Talk:Shaker broom vise

Article name
I think it should be Vise, not vice. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 22:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * vise (Brit. vice) >n. a metal tool with movable jaws which are used to hold an object firmly in place while work is done on it.
 * -DERIVATIVES vise-like >adj.
 * -ORIGIN ME (denoting a screw or winch): from OFr. vis, from L. vitis 'vine'.
 * From the Oxford Dictionary
 * vice1 >n. 1 immoral or wicked behavior. ->criminal activities involving prostitution, pornography, or drugs. ->an immoral or wicked personal characteristic. ->a weakness of character; a bad habit. 2 (also stable vice) a bad or neurotic habit of stabled horses, typically arising as a result of boredom.
 * -DERIVATIVES viceless >adj.
 * -ORIGIN ME: via OFr. from L. vitium. I know that this was an American phenomenon, but I feel pretty strongly this is the right way to go. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 22:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You could of course add in "in place of", as in vice president:-). More seriously, I was following the established spelling of the article (WP:ARTCON).  If you are certain that US usage is always "vise", which I have seen in some books, go ahead and use it - the article has a string geographic link after all (WP:TIES).  It looks weird to English eyes since it doesn't match the pronunciation, but then I'm sure the reverse is also true!  Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I also examined vise and vice in


 * Cambridge American English Dictionary: Definitions ... The former allows you to toggle between British and American English and
 * Collins American Dictionary | Always Free Online
 * I am now 100% confident that the article should properly be called "Shaker broom vise." This is consistent with American English.   While I am not certain that the article's sources are in line with this, but if they aren't they are wrong. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 01:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree. I made the move. Thanks for noticing. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Shakeup
I've been a bit wp:bold. First, I don't think a note on vice/vise is needed, this was accepted above and is slightly contentious. This is the wrong place to discuss it. Next, I was concerned that the article was drifting into one about flat brooms, not one about the vises. Finally, there was a bit of duplication and lack of historical narrative. I've hacked things about to keep pre-invention text in the background. I've collected all the description of the invention and its consequences together, and kept the technical description separate - I think it helps readers who are asking "what" rather than "why". I agree with Doug's deletion, the photograph showed a trimmer, not a vise. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)