This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ships This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips Military history: Maritime / British / European / Early Modern This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force British military history task force European military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800) MonmouthpediA Low‑importance This article is related to MonmouthpediA and to Monmouth – the World's first Wikipedia town. As of May 2012, we have 1,000 QRpedia codes displayed in the town. See what we are doing, See a bit of what we've done and help us!MonmouthpediAWikipedia:GLAM/MONTemplate:WikiProject MonmouthpediAMonmouthpediA-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This ship was rebuilt 3 times - by the end of her career, if you consider her to be one entity throughout the entire time, there is likely to have been nothing of the original ship left, thanks to the extensiveness of the rebuilds. Administratively, each rebuild would have been considered as a new ship, and so it may make more sense to split this article up into its constituent incarnations. Martocticvs 16:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships, we seem to have decided that it makes no sense to split up an article like this whilst the article text is significantly shorter than the infobox, so it can stay as it is. Martocticvs 19:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]