Talk:Beltline (automotive)

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Beltline (automotive) be merged into Car glass. Beltline is a term relating to automotive glass, therefore I think it would be more useful to exist as a section within the Car Glass article. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Proposal withdrawn by nominator on 29/3/18.[reply]

Oppose I'm scratching my head here trying to think how you see both of these terms as close enough to merge. A body style has a beltline, even if it's an unglazed open-topped convertible. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy. Thanks for your comments. I've had a re-think and now believe that greenhouse (car) is a better articles to merge into.
Regarding the unglazed convertible, since the beltline is defined by the glazing (1, 2, 3), I'm not sure that a car without any glazing could be said to have a beltline. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the beltline exists whether there is glass or not. It's a conceptual level in the bodywork, whether above that is glazed or not.

Then - and this is obscure, mostly limited to some 1930s Art Deco examples, the "beltline" is based on the shape of the body, not the glass location. It's the "waistband" of the car body - if you put a "belt" around the body and tightened it, that concave inflection would be the beltline. Now these days, we're good at incorporating glass. So we make the windows as big as we can. But it wasn't always like this - if you have a rare example (and again, it was the 1930s in Europe, some 1940s examples in the US) there is a small extent of body that is still above the beltline, yet below the windows. It's the shape that defines it, not the glass.

As to merging beltline with greenhouse, then that's another bad merge. This is just classic mergeitis: looking for things to merge because they're weak articles, and that is no reason to merge them. If they're not notable, then delete them or merge them to an overall glossary list. But there is nothing which makes the combination "beltline + greenhouse" more notable in any way that either term, in isolation, wasn't beforehand. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it was probably driven my mergeitis. So I have now withdrawn the proposal. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is practically no content here and no references of any kind. I'd rather see this pointless stub folded into Glossary_of_automotive_design. 84.250.38.116 (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you phrased that as merge and redirect, rather than simply delete, I'd be OK with that. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]