Talk:M240 machine gun

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

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States 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 met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force North American military history task force United States military history task force firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

I would propose this article should probably be merged with the existing article for this weapon system that already lists the different variants for countries that use it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_MAG

A separate article seems to make little sense. RLS 84 (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - but unfortunately this has been debated before, at great length, and a loud cabal of users refuse to accept that the M240 isn't a different, all-American gun.Fahrenheit666 (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the reason given by most opposed editors at in the main merge discussion on this talk page. For most, it was space of coverage, which is greater for a variant article. Given the relatively large sizes of both articles, any merge would make the combined article much larger, and probably over the recommended 100 kb limit. It's better to keep them separate. BilCat (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]