Talk:Ringworld

message: I want to link "nuclear binding force" to the appropriate Wikipedia entry but not sure which it should be.
Anybody?
: Having a wild stab and setting it to weak nuclear force :-) --Anders Törlind 
:I'm not sure whether it's supposed to be the strong nuclear force or the weak one, I'll have to reread an article or two about the Ringworld to dig up better specifics. -BD  
:Not a Ringworld expert, but I would think that the strong nuclear force would be closer to what is commonly called the "nuclear binding force". 
:The contents of the immediately preceding box is the second of two three passages, each uninterrupted by later content edits, that together comprise the content of the earliest revision in the edit history of this talk page for the accompanying article Ringworld. Nominally, all of that content was added by  at 19:01, 3 October 2001 (and presumably none of it was added later), but the probably mixed actual authorship of that revision is discussed at Note on nominal first revision below.--Jerzy•t 07:23, 12 & 07:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The strong nuclear force is a short-range binding (or attractive) force, but the weak one is a short-range repulsive one (whose influence is said to cause the instability that produces nuclear decay). I'm weak on the history of high-energy physics; is it possible that some of these calculations were done before the weak force was widely accepted, so that the ambiguity we are aware of was still an esoteric one? --Jerzy•t 07:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be the strong nuclear force. That's the attractive force which binds the particles in the nucleus of an atom together.  The weak force is not an attractive force.--Lensman003 (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:   Nuclear forces 

message: Niven claims he was "forced" to write the sequel Ringworld Engineers, because he didn't realise the Ringworld was not actually in a stable orbit. He says that at a science fiction convetion he attended the halls were full of MIT students shouting, "The Ringworld is unstable! The Ringworld is unstable!"   Ah fandom.   :-)
If only fandom had used its powers to force him to _not_ write Ringworld Throne... :) (the third book is widely considered to be vastly inferior to the original)
LOL
:The contents of the immediately preceding box is the last of three passages, each uninterrupted by later content edits, that together comprise the content of the earliest revision in the edit history of this talk page for the accompanying article Ringworld. Nominally, all of that content was added by  at 19:01, 3 October 2001 (and presumably none of it was added later), but the probably mixed actual authorship of that revision is discussed at Note on nominal first revision below.--Jerzy•t 07:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And I am extremely proud to be one of the people that persuaded Larry to write Ringworld's Children (although I suggested Ringworld's Child)  — PhilHibbs | talk 16:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. When I was young and keen, I actually simulated a ringworld using point masses connected by lightweight springs and numerically integrated its motion forward. It was rough as hell, but it sorta worked, and gave me a fair idea what would happen. What I found was that it wasn't just slightly unstable, it was *incredibly* unstable. It's not just a question of crashing into the planet in a nice circle, it looks a bit like those pictures you see of galaxies colliding with arms flying off in different directions, and it didn't take being much off centre for it to do that. You'd think it would go elliptical as it slides sideways to its doom, but basically, the difference in orbital speeds between apogee and perigee and the tugging of the loop seems to utterly mess up the symmetry so thoroughly, that I can still hear the Ringworld inhabitance screaming in the night sometimes as they lose their atmosphere and go spinning off into the void ;-) or something LOL. - (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 07:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Fan influence 

message: I refer to the "nominal first revision" because, as with many WP pages begun in the first year or so (counting from 2001 mid-January), the edit histories appear not to include some quantity of early revisions. This talk page compounds that familiar confusion in featuring the following anomalies:
# The first edit-history entry's corresponding revision page (in contrast to the entry, which quite logically indicates the revision has no predecessor), has a link to a supposed preceding revision, with a later date-stamp: specifically, 15:43, 25 February 2002, that of the revision signed by User:Conversion script, with edit summary "Automated conversion".
# While revisions so signed and summarized are common on pages begun sufficiently early, IIRC a Conversion-script revision normally appears as the first rev'n in the history. (The content of this Conversion-script revision does appear to be correctly positioned in the sequence; i'm tempted to speculate that the "script" mechanism was intended to create, for each selected page in an old structure, a new page with various reformatting procedures applied, but at least in this case it was applied where the new page already existed, and some logic i haven't worked out would explain the usually backward link pointing forward.
# Some differences of the Conversion-script revision from are merely automatable reformatting of internal links or removal of white-space, while one is the insertion of the two 'graphs beginning "I'm sorry, I know ..." and "We could even spin ..." between the previous [index.php?title=Talk:Ringworld&oldid=278462 22:47 and 22:52, 15 January 2002] contribs of User:SRWenner and the (unlinked and undated) quasi-sig "--SRWenner".
I thus comfortably assume that:
# The Conversion-script revision incorporates both text by SRWenner (who, like "AN", who linked their quasi-sig to the Dab pg AN, appears not to have known how to sign talk contribs) and automatic reformatting by a different and highly skilled editor or developer who would presumably have signed in the same fashion as BK if they were adding the 2 'graphs that purport to be the work of SRWenner.
# The initial revision in the edit history is, as is common, actually a composite of contribs by multiple editors, including in this case User:Bryan Derksen, AN User:AN, aka User:AstroNomer, User:Anders Törlind, and others unknown.
--Jerzy•t 07:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I find that I misjudged User:AN to be a low-skilled editor, because i relied on very early versions of this page (soon after the links were reworked by Conversion script, linking to :AN rather than specifying the User namespace). This link to an article rather than to the User namespace probably reflects the transition to new notation, perhaps involving the introduction of named namespaces beyond Talk. --Jerzy•t 07:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on nominal first revision {{anchor|1st revision}} 

message: As there's no need for pseudogravity at the shadow squares, couldn't they just be in inertial orbit around the star, meaning no need for high-tensile-strength material in that part stabilization there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.42.155.39  (talk) 21:25 & :27, 29 January 2003 
* i think the shadow squares had to rotate at that speed in order to keep the length of the day short. though i cant remember in which direction they turned in relation to the ring —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.123.241.170 (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2003 
*: Yes, that was exactly why. Plus it keeps the shadow square wire under tension so that they stretch back apart on their own after the squares close up during solar flares. I'm pretty sure they turned in the opposite direction of the ring, but don't quote me on that. -- John Owens 11:42 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)
*::As pointed out in RC, a better (more Earthlike) configuration would be five long strips orbiting retrograde, implying that the squares as described spin in the same direction  — PhilHibbs | talk 16:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shadow-square dynamics 

message: :The following contrib had been treated (for the last 30 months?) as a separate discussion from the one i have just titled "Shadow-square dynamics"; i conjecture that the lack of numbers or units in that immediately preceding discussion reflects some removals among those mentioned in the talk section "Large talk excision".  --Jerzy•t 05:49  & 18:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: At 12:10, 10 June 2003, Patrick replaced "770m/s" with "1200 km/s" as the speed of rotation of the structure.  --Jerzy•t 18:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Which is to say, "770m/s" should have been written "770 mi/s" to be any decent kind of approximation; the use of "above", immediately above on this talk page, means "earlier [and thus lower on the most-recent-on-top history page] in the editing of the accompanying article". --Jerzy•t 18:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units 

message: There's a ringworld in the shareware game Escape Velocity: Nova.  Basically, they just grow food on it.  They use less than 1% of it and it feels billions.  -LtNOWIS 03:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game EV:N with a ringworld 

message: "Even visualizing what such a massive structure would look like when viewed from its surface is a difficult, yet rewarding, exercise."  Should this really be in the article? 172.129.179.16 02:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it shouldn't be there.  I've rewritten it. Hayford Peirce 00:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewarding exercise? 

message: I removed the following:
:This could be produced by siphoning matter through wormholes in the time/space continuum from the hypothetical Big Crunch.
There is no scientific basis for thinking that siphoning matter through wormholes could produce a superstrong material, and it's not something mentioned in the book, IIRC.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Foskey (talk)  22:01, 19 September 2005
* What's in the book is the point; it would not belong in the article even if a scientific basis for expecting that result were provided as a ref.  That being said, i would assume the contributor expected not transformation by the "siphoning" but rather relatively intact transport of matter that would be radically different from the matter typical of our cosmological era, perhaps neutronium or something still more exotic; current physics may break down at such densities and thus not be capable of predicting its tensile strength. --Jerzy•t 07:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Crunch siphon 

message: I don't want to edit the ringworld page directly, but I am not sure how to add to the discusion page so I will say it here.  In the 5th paragraph of the engineering section it is stated that Luis Wu is concerned about his salt intake because the oceans are non saline.  I am not sure if I have read a revised edition of this, but I just read book 2 where this is brought up, and in the copy I read it specifically says all the seas fresh water and the two oceans and the only bodies of salt water.  The issue at hand is the oceans are as far removed from where he is at as mars is from the earth.  This makes it unlikely that there would be much salt in the food sources Luis Wu is eating at the time.  This is not in conflict with the saline oceans of the Ringworld Children. 
67.66.236.29 02:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The edition is irrelevant. I just checked the original edition-- which is paperback; the hardcover was a later edition.  I also checked a later edition (fifteenth printing, 1981); there is no change to that passage.  The two Great Oceans are salt, the rest of the water on the Ringworld is fresh.--Lensman003 (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Salinity of the world oceans

message: The shadow squares have to be connected to each other, otherwise tidal forces would make them turn endways towards the star like spokes of a wheel.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.227.201.88 (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2006 
:They are-- this is mentioned in one of the books. Jtrainor 20:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fact, this is a key plot point in the very first book, Ringworld.  The Lying Bastard, after being disabled by an attack from the meteor defense system, runs smash into a length of shadow square wire.  The wire follows them down and they meet up with it again on the Ringworld. Finally the wire is vital to their eventual escape from the Ringworld. Rpresser (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shadow squares have to be connected 

message: Has anyone knoticed that the Ringworld looks like the Halo games ring?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.6.17 (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2006
* It's the reverse: Halo looks a bit like the Ringworld.  Actually, Halo is more like a Banks orbital than a Niven ring. 20:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ringworld/Halo 

message: I took out a very long discussion about the physics of Ringworld, it didn't really pertain to the article itself.  If anyone wants to read or manipulate it, you'll have to go through the history.
WLU 16:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed something similar again. WikiuserNI (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large talk excision 

message: The numbers are not correct, Earth´s rotational velocity is 1,200 km/h not 1,200 km/s think about it. Earth's orbital velocity is 36 km/s. Just see Earth. David 08:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a figure that has nothing to do with Earth's rotation.  It's the tangential speed of the Ringworld, not the Earth. Xihr 10:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbital Velocity and Rotational Velocity 

message: Shouldn't the intro read virtually indestructible hulls? Cueball anyone? --Belg4mit 02:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  advanced tech 

message: Why is so much space taken up by density in the Mass box? It's presumably the density of scrith, but not especially helpful. --Belg4mit 03:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  engineering box 

message: Although Lying Bastard did indeed hit the shadow square wires, it's more relevant that it was shot down by an unknown weapon (the meteor defence). Its General Products Hull was invulnerable (except to antimatter) but it carried its intra-system drive and much instrumentation externally, and it couldn't use its hyperdrive so close to the Ringworld's sun. Captain Pedant 10:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crashing on the Ringworld 

message: Apologies, but this seems rather inaccurate:
"The character Nessus is a Pierson's Puppeteer, a species with the most advanced technology in Known Space"
Er, no, that would be the Outsiders. It was the Outsiders that the Puppeteers turned to in order to secure the reactionless drive technology they needed to move their homeworlds (Kemplerer Rosette) out of harm's way from the Core Explosion. Also reference this Wikipedia article on Outsiders:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_%28Known_Space%29
72.45.96.236 04:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puppeteers have the most advanced technology? 

message: The summary contains the phrases:
"A theme well-covered in the novel is that of cultures suffering technological breakdowns who then proceed to revert to belief-systems along fundamentalist or religious lines."
"Fundamentalism" is a religious philosophy that believes certain ideas are absolutely right and must be unswervingly adhered to.  We are not given enough information about the Ringworlder's beliefs to say whether they are fundamentalist or not.  All we really know is that Louis considers them superstitious fools and has no qualms about exploiting them.
What IS interesting is that this attitude of Louis' (and Niven's?) disappears completely in the sequels, where Louis treats everybody he meets as equals and with respect.  This improvement in Louis' character is nowhere mentioned in the Ringworld plot summaries.
CharlesTheBold (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment about the use of the term fundamentalist.  There's really no evidence presented in the book that that's the case.  That's original research and probably non-neutral POV, to boot.  As for emphasizing how his attitude seems to changed (even though it isn't explained or dwelled on in the books, as far as I can remember), that sounds a bit WP:NPOV to me too. Xihr (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why fundamentalist?  

message: I wouldn't have thought there's significant originality in a trivial application of freshman physics. —Tamfang (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  size of an Orbital 

message: I added this:
:One of the characters in Consider Phlebas mentions "Big Ring" structures, considerably larger than an Orbital, but it is unclear whether or not these are on the scale of a Niven Ring.
It got reverted with a comment of "rv; huh? what you included involves speculation". Where is the speculation? It is mentioned by one of the characters, and it is unclear how big a "big ring" is. I think it's clear from the text that it's bigger than an Orbital, so if Orbital gets a mention, so should Big Ring. I really don't see the objection to this being included, and it's been reverted twice so I'm not going to get into a war. Opinions? — PhilHibbs | talk 18:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The comment self-disclaims itself and so is introducing information that is not established as true.  It's trivial and speculative, and thus doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Xihr (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then the reference to "orbital" should be removed, since this is even less to do with Ringworlds. Orbitals are tiny in comparison, the only thing they share is that they are circular in shape "Big Ring" is probably the only structure mentioned in science fiction that is similar to a Ringworld, I'm inclined to delete most of the section since none of the examples come even close, they're all several hundred orders of magnitude smaller. — PhilHibbs | talk 02:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  They're both solid rings, habitable on the inside, and spun for artificial gravity.  They're clearly related, whether or not you consider them true ringworlds or not.  The bottom line is that there many, many notable, reliable sources that make a comparison between, say, the structure featured in Halo to the Ringworld.  It would be impossible to keep those links out based on such an arbitrary distinction, and so the links should stay in.  The references make it clear that they're not true Ringworlds, anyway. Xihr (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Ring 

message: Could we please add a note on some of the numbers given in the books re population of the Ringworld? (Don't have the books handy.)The Ringworld is impressive not only because of its large physical area, but because of its large (potential) population.I know that the numbers are very vague or estimates, but I believe that something about this was mentioned in Engineers .-- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Population

message: This article should focus on the novel, a separate Ringworld series article should be built for the fictional structure and its contents, and the relationship between the stories. A third article Niven ring should be built about the theoretical megastructure, like the article on Dyson sphere 76.66.196.229 (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE: a previous poll, not closed or implemented, said that the article should be split into at least two, one on the megastructure and one on the novel. I think it should be split in three, to separate the theoretical and fictional aspects. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There IS a difference---but it's not directly related to Larry Niven.  I argued this already in the previous entry---"Ringworld" is not the base concept; the base concept is a Dyson Ring.  "Ringworld" is only the creation of Larry Niven's novels.  It doesn't make sense to split this article, eviscerating the novel article, and creating a whole new article on an architectural technology based on a novel! AndarielHalo (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Larry Niven originated the concept of a star-circling solid ring which spins to provide pseudogravity, has an atmosphere constrained by open-topped walls, and has a terraformed inner surface. This is what is commonly meant by use of the term Ringworld, as opposed to "Dyson Ring" which is a neologism created after Niven's Ringworld was published. The page needs to be split to reflect that usage, as well as the existence of Ringworlds in fiction besides the original. The page for the structure should be called either Niven ring or Ringworld (Megastructure), with the other name as a redirect. The Ringworld (novel) and Ringworld (series) also require disambiguation.--Noclevername (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Sadly Niven ring currently just redirects back to this Ringworld ! and Dyson ring redirects to Dyson sphere which does not discuss rings at all ! - Rod57 (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: The article mentions that Niven's novel Ringworld has three sequels and three prequels. Wouldn't it make sense to list the titles somewhere in the article? I'd list them myself, but I have no idea what the prequels are. Clampton (talk) 06:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequels and Prequels 

message: At Ringworld#Scrith, the article mentions a "lightyear of lead." What in the world is a "lightyear" of lead? Is that how Hans Solo did the Kessel run "in under three parsecs"? kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 03:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what's wrong; it means 9,460,730,472,580.8 kilometers of lead. --Kjoonlee 05:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then, "they" should have said (written) that. I see you've corrected the article. Thanks. kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 10:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not very happy with the change, though. (I don't really think of it as correction.) I think the original text might have been more clear. --Kjoonlee 03:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't clear to me because "light year" is not generally used in terms of thickness of physical materials but rather as a measure of distance traveled. In other words you would not normally say "a mile of lead." Instead you would say something like "a layer of lead a mile thick." kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 22:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's why our opinions differ. I find "a mile of lead" perfectly clear. Oh well. --Kjoonlee 04:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Light Year - is that by weight or by volume? 

message: The technical realities of such a ring might be left to the Dyson Sphere article, which has a subsection on the Niven Ring and other such types of structures. This deals much more succinctly (and with cites) with the technical aspects of such an entity, which aren't that germane to the article subject. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Technical realities" 

message: Is it just me or are there parallels to the main characters; Teela Brown = Trillian; Zaphod Beeblrox = 2 heads/Puppeteer; Chmee= Marvin- pr even Scooby Doo?
--Streona (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

message: ...perhaps it deserves at least a mention in the article.  Or the redirect removed.  --j⚛e deckertalk 02:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and the same thing goes for rishathra.  JDZeff (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  If scrith redirects here... 

message: In chapter 4 she has brown eyes and in chapter 12 she has green eyes. I get that they had colored contacts and such, but is this an error?
24.252.47.209 (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe they change with her mood, like Sméagol's. Or maybe she has one of each. —Tamfang (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teela's eye color 

message: Does the "Game of Thrones" take place on a Ringworld?  Is there any connection between the two?Jonny Quick (talk) 07:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Game of Thrones" is set on a world where seasons are much longer  than ours.  The Ringworld by its very structure cannot have seasons at all, nor does Martin mention any other Ringworld effects such as the infinite horizon.  So the answer is no.  73.137.170.88 (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game of Thrones 

message: So apparently this article was split, and the article with the scientific information is now a redirect back here. Seems like a good enough reason to put the Engineering section back.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.83.155 (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really have an opinion on the matter, but was the 'scientific information' you are referring to removed with this edit in 2011? I can't find any article that once housed this info that has since become a redirect (Niven ring, discussed as a potential split above, has redirected here since its creation in 2005). Antepenultimate (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

text: It would be great to have a link to say engineering aspects/criticms of Ringworld. There must be published discussions of this somewhere. eg what tension needed in the ring (given the stated mass and the stated centripetal acceleration). Are the self-gravity forces in the ring significant ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Could also include "A simple unsupported hoop about a planet or star is unstable.Colin McInnes,  "Nonlinear Dynamics of Ringworld Systems", J. British Interplanetary Soc., Vol. 56 (2003).  Carl A. Brannen, "Niven Ring Gravitational Stability"  " ? and Aspects of Ringworld - Rod57 (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Engineering info lost 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Ringworld. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100831133325/http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/movies/ringworld_movie_001106.html to http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/movies/ringworld_movie_001106.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061006170420/http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Television&action=page&type_id=&cat_id=270355&obj_id=41212 to http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Television&action=page&type_id=&cat_id=270355&obj_id=41212
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220080109/http://xbox.ign.com/articles/709/709122p5.html to http://xbox.ign.com/articles/709/709122p5.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220160506/http://www.larryniven.org/chatlogs/chat060402.shtml to http://www.larryniven.org/chatlogs/chat060402.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Only this article would call it a space station. It's so much different from a space station that it's not even funny. The definition given in [Space Station] doesn't fit either. Of course not, why would it.
Let me guess: One single author defends this sillyness on a technicality. Am I close?  --84.189.92.195 (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't immediately see the mention of "space station" that you're referring to - which specific section of the article is it in? If you mean the reference to a rotating wheel space station in the lead paragraph, that literally has its own article in which case perhaps it would be better if you asked your question there? JezGrove (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I agree with the poster... not sure, but I definitely think Ringworld has more in common with a Dyson Sphere than it does with a rotating wheel space station, and think the former should be linked and the latter discarded.  Sir Rhosis (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space Station? 

message: Just asking Questions... Lovemankind83 (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we are living in a sim. Not to be confused with "sin", which is true of many of us, but not as universal nor as interesting :-P OBloodyHell (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are we living in a Ringworld? 

message: I'm rather surprised no one has added a Dramatis Personae to this article. They seem common in major book descriptions, and this one is a major book in SF, if nowhere else. OBloodyHell (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dramatis Personae