Talk:HMS Worcester (1769)

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 articles

Military history: Maritime / British / European / Early Modern Start‑class

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 articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

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)

This ship is not the one mentioned in The Ionian Mission. That vessel is a fictional 74-gun ship, a the Vengeur-class ship of the line, also called the Forty Theives, as is mentioned in the novel.Keegsshipguy (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Quite correct - removing the comment on the article about it. Martocticvs (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

On second thoughts, it isn't so clear cut. Worcester in the novels is a 74 gun ship, and she is active at the right time. O'Brian merely transposed some characteristics of the later class of ships onto this one for dramatic effect. Obviously that means that the vessel in the novels is not actually this ship, but rather a fictional version of this ship. I think the comment in the article needs rewording to reflect this, but is fundamentally valid. Martocticvs (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]