Talk:N-Space: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Tag: 2017 source edit
Line 333: Line 333:


:::::Lastly, on [[T:NPOV]], this is a great example to explain something about its use I've meant to address: yes, all sources are to be weighted as equally valid. But it doesn’t mean we give the ''contents'' of those sources equal importance. To extremely simply things, if one story's context calls some concept "Timmy" and several others call it "Bob", the ''in-universe name'' "Bob" has more weight and notability to it than "Timmy". This should not be confused with the ''sources themselves'' having more weight— their equal weight is in fact what allows us to lend "Bob" more credence. Much as while we must acknowledge as valid the [[FASA]] guidebooks' claim that [[the Monk]] is [[the Master]], we do not lend it very much credence beyond acknowledging it due to the preponderance of evidence otherwise. All that is to say, maybe N-Space isn't the best name, but it's got more going for it than… ''looks at page'' "the Bellbreaker's Cradle". Not merely based on the amount of sources, but what they actually ''say''— that’s what's important. (Again, we can argue what they really say, but this point goes in general too.) [[User:Chubby Potato|Chubby Potato]] [[User talk:Chubby Potato|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 10:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Lastly, on [[T:NPOV]], this is a great example to explain something about its use I've meant to address: yes, all sources are to be weighted as equally valid. But it doesn’t mean we give the ''contents'' of those sources equal importance. To extremely simply things, if one story's context calls some concept "Timmy" and several others call it "Bob", the ''in-universe name'' "Bob" has more weight and notability to it than "Timmy". This should not be confused with the ''sources themselves'' having more weight— their equal weight is in fact what allows us to lend "Bob" more credence. Much as while we must acknowledge as valid the [[FASA]] guidebooks' claim that [[the Monk]] is [[the Master]], we do not lend it very much credence beyond acknowledging it due to the preponderance of evidence otherwise. All that is to say, maybe N-Space isn't the best name, but it's got more going for it than… ''looks at page'' "the Bellbreaker's Cradle". Not merely based on the amount of sources, but what they actually ''say''— that’s what's important. (Again, we can argue what they really say, but this point goes in general too.) [[User:Chubby Potato|Chubby Potato]] [[User talk:Chubby Potato|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 10:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::: Thank you for your last paragraph, Potato, that is the exact point I've been trying to make all along.
:::::: Scrooge, regarding "N-Space" being equivalent to "the Universe," I don't think that necessary follows. That does seem 'likely' if it is short for Normal Space (as the novelizations of State of Decay and Warriors' Gate say, according to the article itself), but we still have no positive sources that indicate as much. With that in mind, "the Universe" still strikes me as too vague for a work involving multiversal travel, while N-Space, which has only ever been used to refer to one universe of many, is still specific. If a story were to come out in which, say, the Romana II of Gallifrey's alternate universe unambiguously calls her own universe N-Space, I'd be more in favor of a change (although I still think "the Universe" is uncomfortably vague in that case and would prefer "the Doctor's Universe" or even an out-of-fiction title).

Revision as of 11:10, 20 October 2023

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.--Skittles the hog - talk 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.--Skittles the hog - talk 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 Kang the Conqueror's storyline, which our old friend Death's Head appeared in. 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: All-New Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe #7 (Merlyn), Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe #2 (Earth-5/Order of the Black Sun), Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe #10 (Saturnyne), and X-Men: Phoenix Force Handbook (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)

Partial conclusion

The whole prime universe of Gallifrey bit comes from later seasons of Gallifrey in which they're jumping between universes via the Axis. And it's not the prime Gallifrey just in the sense that it's "our Gallifrey" to our main characters; the Daleks recognise it as well as the main universe (in terms of Gallifrey's timelines), and all others are made out to be permutations, different paths for Gallifrey. (Would need to re-listen for helpful quotes, though.)

N-Space is also important here, but it's possibly a bit contentious to keep using that as the main name for the prime universe from Doctor Who.

The thing is, any name we take from a story will always come with a certain context — so N-Space as opposed to E-Space, prime Gallifrey as opposed to its own alternative forms, which branched off from a common origin. One's a kind of synergy, and the other's almost self-referential, an evolutionary take on parallel worlds. The problem is, there will always be stories with other universes that fall entirely outside of those structures.

So Prime Gallifrey is the prime universe within a certain set — in the context of the Axis, with damaged timelines to be compared against. Outside this storyline, writers might have totally different ideas: on a smaller scale (one bubble universe that doesn't fit into some grand scheme, not a version of any other reality) or a larger scale (whole networks in which no one universe can be seen as central and the laws of physics are anyone's guess).

When it comes down to it, one thing that we can all agree on, no matter what sources we're looking at, is that a story takes place in the same particular universe that our Doctor lives in, the one where most of the action takes place. Different stories might have their own ideas of what this universe means, but we can all agree, at least, on what it contains.

So I'm in favour of The Doctor's universe. I agree with arguments above that "world" comes off as planet-specific, and though it finds both uses, this is in fact how "world" is most often used in the DWU stories I've encountered. The Pete's World precedent is still a precedent for naming parallel Earths (or worlds in stories that are almost exclusively Earth-centric), and the Doctor's universe is much too elaborate to be summed up as just "parallel Gallifrey" or "parallel Earth".

Can't really support "The Doctor's Universe" per T:UNIVERSE, but "The Doctor's universe" is a solid option for going the common noun route. And going for a common noun keeps us from leaning too heavily on conjecture in naming one of our biggest topics.

And yes, there are other Doctors, but our Doctor is the one who goes undisambiguated on this wiki, so the meaning should be plain to readers. Any mention of "the Doctor" in a title with no disambiguation (no dab terms, no alternate names or incarnation titles) will be our Doctor, the one we've been following since he left Totter's Lane.

So from a Tardis Wiki perspective, "The Doctor's universe" makes perfect sense. "Universe" is clearly defined, and by convention "The Doctor" should only mean one thing. (And of course, any other names we have, like the universe of N-Space or Prime Gallifrey, will get bold text and redirects no matter how we move forward, providing they're well sourced.)
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 02:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Going forward

Not closing this discussion yet, though. This is as important a topic as it gets here at Tardis, so it merits a good look from fresh persepectives, if anyone would still like to put forward alternatives. This will give everyone a chance to have their say.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 03:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to make your arguments below on how to proceed.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 03:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Moving it to "The Doctor's universe" when we've got a perfectly good, unique name for that universe, taken directly from the classic series, and have been using it across the wiki for years with no problems, feels to me rather like moving Gallifrey to The Doctor's planet, or Susan Foreman to The Doctor's granddaughter". Gowlbag ☎ 04:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hm. I've looked into it a bit more. The two universes might have a closer relationship than other universes to N-Space, but all the relevant sources (including the original run of stories and the newer Big Finish audio stories set before they leave E-Space) do remind us that E-Space is a separate universe, so it's not as though the Doctor's universe also contains E-Space. (One reading of the Full Circle quotes given above could also be that the close connection is only in this context: they have no name for this other universe, so they distinguish the two universes by a characteristic where they differ. User:ScroogeMacDuck is right that Warriors' Gate's mathematical connection makes that difficult to square with, though.)

We can pivot towards "universe of N-Space" in the lead no matter how we end up taking the sources, but keeping N-Space as shorthand should not be taken off the table just yet. Could be a case of Akhaten (Planet? Sun? Who knows.), but I don't think this is a TARDIS Index File-type foible, where we'd totally misunderstood the source (and then named our wiki after it). If we can agree that N-Space designates a universe, and E-Space is its own universe, then the name might still fit by Occam's razor. If it does not work as the article name, though, the Doctor's universe remains a solid neutral title.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 03:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that currently on the wiki, "N-Space" and "The Doctor's universe" are synonymous, and if that was changed it would require a very large overhaul. We'd still need a page for the newly defined N-Space as well. Which is fine, but I think we should definitely come to a solid conclusion before making such drastic changes. Anyway, here are some of my thoughts:
For a bit of context, I found the quote where "universe of N-Space" comes from:

"You see, Gallifrey is a temporal anomaly. It exists not only in the Universe of N-Space, but also within its own exclusive time stream. Long before the Time Lords came to power, the ancient Gallifreyans had a sensitivity towards time and its movement. Our world was ruled by a line of oracles who could see and predict far into the future. Ultimately, they failed to predict their own downfall, and that resulted in probably the most terrible day in Gallifreyan history."Romana [Lungbarrow (novel) [src]]

I haven't read all of Lungbarrow, I only managed to find this section, but the terminology could apply to either interpretation of what N-Space means.
However, the evidence on E-Space points to the standard we already have. I am not 100% sure if there is a valid source to back this up, but multiple places call E-Space a parallel universe: for example, the Big Finish website or this BBC America article which calls it a "negative parallel universe". Our page for E-Space says it's a pocket universe, which in Hide is clarified to be a different thing from a parallel universe, but I can't find a valid source for E-Space being a pocket universe, as it's certainly not said in any of the TV stories set there. While it doesn't specifically say parallel universe is also worth pointing out the novelisation for Castrovalva says E-Space is "a separate negative universe":

“Adric’s home planet of Alzarius, as the old Doctor had known well, was in fact in a separate negative universe of its own, but now was no moment to quibble.”Castrovalva

And the novelisation was written by the serials' author and creator of E-Space, Christopher H. Bidmead, so I think that makes the authorial intent clear as well. I interpret it to mean E-Space is a particular type of parallel universe with a special relation to N-Space; in any case, it's "separate". (Might I add, we don't know exactly what "positive" and "negative" really mean in this situation— that is, how the TARDIS measures coordinates in such a way. To me it was an idea to explain something in a way that kind of makes sense, like reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.) But anyway, in my opinion, this description equates "N-Space" to what we call "the Doctor's universe". Chubby Potato ☎ 05:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Survivors of the Flux has just strolled in and given us an alternative option: Universe One. I'm not that enamoured with it, but it gets the point across, it's catchy, and it's what the most recent televised era's using when discussing the Doctor's Universe versus other universes in the Omniverse. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree. I think Universe One is the best we have, especially considering the whole Timeless Child storyline has made it questionable whether the current main universe is or isn't the Doctor's home universe. Right now, I feel that calling this "The Doctor's Universe" could potentially lead to more issues further down the line. 66 Seconds ☎ 23:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
My vote is still for N-Space, which appeared in the classic series, has been solidified in subsequent stories, is already in use on the wiki, and remains much more distinctive and unambiguous. "Universe One" is the next-best option, and belongs in the lead at least, but right now it's unclear that it's anything more than a name Tecteun made up for the purpose of a single conversation - her words are "Universe One, if you like", and other sources that call it "third universe" and "fourth universe" show that the numerical approach is tenuous and inconsistent. Stories like Lungbarrow make it clear that N-Space is in wider use. Gowlbag ☎ 02:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

While stories like Lungbarrow may use it as the name of the universe, it isn't always used as the name, not even in the original story the term debuted in.

Also, you said this earlier: "feels to me rather like moving Gallifrey to The Doctor's planet". We kinda already have that page.

14:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure going for the most recent Doctor Who name is necessarily the best way forward, if other options have more history (and thus, more representation). In any case, the argument that "N-Space" is only a term in relation to "E-Space" applies just as well to "Universe One".
I'm not sure the revelation that (by one account) the Doctor does not originate from this universe means this is not their universe anyway. Another argument against, however, is that Rose Tyler is incorrect in The Dimension Cannon that only one universe contains the Doctor, at least when you take into account all DWU sources (not least, Big Finish's own newly titled "Unbound Doctor").
Let's maybe look further into sources which might help contextualise N-Space before we throw that name out the window. Otherwise, the Doctor's universe still has the greatest distance from any one storyline, and seems to be the one thing they can all agree on (when they're not trying to place other DWU works into separate universes for having discontinuity, anyway).
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 07:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Slightly tangential, but I would like to make an analogy I thought of to perhaps rule out, or diminish, "N-Space" as a name:
In a given story, let's say that it is set in Australia, Earth - and let's also say that the Doctor identifies the location as Australia, and other characters agree.
Even though they are in Australia, which is correct, that doesn't mean that Earth is called Australia; this is how I feel about the name "N-Space".
Even if a character says that they are in N-Space, or have travelled to N-Space, it doesn't mean that "N-Space" is the name for the complete summation of the "main" Doctor Who universe. It's akin to a continent, or landmass, not the planet itself. 22:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for reinvigorating this discussion, because it led me to a lengthy reply. First off, I disagree. Rereading this thread and all the evidence we've gathered so far, I feel like it points to N-Space being the name of the universe. As far as I can tell, the problem is as follows: a) does "N-Space" refer to a part of the wider universe that also contains E-Space, or is it the whole universe and E-Space is separate? and b) if the latter is true, we can call this universe N-Space, but should the page be titled that? Here's my thoughts:
On a) I think it's pretty clear that E-Space is a separate, parallel universe with the quality of being negative (whatever that means). It intersects with N-Space but they are not two parts of a single universe. (See the above quote from Castrovalva.) Also, the important part of the Lungbarrow quote is as follows: "Gallifrey is a temporal anomaly. It exists not only in the Universe of N-Space, but also within its own exclusive time stream." This really only makes sense for the context that it's the whole universe (i.e. "the universe called N-Space"), not a part of it synecdochically referring to the whole thing (i.e. "the universe in which N-Space exists"). Notice that "Universe of N-Space" is capitalised as a title. Searching in the book, Lungbarrow uses "Universe" (capitalized) to refer to the universe, but "universe" (lowercase) to refer to the concept of a universe in general. So that implies N-Space is the Universe, not a part of it. Additionally, in Full Circle, the Doctor tells Adric E-Space is "the Exo-Space-Time Continuum, outside our own universe." Further dialogue in the next two stories also refers to N-Space and E-Space as separate universes. Therefore, I say the notion that '"N-Space" isn't the name of the "main Doctor Who universe" - "N-Space" and "E-Space" exist in the same universe, and other universes also have their own "N-Spaces"' as the rename tag says is false.
On b) my above argument says yes, we can call the universe where the Doctor most commonly travels N-Space. So supposing that is true, should we call it that? Considering T:NPOV we may not want to, but other choices may lead to more ambiguity. From the lead, we at least have the following options:
Now T:NPOV tells us to treat all media as equally valid, but I don't think choosing a name for a page gives any source more "weight to validity". Of the above options, I still think N-Space is the best, because within the context of in-universe perspectives, it's used the most, including context that doesn't involve E-Space. And, for other perspectives, it's used commonly in the fandom and this very wiki (though it could of course be changed). Not to say that's why we should use it, but it's something to consider. Chubby Potato ☎ 02:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
You're missing 503rd universe (PROSE: A Thousand & One Doors), though I don't think anyone's argued in favour of using that one. It's mostly relevant to this discussion insofar as it means we have two different ordinal numberings for "the Doctor's World", so IMO, much as I personally favour "Third Universe", it makes it inadvisable to use either of the ordinal options.
Also… I had not considered that fact before but I actually find to be quite a strong argument against N-Space that the phrase's most prominent appearance in a title, and the title of a fairly notorious story (as non-TV sources go), The Ghosts of N-Space, is using a completely different meaning of "N-Space" than the one we would be using.
Either way, your overview also skips what is still my preferred option, the neutral The Doctor's universe. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 02:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
On The Ghosts of N-Space, that's a fair point I hadn't considered. I'd think the universe would be a primary topic, but it probably would be best to avoid confusion. I was only listing in-universe names (and thanks for your addition), but the Doctor's universe is another option. I only think it might be somewhat ambiguous in writing, e.g. "the Unbound Doctor travelled to N-Space" makes a lot more sense than "the Unbound Doctor travelled to the Doctor's universe". And of course, there are other ways to word that but I think they might be somewhat awkward. Although I suppose we could still use N-Space in such situations, this is about the title after all. I'm not opposed to the Doctor's universe but I'm back to wondering if we can find any other potential titles. Chubby Potato ☎ 02:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
A new idea I want to at least mention for consideration is "the Doctor's prime universe". While a bit wordy, it satisfies the same neutrality of "the Doctor's universe" and clears up the ambiguity using both the generally understood definition of "prime" and the one from Spiral Scratch saying prime-ness is relative. Chubby Potato ☎ 03:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I have to agree with User:Chubby Potato's reasoning so far. The distinction that K9 names E-Space in relation to N-Space, and not the other way around, is also an important one. It allows for the possibility that N-Space exists as an independent term, which Lungbarrow picks up on.
Based on current evidence, I'd personally support N-Space first, then the Doctor's universe. We should also give consideration to Prime Universe. It's what the Gallifrey series gives us (or it might have just been something like "Gallifrey Prime", I'd have to double check), though it's only ever used in the context of the Axis, not the entire multiverse. It does have a source, however, and does a good job of describing this universe's function on the wiki. I'm just not sure it's as universal as our other options.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 03:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
If we use The Doctor's universe, then can we put the page in Category:The Doctor's possessions? Shambala108 ☎ 03:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Surely not? In this instance, the apostrophe is to dictate a sense of belonging, not ownership. We don't say that Peter Tyler owns his world, for instance. 07:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
No matter how rich he is. As an aside, I do agree that "N-Space" for the Doctor's universe is the primary topic. "N-Space" for "Null-Space" does not have nearly the same representation in the DWU. In comparison, considering the number of sources on each side, it's almost a footnote. Should probably be a redirect at N-Space (The Ghosts of N-Space), though. We're not about to sweep that one under the rug.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 23:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say I support both "N-Space" and "The Doctor's Universe", in that order. I actually think the second one is better for the Not we, the primary readers of the wiki, but N-space has stood the test of time in various EU sources and it would be a massive change to get the wiki in compliance, so I think procedurally sticking with N-Space is slightly better, but if we started the wiki from scratch I'd go the other way. I'm septical of Universe One, as it has been used fewer times than many of the other terms and it seems to me that choosing it treads close to a violation of T:NPOV. (Arguably we could justify it for the Not We, but if we're doing that there's just a better option here imo.) Najawin ☎ 02:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I fully support changing this page's name to The Doctor's Universe as it is significantly more intuitive and is already pipeswitched to that in a lot of cases. The ambiguity of other realities having doctors is solved by the fact that, as Scrooge pointed out near the beginning of this discussion, The Doctor refers to the one from the main universe. Cousin Ettolrhc ☎ 17:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I do think that "The Doctor's universe" is much more intuitive than "N-Space", but may I suggest instead using "Whoniverse", which seems to be a pretty common descriptor. However, it does not seem to appear in any in-universe source, so maybe "The Doctor's universe" is a better name. Aquanafrahudy ☎ 10:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Not changing the name seems to be the obvious decision here — this discussion has gone on inconclusively for years, which seems to indicate that changing the name is at the very least contentious and ill-advised, and any concerns about clarity are easily addressed by spending eight seconds reading the introduction of the article. It's also the most textually-supported option. Metz77 ☎ 00:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Even if the rename is inconclusive, it has been evidenced that, at the very least, "N-Space" is suboptimal insofar T:NPOV stands; it certainly isn't the most textually supported, as most sources don't name the universe. But I've seen a decent amount of support for the more neutral name "the Doctor's universe".
It isn't irregular for talk pages/Forum threads to dry up, but that doesn't mean the proposals on them don't have merit. 00:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't really understand why it's being said N-Space isn't a common name. The article already lists eight different sources with a variety of characters calling it that name. Aren't article names supposed to be the same as the name of the topic. The Doctor's universe isn't a name it's a description. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Null9999 (talk • contribs) .

Okay, so while some classic serials (certainly not all) and the early Wilderness Era may have used that name... we're now in 2023: we've had over twenty years of brand new television episodes, books, comics, audios, etc, and virtually none of them use "N-Space". It is not a neutral name based on the fact that most sources do not use it, and many, in fact, cannot legally use it.
There may well be ten or twenty, or maybe even thirty, stories that use "N-Space", but how many stories feature parallel universes/alternate timelines? Hundreds upon hundreds.
The tagine of ranges such as Erimem say "from the universe of Doctor Who", but not "from N-Space".
And the Wiki has used descriptive phrases for hard-to-title pages before. 15:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
"From the universe of Doctor Who" doesn't seem to refer to the in-world universe to me. Najawin ☎ 15:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand this argument at all. If a planet appeared in a load of stories but its name was only mentioned in one of them then of course the Wiki would use the name, it wouldn't have to title it after whoever was the major character that lived there. Just since this morning I found another 8 stories using some version of N-Space, so that's 16 and there's probably more. All of them fully BBC licenced productions. I don't understand why an off brand self published book series is relevant here. Anyway that's real world branding you're talking about, not in universe like the Wiki is meant to be, I doubt very much if these Erimem books have her calling it "The Doctor's Universe" any more than they have her calling it N-Space. Lance Parkin also uses N-Space throughout AHistory. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Null9999 (talk • contribs) .

If a planet went unnamed in twenty stories and was then named in one, then yes we would use that name, but if it was given twenty different names in those twenty different stories that would be an entirely different matter. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 15:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
"off brand self published books"? Erimem isn't self-published, they're published by Thebes Publishing, and T:NPOV:
"That which is said in a short story in the 1967 Doctor Who Annual, or a Faction Paradox audio drama, is just as valid as the latest episode of BBC Wales Doctor Who."T:NPOV
Thing is, this universe hasn't just appeared in a "load of stories"... it's appeared in about 95% of all fiction this Wiki covers. This universe appears more frequently than the Doctor or the TARDIS, this is the most recurring element, so it has to have a neutral name; "N-Space", a name used under thirty sources, does not appear in most of the ten thousand sources this Wiki actually covers. If we have ten thousand sources, and only thirty of them use a given name... that is not good enough. Under thirty sources is less than 0.3% of the total amount of fiction this website covers. 15:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not a neutral name though because it's not a name at all, it's a description. I don't see what's neutral about trying to title a universe after one person either. N-Space is a name, it is widely used by a variety of characters spanning more than thirty years, including at least 3 Doctors and 2 Timelord presidents, so you can hardly get more concrete than that. Of the other names listed in the article, nine of them appear to have been used exactly once and never again, so there's no competition at all. The nearest is Third Universe, which has only been mentioned more than once because two self published stories made apparently unlicenced references to it. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Null9999 (talk • contribs) .

The Totality is used across an anthology with 26 stories in it, and a novel, and a few of the 10,000 dawns crossovers, so it has roughly the same amount of mentions as N-Space. And whether or not something is self-published has no bearing on this discussion as per T:NPOV. (Also, can you please sign your comments with four tildes, like this: ~~~~) Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 17:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
"N-Space" was first used 1980 in Full Circle, a whole seventeen years after the universe first appeared. It may have been used since then in various expanded media sources by around three Doctors (out of over seventy Doctors) and a few other characters, but that is incredibly marginal compared to the hundreds of thousands of characters who have ever appeared. And when the Wiki covers around ten thousand individual sources... less than twenty characters using the name in less than thirty sources is not remotely neutral. Not even by a long shot.
Also, those "self-published" stories aren't, nor are they unlicensed. 17:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
They're not unlicensed, but they're as far as I know unlicenced to use the term "third universe", which as far as I'm aware is owned by Marc Platt, but we allow this due to the minor licenced appearances clause. Also, self-published is a very broad term. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 17:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I think "Third Universe" is probably too broad to be copyrightable. 17:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think we're going to get anything better than N-Space, which I don't think is a lesser option because some authors can't use the term. We wouldn't move Gallifrey to The Homeworld because Faction Paradox can't use the actual name after all. Are there sources that actually say The Doctor's Universe or is it a conjectural name for something we already have (several) actual names for? Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 17:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The Totality is a name from a spinoff book created in 2020. N-Space or Normal Space has been used in Doctor Who TV serials, Target novelisations, Virgin New Adventures, a Virgin Missing Adventure, an Eighth Doctor Adventure, Short Trips, a FASA game, a BBC New Past Doctor Adventure and a nonfiction reference book. "Incredibly marginal" compared to the illustrious Goblin Studios, good lord. How many times would N-Space have to be mentioned in your view to count? Does every nonspeaking regeneration of the Timeless Child have to line up and swear an oath of allegiance while the "Universe of N-Space" flag flutters over the Citadel? Null9999 ☎ 17:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Null9999

N-Space isn't incredibly marginal compared to Third Universe, it's just incredibly marginal in general (and we were just being pedantic for the rest of it). What's Timeless Child and flags got to do with it? Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 17:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
@Null9999, please read Tardis:Neutral point of view. Yes, works by Goblin Studios 100% count just as much as a VNA or classic serial. That's literally the whole point of the policy.
Frankly, for "N-Space" to be even considerable to me, at least something like 10% of sources should use the blasted name. The universe of Doctor Who is constructed from literally thousands of sources, so a substantial amount of them should all use the same name in order to name the single handedly most recurring element of all.
Otherwise, we could just use the Universe or the universe or similar, as that is broad enough of a name that sources actually use; and it also passes T:NPOV, as, while it could be applied to other parallel universes, this Wiki does prioritise the "main" universe, hence why we don't disambiguate every character by universe and have "other realities" sections and what-have-you. 17:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Earth appears in a good amount of the stories on this wiki without it explicitly mentioning that it's on Earth; nowhere near 10% of the stories that are on Earth mention this fact explicitly. Do we just say that Earth is unnamed? Failing to designate a name for something is not the same as saying that other names don't hold. I note also that N-Space is not incredibly marginal in the context of the discussion we're having, let's nip that idea in the bud. It's not. Is it the one we should choose? I dunno. But these are really bad arguments. (With that said, yes, T:NPOV applies. Though I'm inclined to weight short stories from the same anthology as less impactful on any counting of sources myself.) Najawin ☎ 21:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Moreso than a counting of sources, and certainly than any T:NPOV-breaching primacy of one range over another, I do think it's a point in N-Space's favour that it's used across a variety of ranges rather than just one or two specific series. I don't think "The Totality" (or, indeed, "Third Universe") are likely to win out over "N-Space" at the prominence game.
Ultimately, I think "the Universe" or "the Doctor's universe" would be preferable because they're more accurate to link to when talking about generic stories that don't use any specific name at all. Certainly paragraphs cited to stories that use the term "N-Space" should say "in N-Space…", but as one particular lore-specific name for something with many names, it shouldn't indiscriminately be used when citing information from sources that don't use that name. That is, we should definitely never ever say "The Tenth Doctor remained in N-Space while Rose Tyler was trapped in Pete's World. (TV: Doomsday)". Doomsday doesn't actually reference the N-Space terminology; it would be noteworthy if it did, so we shouldn't give that impression.
And that means that we have to constantly pipe-link if we want to remain accurate; "Rose was trapped outside [[N-Space|her and the Doctor's native universe]]…". It's not ideal, and it's a problem that goes away in 99% of cases if we use a more neutral term like "the Universe" or "the Doctor's universe". --Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 21:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
@Najawin that's not directly comparable. Earth, funnily enough, exists in the real world so its name goes without saying to the entire Western audience consuming Who; there is no point in naming it when people can kinda easily use their (shock and horror) real world knowledge whilst consuming Who.
But back on to the matter of the universe, just because it isn't named in most sources, does not mean that those same source accepts a previously given name. Sources not saying anything doesn't mean they agree with a previous source! 21:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
"Earth" here refers to a fictional analogue of our own planet. "The Universe" here does the same. Except, in the fictional construct of the DWU, there are multiple universes, which isn't known to be the case IRL, so there needs to be a designator for this universe. (Otherwise it would be like calling it "the planet".)
It's surely not the case that sources failing to say something entails that they agree with a prior source - I didn't claim they did. But your claim was
It is not a neutral name based on the fact that most sources do not use it, and many, in fact, cannot legally use it.
Stories failing to use it do not impact whether or not it's a neutral name. It's completely irrelevant unless they put forward their own name. And, no, simply referring to it as "the universe" or "our universe" isn't sufficient. Those aren't names. It might ultimately be that "The Doctor's Universe" is the best we can do as a description. But it's simply not the case that there's a name that is consistently used more than N-Space. Najawin ☎ 22:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Scrooge_MacDuck Isn't this what redirects are used for? Both those names already point to N-Space which seems like a good idea to me. Another factor I don't think the 'Doctor's universe' is a wise idea is, descriptions twist sentences to fit them. Thus people would always end up having to type awkward lines like 'The Doctor returned to the Doctor's universe'. Or else always pipe-linking the better text like 'his own universe' to point to The Doctor's universe, as you want to avoid. Null9999 ☎ 22:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Null9999

If the vast majority of links to a page are actually pointing at a redirect, it's obvious something is wrong with the page name. 22:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Not only is this not policy, it was explicitly rejected in our recent discussions over Tardis:Honourifics. Najawin ☎ 02:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
@Null9999: That's a fair point regarding "The Doctor's universe", I suppose, although the problem only arises in a minority of use-cases, I would say. But it just makes me double down on "the Universe". What gets me is that, again, by logical implication if not explicit records, a whole lot of parallel universes would think of their own worlds as "N-Space" too. It's not actually an objective external name for their universe from a truly multiversal perspective. If you ask Nobody No-One or Lady Aesculapius about "N-Space" they'll be like "uh, which one? the one with Chris Eccleston or the one with Rowan Atkinson? or… (ad infinitum)".
"The Universe" and "N-Space" are both names applied from within to the Totality/Third Universe/etc.etc. but which we actually only favour as names for this universe per se by fiat in the same way that we reserve the undabbed The Doctor for "our" Doctor rather than one or another of the Unbounds. "N-Space" isn't any more proper than "the Universe" is. And considered in those terms "the Universe" is far more common still than N-Space is.
I reject that this is like saying "the planet" for Earth. Nay, I say it is like "moon"/The Moon", or "galaxy"/"The Galaxy". The definitive article, you might say… --Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 05:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Ehhhhh, "The Doctor" is more analogous to a name here. Accounts vary on how to treat it. We use the undabbed "The Doctor" to refer to the main one in the same way that we use the undabbed Pete Tyler to refer to the one from the main universe. "The universe" is just a description, not a name. It works IRL because it's a definite description IRL, but in-universe it's not.
I note also that neither IU or IRL is "The Galaxy" the name of our galaxy. It's a description. The page cites War Games for this, but War Games uses it as a description, not as a name. If there are other examples we can discuss those, but it's simply not a name. "The Moon" does happen to be the name of our moon, as is "The Doctor", distinct from the other two examples given.
Maybe a description is the best we can do. But let's just be honest about the fact that "the universe" is a description, and "N-Space" is a name. If it's a bad name, alright, let's deal with that. But the two are not comparable. There's no NPOV-judo move here that can be done to make it look like there's another name that's far and away more compliant. Najawin ☎ 06:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Hard disagree on "the Galaxy". It's antiquated, certainly, but capitalised it's definitely a name for the Milky Way (the only galaxy we knew about way back when in just the same way that "the Moon" remains a name for Selene, the only moon we used to know about). Crikey, "Milky Way" is only an English translation of galaxia kyklos in the first place! See the second paragraph of List of names for the Milky Way. In human usage the Galaxy, capitalised, remains a name for the Milky Way just as the Moon remains a name for Selene, and I contend that the same is true of "the Universe". --Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 06:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
It was used then because it used to be thought to be a definite description. It's the definite description bit here that's relevant. Since it fails to be, we needed to actually name it, and we did so. (And Selene is very much not the standard name of the The Moon in contemporary English. We, confusingly, named our Moon "The Moon".) In the DWU we (might, by analogy) need to use an actual name, not an indefinite description. "The Universe" is the latter, not the former. Najawin ☎ 08:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Personally I don't really think it matters altogether that much if we use a description over a name, much less the used-in-less-than-0.3%-of-total-fiction-N-Space.
But frankly, at the end of the day, this is just a Wiki in a very real world; although there are other Earth-like planets, moons, and suns in the DWU, it makes the most sense to name those articles using the names that readers are both familiar with and the writers assume you know — so our pages are at the Earth, the Moon, the Sun. The Universe fits this taxonomy very well. 08:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
As others have pointed out, your "it's not used in many sources" argument doesn't hold water — most of the time, the proper name of the prime universe of Doctor Who isn't mentioned because it isn't relevant. The majority of the time it is given a proper name, it's called N-Space. Your other argument actually outlines why I think Scrooge's argument in favor of a descriptor isn't a good solution: this wiki may exist in the real world, but outside of Real World articles and behind-the-scenes sections, we treat it as though it exists within the continuity of Doctor Who, and the preponderance of evidence available to us indicates that the most commonly-used name for the prime universe of Doctor Who by the inhabitants who have a need to disambiguate from other universes is N-Space. Metz77 ☎ 09:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Just out of interest, how many of the sources using the term "N-Space" were written after we had named this article? Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 09:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
“It was used then because it used to be thought to be a definite description. It's the definite description bit here that's relevant. Since it fails to be, we needed to actually name it, and we did so.”
No! No! It's the other way around, dammit! When "the Galaxy" and "the Universe" were first named thus, these were not thought of as descriptors, because the coiners of those names did not envision that there could be more than one of each. They were not descriptions (well, except insofar as "Galaxy" means "a milky way"…). It wasn't a case of "this is a galaxy, and since there's just one, we can just call it the galaxy without fear of confusion"; it's only after people discovered the concept of there being multiple Milky-Way-like entities that the common name for the kind, "galaxies", was coined based on the proper name of the singular original, "the Galaxy". This got confusing so the scientific norm arose to reserve the English translation "Milky Way" for the original Galaxy, rather than the transliteration of the Greek name. But it doesn't change the fact that it was a proper name for a singular specific thing first, and a description later.
To borrow a point from Mr Smith, see also "the Minotaur". Nowadays modern fantasy tends to think of minotaurs as a species/type of being, so that the original son of Pasiphae seems to have a very generic name, as if a dragon was simply called "the Dragon"; but in fact the Minotaur was his specific designation first, and only later retrofitted into a species name once modern writers decided to invent the concept of plural minotaurs. He is therefore a minotaur called The Minotaur, not simply ‘a minotaur referred to as simply 'the Minotaur' in the context of the Thesean legend because he's the only one in the story’.
(And of course, in Moffatland, "doctors" work like this: The Doctor came first, and retroactively caused various languages to adopt the syllables as a way to refer to mortal, non-time-travelling individuals who had some traits in common with the Doctor.)
Ditto: by my understanding "the Universe", "the Cosmos", etc. were coined by people who did not remotely conceive of the idea that there could be multiple universes. "The Universe" was a proper name first. That multiverse theory goes on to use "universes" as a common name for the plural-things-of-the-kind-that-the-singular-Universe-turns-out-to-have-only-been-one-example-of does not change the original nature and definition of the term.
And as I said, N-Space is more or less like this too. It's coined by the characters as a name for their own universe in relation to E-Space, with no apparent awareness that there are other universes which would obviously think of themselves as N-Space too; they think they're being singular, whereas technically there are many N-Spaces.
(That some of these names take a "the" and others not hardly seems relevant, particularly as Greek nouns can always take articles regardless of whether we'd think of them as proper or common, e.g. grammatically they might very well speak of "the Homer writing the Odyssey about the Odysseus". The Galaxy/the Milky Way could as easily have been translated as just "Galaxy" or "Milky-Way". Certainly "Normal-Space" would come out as the Normal-Space if you tried to put it in Greek; indeed it'd come out like that in French too and a number of other languages. There's no meaningful difference between "N(ormal)-Space" and "the Normal Space", and "the Normal Space" is precisely the same kind of thing as "the Universe".) --Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 09:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I would have to rewatch the E-Space trilogy to be sure, but is N-Space explicitly coined in-story to contrast E-Space? If not, it seems rather speculative to say that 'There's no meaningful difference between "N(ormal)-Space" and "the Normal Space", and "the Normal Space" is precisely the same kind of thing as "the Universe".'
I also don't think that originating as an in-story coinage necessarily rules it out as the proper name — after all, that was also how the term "Ice Warriors" originated, among many other now-accepted and established terms in the franchise — but that's a digression. Metz77 ☎ 10:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh, certainly it doesn't rule it out. What I mean to demonstrate is that "the Universe" and "N-Space" are essentially equivalent in terms of being "in-universe proper names coined from within"; on the basis of which we could then say that although N-Space would be perfectly viable, "the Universe" has seen even more widespread use and thus should be preferred.
Regarding the original context of the coinage of N-Space in-story, the quotes have been extensively pored over earlier on this talk page, look through that and I think you'll find all necessary information. --Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 10:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
This was going to be a brief reply before I go to bed but of course it isn’t. Oh well. First, I would like to briefly say that when looking over the sources using the name, it seemed very much to me that "E-Space" is a name derived from "N-Space", and not vice versa. K9 says the name E-Space is "to distinguish it from the larger N-space of our own origin." But you could also argue, as Scrooge has, that these two names are inherently tied together. The line from Lungbarrow stands out to me in particular— I haven’t read it and it turns out the scene did have discussion of E-Space, but it does seem like that wasn’t relevant by the time of Romana's point here. I'll leave that to someone else because I probably shouldn't dive headfirst into the middle of Lungbarrow having read zero VNAs. For shame, I know.
Anyways, while I still prefer that name, I've come to realize it's going to be very tricky to find a name that is truly neutral, as this universe is something nearly every source covered by the wiki shares in common and has a different way of looking at. I tried looking more into "prime universe" terminology a bit but the prime page ended up confusing me significantly. Are "prime" and "primary" universes being conflated here? I'm not sure. I kind of liked "prime universe of Gallifrey" a while back except that there are, of course, many Gallifreys.
Lastly, on T:NPOV, this is a great example to explain something about its use I've meant to address: yes, all sources are to be weighted as equally valid. But it doesn’t mean we give the contents of those sources equal importance. To extremely simply things, if one story's context calls some concept "Timmy" and several others call it "Bob", the in-universe name "Bob" has more weight and notability to it than "Timmy". This should not be confused with the sources themselves having more weight— their equal weight is in fact what allows us to lend "Bob" more credence. Much as while we must acknowledge as valid the FASA guidebooks' claim that the Monk is the Master, we do not lend it very much credence beyond acknowledging it due to the preponderance of evidence otherwise. All that is to say, maybe N-Space isn't the best name, but it's got more going for it than… looks at page "the Bellbreaker's Cradle". Not merely based on the amount of sources, but what they actually say— that’s what's important. (Again, we can argue what they really say, but this point goes in general too.) Chubby Potato ☎ 10:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your last paragraph, Potato, that is the exact point I've been trying to make all along.
Scrooge, regarding "N-Space" being equivalent to "the Universe," I don't think that necessary follows. That does seem 'likely' if it is short for Normal Space (as the novelizations of State of Decay and Warriors' Gate say, according to the article itself), but we still have no positive sources that indicate as much. With that in mind, "the Universe" still strikes me as too vague for a work involving multiversal travel, while N-Space, which has only ever been used to refer to one universe of many, is still specific. If a story were to come out in which, say, the Romana II of Gallifrey's alternate universe unambiguously calls her own universe N-Space, I'd be more in favor of a change (although I still think "the Universe" is uncomfortably vague in that case and would prefer "the Doctor's Universe" or even an out-of-fiction title).
Retrieved from "https://tardis.wiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:N-Space&oldid=3627630"