Talk:Sten

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... Weaponry task force

I've removed: although earlier versions of the STEN could be modified so as to hang the magazine vertically - ??! Only MP-3008 had vertical magazine Pibwl 12:29, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Sten mark I and IIs had a sprung-loaded catch in front of the magazine housing that allowed the magazine assembly to be rotated down 90 degrees so as to close the ejection port and prevent the ingress of dirt. Ian Dunster 16:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sten or STEN?

I realize that the name is an abbrevation, but I usually see it written in lowercase. Is the all uppercase the 'proper' name? Oberiko 13:00, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, I'm going to change the name back from STEN to Sten. Oberiko 12:54, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] STEN MK 3

I am seeking a source for blueprints of the STEN mk 3. Anyone that can point me in the right direction wqould be appricated. I have prints for all of the other STEN variants in my collection but am missing the MK 3. Thanks fred <fredandjulie@bellsouth.net>

[edit] See also section

Normally I would just correct the anaemic See also section, but my change (addition of Submachine gun) has been reverted. I said correct not expand, because even though See also sections don't seem to have concrete rules or guidelines it is described in the manual of style (Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also) as follows:

Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links. The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links as a navigational aid.

This See also section clearly does not fulfil the only two basic purposes, because the two items listed aren't mentioned in the rest of the article (or explained with a description) and it's clearly not a ...list of internal links... (and therefore everything in a See also section is in a sense superfluous which was the reason given for removing my initial addition).

I think the following improvements would be prudent and more importantly useful:

• Existing two entries could be explained (why are they related), e.g.
  • Austen MK I, Australian weapon derived from Sten.
  • De Lisle carbine, similar weapon of same era.
• Adding additional related topics
  • Submachine gun

Submachine gun appears within the intro. In a general article on submachine guns, a see also to (for instance) semi-automatic pistols wold be appropiate. In a specific item article I would think it should be to related items. For sten this might be the Sterling SMG, or the BSA submachine gun that was another contender to replace it.GraemeLeggett 08:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I know submachine gun appears in the article itself, but it you read the italicised quote from the wiki manual of style, they describe a see also as a summary of all the important related topics (already in the main article). On a football players page you might list their club even though it's probably listed in the introductory paragraph. Once you've read a long article you come to the end and you can see all the related topics you might want to explore further, instead of going back and hunting for them. I would say for a firearm including articles like successors, predecessors and derivates would be important related topics (a short explanation helps a lot), but possibly also the company that manufactured it and the class it belongs to so that if one quickly glances at the see also section only, you can quickly establish what this thing is and where it fits into the world... come on, throw me a bone man :-) Deon Steyn 10:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)