A fact from No. 233 Squadron RAF appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 January 2008, and was viewed approximately 7,709 times ( disclaimer) ( check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that during World War II, No. 233 Squadron RAF (pictured) lost four aircraft out of a total of twenty-four supply flights flown at the end of D-Day, June 6, 1944? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/January.

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

Military history: Aviation / British / European / World War I / World War II 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 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 not met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force British military history task force European military history task force World War I task force World War II task force Aviation This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles 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 not met Supporting materials: criterion met

Over at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Military history there have been several discussion wehre it appeared that the general consensus was only to capitalis ranks when applied directly to a person, i.e. Flying Officer Smith, but Smith was promoted to flying officer, which was the approach I had been taking here, it's been changed, but since a number of other changes were also involved, I'm not goign to revert. David Underdown ( talk) 11:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I have to admit to generally taking the line of least resistance on this one as well. I capitalise under all circumstances when I write an article but if I edit one where a consistent approach along the lines you mention is used, I don't alter it. I can see the arguments on both sides and it did come up in a peer review of one my articles but no-one adjudged it a serious issue. FWIW. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm probably not entirely consistent from article to article myself. David Underdown ( talk) 12:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, i wasn't aware of any consensus on capitalisation. Personally, it didn't look quite right to me, so i made the changes. I'll change it back to your system David, not a problem.-- Celtus ( talk) 07:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply