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)

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)