaking of how Rose got trapped in "a parallel world". And in Turn Left, the final dialogue speaks of the "stars going out" phenomenon happening in "all worlds", which would be meaningless if "worlds" meant "planets" rather than "universes". Scrooge MacDuck ☎  03:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * What source calls it the "Prime Universe of Gallifrey"? (the name at the top of the first paragraph) If that is a valid name, that one would be effective--Editoronthewiki ☎  20:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Why not take a page from the Marvel & DC Wiki playbooks? For example in the DC Multiverse, the Earth / universe where most of the comics have their stories in is "Prime Earth", so the DC Comics Wiki call it the "Mainstream Universe". On the other hand, in the Marvel Multiverse, the Earth/universe where most of the comics stories occur, is in Earth-616 and is therefore called the "Prime Reality" by Marvel Wiki. Therefore is the universe where the Doctor appears is the 503rd Universe as mentioned above, rather than have the title of the page be "503rd Universe" (alias in the infobox can say "503rd Universe), you can call it the Mainstream/Prime Universe/Reality or something to that effect. Esparza3368 ☎  20:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh. I appreciate the suggestion, but… We really do want to have a name that's actually reflected in sources if at all possible, rather than something "speculative"/arbitrary — in fact, I believe the DC and Marvel Wikis sometimes up and create speculative numberings for universes that go unnamed in official sources, and that is such an alien perspective to how seriously we take the "no speculation" rule around here. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  20:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct, Marvel does use a placeholder when a reality doesn't have an official name yet, TRN-#####. Once the reality has been given an official name, then it's change (e.g. Earth-295). Don't know if the "Prime Reality" title for Reality Earth-616 (Marvel) and the "Mainstream Universe" title for Reality Prime Earth (DC) is the official name, or if those were just the titles given by the Wiki administrators to the official reality designations of Prime Earth and Earth-616. Esparza3368 ☎  21:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not read Spiral Scratch, but according to the page Prime there is precedent for that terminology in the DWU... although apparently Mel wondering if anyone's home universe is their own prime might make it not work with T:NPOV. That story does define her homeworld as "Earth Prime" and I believe there is precedent for "Gallifrey Prime"(?) I feel like if we look at stories that involve a lot of parallel universes, or ones involving the creation of the universe, something of use might come up. I am not against "The Doctor's universe" but I'd lean toward an actual name if we could get one. (Which is exactly what "N-Space" was until we realised it wasn't referring to the right thing. Confused yet?) Chubby Potato ☎  09:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I know this is distracting from the previous chain of reasoning, but I'm wondering if The Totality from Cwej: The Series isn't as potentially confusing as it may first appear. I agree that, on first impression, it easily seems to refer to the multiverse as a whole, but:


 * A) If someone's confused by what The Totality means, they can just click the link to its page and swiftly learn that it's referring to the "main" universe, not all of the multiverse.


 * B) When editing, we could place a link to The Totality via the words "the universe" or a near-identical phrase, given that the majority of pages on this wiki focus on stuff within the "main" Doctor Who universe, and anything covering parallel universe stuff specifically highlights early on that its contents are in the context of a parallel universe. Thalek Prime Overseer ☎  17:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, I'd argue that The Totality is only a tad bit more confusing than N-Space, given that one could easily be confused as to what N-Space even means if they didn't already know what it meant. Furthermore, we could easily place a "you may" template redirecting to multiverse, and vice versa, which would recognise the potential confusion between The Totality and the multiverse and provide an immediate solution to resolving such confusion. Thalek Prime Overseer ☎  10:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Could we get some second opinions on this? Scrooge MacDuck ☎  19:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the move is a bad idea, a solution in search of a problem. It's already perfectly clear what "N-Space" means, and the name has the massive advantages of originating 40 years ago in the classic series and also sounding appropriately impersonal and neutral, unlike "the Doctor's world" or "the Doctor's universe", which are woolly, vague, and weirdly centre one character (who has counterparts in many universes). For all practical purposes, "the Doctor Who universe" and "N-Space" are synonyms. Romana in Lungbarrow explicitly refers to the universe as "the Universe of N-Space". The supposed complication that other universes might have N-Spaces is pure pedantry and also applies to all proposed names (eg, Cwej mentions other Totalities). Gowlbag ☎  21:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd actually support "Universe of N-Space". My principal issue with "N-Space" is not that other universes might have N-Spaces per se, but rather, that as depicted in the actual televised E-Space arc, "the main Doctor Who universe" is a structure encompassing both N-Space and E-Space; they are two facets of a whole.


 * Fandom may often have treated "N-Space" and "DWU" as synonyms, but that is an error, which has perpetuated a misunderstanding of the nature of the actual stories at hand. The N-Space/E-Space relationship is something very different from the relationship between "the main universe" (whatever you want to call it) and Pete's World, or between it and the Inferno World. Adric is not a "parallel universe individual" relative to the Doctor; indeed one should expect alternate timelines and parallel counterparts of the Doctor's home universe to include their own Adrics.


 * I also think you overestimate the searchability/popularity aspect. N-Space was the favoured term of "classic" fandom, but it has not been uttered once in the revival; far more people have seen Turn Left than Warriors' Gate.


 * The wishy-washiness of "the Doctor's World" is one I'm aware of, although I think it's not IMO as much of a concern as might first appear. And as for "the Totality", I brought it up only to dismiss it in the same breath; it is Thalek who seems more interested in it. All of which to say: I do not have a prize pony among the suggestions thus far brought up, and I'd like people to keep generating suggestions, taken from valid sources directly if at all possible (hence Universe of N-Space being a valid proposal!). I just think "N-Space" is really quite a terrible name for this page. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  21:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * This idea that N-Space and E-Space are two yin-yang-like components that equally constitute the universe appears to be a total fan confabulation. Aukon in State of Decay says he wants to get "out of this universe and back to our own", and that they will "leave this miserable space trap for the real universe." The Doctor worries about the Great Vampire escaping back into "our universe". In Warriors' Gate Romana says that they'll be taking Adric "away from his own universe". When the Doctor says "I'm hoping we're in N-Space," Adric responds, "Back in your own universe." E-Space is vastly less important than and external to N-Space, as is clearly indicated in their names; indeed it's described as a "rapidly collapsing micro-universe". It's pendant to the Doctor's universe, not part of it. The fact that Romana can simply call her universe "the Universe of N-Space" means that the universe is named N-Space; she is not referring to some separate nameless larger structure consisting of N-Space and E-Space. I don't see any need to clutter article titles with the full "(Universe of N-Space)" when a concise "(N-Space)" is both perfectly clear and much more common, though I would definitely still prefer Platt's version to "the Doctor's universe" or "the Doctor's world". Gowlbag ☎  23:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. You may have a point with those lines in State of Decay; perhaps the episodes' usage indeed doesn't quite support my earlier contention that "the universe" encompasses N-Space and E-Space. Nevertheless, in Full Circle and Warriors' Gate at least, the relationship between (fine, let's phrase it that way) "the two universes" definitely does come across as "a yin-yang sort of thing", with N-Space the 'world' of positive coordinates and E-Space the world of negative coordinates; with the two of them having a specific, "logical" point of connection at the spot of zero coordinates. The way things are shown in Warriors' Gate, the two universes definitely have a closer relationship than just two unrelated parallel universes happening to exist side-by-side, one of which happens to have negative coordinates and the other positive ones.

"Romana: "Zero coordinates." The Doctor: "Yes. Ponder on that." (…)< Romana: "Our N-space is positive and your E-space is negative." Adric: "Then this must be the intersection!""

- "Warriors' Gate"


 * Also — I think this is key to our discussion — even within State of Decay, N-Space and E-Space are names that are shown to be relative to one another; not preexisting designations that can be used to refer to them in a vacuum.

""An unidentified planet in what is referred to as E-space (…), to distinguish it from the larger N-space of our own origin.""

- K9 in "State of Decay"


 * I don't think I'm really following you about "Universe of N-Space", either. Earlier in this discussion, sources which allegedly use "Prime Universe of Gallifrey" were discussed, and surely that does not imply "Gallifrey" and "(Prime) Universe of Gallifrey" are synonymous. To me it seems obvious that the natural reading of the phrase "Universe of N-Space" is "universe which, foremost among several things which it contains, contains N-Space". How are you interpreting this quote to support the idea that "N-Space" can be used as a name for the whole universe? Scrooge MacDuck ☎  00:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that N-Space and E-Space have some sort of special connection. Earth and the Moon have a special connection. That doesn't mean they're part of the same planet.
 * I don't see the relevance of the K9 quote. All he appears to be saying is that the two names are used to distinguish the two concepts, which, yes, is how names generally work. It's not as if he's saying that E-Space should be referred to as N-Space while you're inside it or anything like that. If anything, his comment about N-Space being larger is just more evidence of the two universes not being equal.
 * Why does "the Universe of N-Space" mean that the universe is named "N-Space"? Because this line is a reference to a serial in which "N-Space" is referred to as a universe, for one thing. I can see how you might interpret "Universe of N-Space" to mean "broader universe including N-Space", though this seems strained and improbable even in isolation, just as "the Planet of Britain" is logically coherent but still a much more strained and unlikely phrase than "the Planet of Earth". In the context of season 18, there is no way that is what Platt or Romana mean. Can you really imagine her referring to her own universe as "the Universe of E-Space"? Come on. If the word "Gallifrey" had been introduced in a story about a universe named "Gallifrey", then your comparison would be apt. Gowlbag ☎  00:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)