Talk:Hand (unit)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Earliest comments

Either a hand is not 4 inches or 15 hands is not 30 inches (a shetland pony?!) I think all the thirty-something numbers should be 60 somethings, but I'm not expert enough to declare it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.219.231.10 (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2004 (UTC)

I think the pony in the article refers to a "normal", non-Shetland pony. 15 hands is 60 inches, not 30. - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 17:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Who else thought this article was a joke when they first saw it? :P Bwhack 07:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The diagram is wrong

The diagram is wrong. A 'hand' is measured across the knuckles with the fingers closed. Didact1947 20:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The diagram was wrong! So I have replaced it with a (hopefully) more accurate one. Please leave comments if you have strong feelings about this change (approval or disapproval). Unitfreak 10 September 2007.

Hand units are not specific to horses.

Hi there Montanabw,

Nice work keeping this article tidy, but keep in mind that the "hand" unit is not at all specific to horses. Therefore, common methods and traditions that relate to horse measurement are immaterial to the definition of the hand unit. Millimetres are the common SI unit for measurement of length under 1 metre, not centimetres.

The hand unit was derived from imperial units i.e. the inch, and intermediate measurement (14.1, 14.2) is based on the inch, not on a decimal unit (i.e. 14.3, 15.0, 15.1, etc...), and that is material as it is the foundation for the measurement in historical terms. While I have no objections to cross-referencing metric units, this is a historic unit. Incidentally, when horses are measured in metric units (seen in non-English-speaking nations on the European continent, for example) they are usually measured in centimeters (certainly by the FEI, less often meters and never millimeters, so while it's one thing to look at metric standards, there are also traditions within the equestrian world. As far as the hand unit, what, other than equines or other animals, are measured with it in modern use? I'm curious. Montanabw^(talk) 20:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the only extant usage of the hand unit is in measuring horses etc. However, people's reasons for looking up the article may sometimes be non-equestrian (for example, a historian who's been researching ancient Egyptian documents may want to find out how long a "hand" is). Therefore, the basic definition should be generic, and not equestrian. InternetMeme (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, some other culture may not have standardized a "hand" as a closed-finger hand, I indirectly have heard of some examples where alternative measurements (extended fingertips) are used! I guess I think the solution here is to create new subsections for any non-equestrian uses as we find them. To go much farther than that starts getting into WP:OR territory. But I'm groovy with what's there for now. Montanabw^(talk) 02:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just reverted by Montana for changing the unit from mm to cm on account of this discussion (as far as I can tell). I certainly don't agree with Meme's comments above, though, because they don't attempt the issue. The millimetre isn't an SI-unit for one thing (the metre is). Whether millimetres or centimetres are the most common way of expressing measurements under a metre i have no idea, and I don't know whether it's actually worth verifying. What I do know is what I'm used to seeing as a metric user, and 101.6 mm looks very odd. Judging by a quick check of this article in other languages, centimetres appears to be used in every single one.

Montana mentioned in her edit comment something about "measurement gurus", so I might have missed something, but I still don't see any sign of millimetres being appropriate to convey t sense of scale of the modern hand.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Peter, the burden is on YOU to find a source for your contention. So I reverted but added a "citation needed" tag to the mm version. You can actually do the work and find a proper verifiable source to support your view, then I will agree, no problem. While centimeters also seems pretty logical to me, I am not going to engage in OR when I haven't looked at the source. I also am tired of you popping up on all the articles on this topic and suggest you take your agenda to a single location, which is the discussion at WPEQ. Montanabw^(talk) 16:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

How to present measurements in non-SI units is not a matter of proper sourcing, it's an editorial choice. There's no factual difference between 101.6 mm and 10.16 cm, only a matter of presentation. I addressed the statements brought up by Meme above, and I explained my reasoning by referring to similar article in languages that primarily use the metric system. If you willingly agree that it's logical, reverting my suggestion and slapping a cite-tag on it is completely pointless, especially since you obviously don't doubt the fact yourself (it's already sourced in the articles, and given in cm).

Judging by your comments here, I'd say you're building up a lot of aggression aimed at me personally. Claiming I have an "agenda" because I made one minor change to an article where you have been involved in after you had a conflict with me at horse artillery is more than a bit paranoid. Note for example how I didn't remove the conversion template here, something I would definitely have done if this was really a matter of my trying to provoke you.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It would benefit this article to have the source for the standardization. I trust the other editor, but sourcing isn't a bad thing. Every source I own states that a hand is four inches. The convert template gives 4 inches (100 mm), so a source for 101.6 is actually a good idea. Montanabw^(talk) 20:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Judging by YOUR comments and pattern in at least four different places, you are in fact resuming a familiar pattern of tendentious argumentation, making things everyone else's fault, and general harassment that I have had to deal with before with you on at least two prior occasions, each of which involved situations where you disrupted multiple articles with arguments that had a few minor points, but overall very little substance. You seem to have an extraordinarily difficult time accepting that anyone but yourself has a valid point of view, and I am concerned that you cannot distinguish between a legitimate debate and someone getting personal, so you escalate to condescension, insult, twisting the words of others, and assorted personal attacks quite quickly. I tried to take this to your talk page and not scatter it across multiple articles, but you refuse to allow discussion there, and, frankly, given your behavior, I now don't really want you disrupting my talk page, either. So how shall we cool this down? Cooling it down "By doing it Peter's way because he's always right" or "Peter's idea of a compromise is the only option" is not a solution. We set up a sandbox and argued incessantly over nothing the last time, so that doesn't work. So hey, how about we just address THE ISSUE and not comment on each other's motives or actions AT ALL? Montanabw^(talk) 20:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

We're both certainly rather passionate and perhaps quick to judge, but you're simply not in a moral position to fling this much dirt. By now your replies are completely dominated by rehashes of old disputes and outright rants about how much you dislike me personally. Again, consider getting a second opinion about this..

As for the issue itself, the rest of the article gives the hand in cm, and the lead stated it all in cm before Meme changed it based on the misconception that mm is an SI unit, but not cm. And it's clearly sourced in the article. Not to mention that you yourself clearly know exactly how long a hand is. The citation tags are simply uncalled for. WP:LEAD#Citations has always provided an exception for leads, and this is obviously not something controversial or obscure (within the scope of the article topic).

Peter ^Isotalo 21:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, on the personal side, you seem to fail to see that you insult people and then you get all upset that they respond with a bit of testiness. But that can go elsewhere per the olive branch you've extended. For this article, I put in a cn tag on the claim its standardized or whatever, the convert template puts 4 inches as 10cm, which is probably not accurate either, as the standard conversion of in to cm is 2.54 inches to a cm, which would be 10.16, which means I'm missing a parameter from the template. Montanabw^(talk) 23:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, just read all this, didn't realise this article was another war-zone. What fun you two are having. I hope that I have at least provided a reference for the exact equivalence of the hand to 10.16 cm.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed material

I've removed from the article some stuff that is not directly relevant to it. While I don't think there is anything in it that is not already covered elsewhere, I'm pasting it here for reference.

A pony is generally defined as a horse less than 14.2 hands (58 inches, 147 cm) or, depending on organization, 14.2 hh or less. An animal 14.2 hh or taller is classified as a horse. However, breed characteristics also play a role in defining animals as horses or ponies, particularly in breeds that may have some purebred representatives on both sides of the 14.2 divide. In some nations, such as Australia, the cutoff is defined at 14.0 hands (56 inches, 142 cm)

In the United States, ponies in horse show competition, particularly for hunter/jumper classes, are sometimes further subdivided into sections, depending on height:

• Small Pony: 12.2 hands (50 inches, 127 cm) or smaller
• Medium Pony: larger than 12.2 hh, up to 13.2 hands (54 inches, 137 cm)
• Large Pony: larger than 13.2 hh, but no taller than 14.2 hh

See also: pony

A miniature horse is either shorter than 9.2 or 8.2 hh, depending on the registry. Minis often are measured at the last hair of the mane, located approximately at the peak of the withers which are sometimes poorly-defined in minis. The world's smallest horse, Thumbelina, is just 4.1 hh.

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think I was premature, and there is one thing here that does belong in the article if it can be referenced: "Minis often are measured at the last hair of the mane, located approximately at the peak of the withers which are sometimes poorly-defined in minis." Can this be reliably sourced? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it is, check the refs in miniature horse, I know it's in all of their breed standards, and lest you think that I NEVER give up a fight, I finally was won over by the mini horse people on using the "last hair of the mane" thing after I stubbornly insisted on withers for a few months. (grin). I had also learned, years before wiki, that it is also appears to be a moral issue to call them miniature horses, not ponies! (grin). As for the rest, I am OK with a cross-ref over to the pony article where the issue is explained in depth. It's just that what I think was in here earlier was the too-simplistic "all equines under 14.2 are ponies" thing, which needs to be nuanced further if the issue is addressed at all. Montanabw^(talk) 19:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

{

Well, if miniature horses are measured in inches, they don't really belong in this article at all ... I've left them in, though, for now at least, as some discussion of when hands are not used does seem relevant to the topic. I can't say the same for this bit:

A pony is generally defined as a horse less than 14.2 hands (58 inches, 147 cm) or, depending on organization, 14.2 hh or less. An animal 14.2 hh or taller is classified as a horse. However, breed characteristics also play a role in defining animals as horses or ponies, particularly in breeds that may have some purebred representatives on both sides of the 14.2 divide. In some nations, such as Australia, the cutoff is defined at 14.0 hands (56 inches, 142 cm)

See also: pony

which I've removed but am placing here in case there's anything that needs to go in the pony article. It has no relevance to the hand as a unit. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Other than restoring one bit you deleted on how to crunch hands, I'm Ok with most edits. I think most of the political stuff is in the pony article; I see no harm in it being here, but no real need, either. Montanabw^(talk) 00:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Please, don't tell me you really think instructions on how to divide by 4 belong in a Wikipedia article? What about WP:NOTHOWTO? I'd have done something on the early history, but there seems to be some confusion at Ancient Egyptian units of measurement, waiting till that is cleared up. It'll only be a sentence or two anyway. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The point is not how to divide by 4, it's how to calculate hands (Check Craigslist any day for yet another ignorant individual saying a horse is "15.5 hands"). This article is going to sometimes be read by a 10 year old, I think it's relevant. Montanabw^(talk) 19:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Measuer?

I have removed the source Shlei, "Just how tall is a hand?" from this article as below the minimum standard of reliability acceptable to Wikipedia (e.g., "...a kind went to measure his favorite horse. Not having a device to measuer with..."). That's not intended as criticism of other pages of the American Donkey and Mule Society.

The page states that "hh" stands for "hands high". Does that mean that "pp" stands for "pages of print", that "ff" stands for "following folios"? I think not; they are simple plural forms. Of course, if anyone comes across a reliable scholarly source for "hands high", it can go back in the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Any reliable source you can find will verify that hh means "hands high" It's not a plural, as ALL hands measurements are plural (never seen a horse one hand high, anyway). As with the above remark, you demonstrate that you know nothing of this topic, let's not be tenditious over something that will simply embarass you when I find the sources. Montanabw^(talk) 00:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Follow up I restored the material and the shlie source, which I agree isn't a great source (though it is largely correct). I added a "dubious" tag for you , which allows your concerns to be discussed without removing needed material. Montanabw^(talk) 01:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Kindly keep your ad hominem remarks to yourself, I have no interest in them. I have no objection whatsoever to your reinstating that totally ridiculous statement if it can be substantiated by a proper academic or scientific publication which conclusively shows that Brander is wrong on this point. I don't think a copy of an old version of this page really qualifies as either; do you? But as a first step to remedying my total ignorance of this topic, why not take a look at Abbreviation#Plural forms? Does that say "hands high"? Hmm, how odd, it does not. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have always found it to mean just the plural. If it is said to mean more than just that then more reliable sources showing that use would be good. It seems somewhat like a backronym ... what is the earliest source suggesting hands high?46.208.185.38 (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A backronym? That is a new one to me, like it. Of course "hands high" is just the usual blithering twaddle, made up yesterday by someone with insufficient education to see how silly it is. Nevertheless, it can be properly referenced (by which I don't mean the current references for it), and will have to go in to the article sooner or later. The earliest use I have found so far is 1975, Summerhays' Encyclopaedia for horsemen, Stella A. Walker. You have to laugh, really. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

BOTH ARE PLURAL: "h." by itself also means "hands" not the singular (and impossible in a horse) "hand", hh." does not mean just "hands", it means "hands high." I am not in any way making any argument about pp or ff or whatever, of course they have the meanings they have -- and they aren't relevant here. FWIW, you might also note that over at WPEQ, Owain (who is a Brit, I think) also just commented that "hh" means "hands high." You yourself just cited a source from 1975. Now, it is possible that there has been some linguistic drift in its use -- feel free to trace the etymology, but clearly this is a common modern form and used throughout the same horse world that uses "hands." I highly doubt anyone will find a scientific article in either direction. For what it's worth, I pulled old three books I have that were published in the 1960s, and none used EITHER abbreviation; they just said "hands" or simply said (for example) "14.2" without any suffix. As for the rest, JLAN "blithering twaddle" really is a bit ad hominem as well. So if we've now finished exchanging comments of that sort, I think it best we stop. Montanabw^(talk) 06:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

While I pulled out an old book that did give the abbreviation, and used it as a reference here. If you have access to The New Hart's Rules I'd be interested to know what if anything it says on this; I've trawled all the style manuals I can without turning up anything. A good history of measurement would be worth a look too, if you can. As I said above, this particular piece of blithering twaddle is documented, and will have to go into the article at some point. It's a beautiful illustration of how language is modified by ignorance. Ad hominem? Yes, if I ever meet the person responsible, I'll have a few words to say! You might note that in modern usage most units do not take a plural when abbreviated: 11 yards, 11 yd; 14.2 h is thus not only not impossible, but quite normal. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt any non-horse style manual has ever addressed the question, over here we rely a lot upon the Chicago Manual of Style and similar guides, nothing I could find there specific to hands (but I don't have full online access, so who knows). But that's not the point -- you and I both already know that horse words have lots of deviations from standard grammar and style (my own pet peeve is people who call the fetlock an "ankle," which it anatomically is not). Measurement is just another example. If terms have been modified in defiance of standard grammatical conventions (which is not necessarily ignorance so much as convenience, probably), it's been that way for over 40 years and thus we are not going to put that chick back into the egg. And I must point out that terms like "blithering twaddle" do not help resolve the issues. Montanabw^(talk) 19:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

British English

In an attempt to stop childish warring over the spelling of metric units, and for no other reason, I placed a British English template on this talk page a few days ago, based on the establishment of that usage here. That template was removed by user Montanabw in this edit. Whether that is acceptable behaviour on this wiki I don't know. I'm not going to start yet another stupid game of ping-pong by replacing it, and am instead just asking here that people note the priority of European spelling in this particular article. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I really count as a third opinion, but I don't have particularly strong feelings about American of Commonwealth English (AE/CE). I consistently (try to) write and speak the former, but that's about it. As far as I'm concerned, there's really no "European English" that should automatically apply to anything other than the UK and Ireland. I'm sure an older generation of second language speakers and writers believe that, but I don't see that it's the case among a younger generation. If the article subject is about something clearly and narrowly associated with the Commonwealth countries, CE should be used. If it's an international topic, I would recommend using whatever variant was clearly employed first.

Btw, the article right now has both "centimetres" and "centimeters". That's definitely not a good idea, so I would at least recommend reverting to a certain variant consistently or not at all.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The very first creator of this article was clearly an American, as there was no metric conversion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hand_(unit)&oldid=3055538 so the fix is in on both sides. I frankly am rapidly approaching the DGAF standard here, the existing article as it sits (even with that damn "only" which IMHO is just a snotty unneeded adjective) as of right now is livable, though I would prefer the US English version be used. Montanabw^(talk) 23:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how you reached that conclusion. I see a pretty obvious metric conversion in that version and the original creator appears to be Norwegian.

What's this nonsense about "snotty", btw? Openly stating the specific use of a certain measurement is not being disparaging to anyone or anything. Unless, of course, you have proof that the modern hand actually has other uses.

Peter ^Isotalo 02:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The article as it stands is very incomplete. There's a whole chunk missing on the difference between the hand and the handsbreadth, which is still discussed, if not actually used, in biblical interpretation; on Isaac Newton's calculation of the dimensions of the Temple of Solomon; and a good deal more in the same vein. It may be that Handsbreadth should eventually be spun off into a stub of its own. I'm also aware that there are too many quotations in the History section; I had intended to move some of those to footnotes. I stopped working on it because of the constant reversions by one editor. If that editor's DGAF becomes definitive then I'll go back to it and try to get a first draft done. The disparities in spelling are caused by the same history. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I went through the tedious routine of checking almost the entire edit history, diff by diff, for any signs of style preferences. It's not super-clear-cut, but "centimetre" was used as early as 2004, if only as a link.[1] Since then, it has been consistently favored by other editors,[2] though their edits have not always stuck (for completely different reasons). As far as I can tell, Montana is so far the only editor who has editing the article specifically to adhere to American English, but this was only a few days ago. Before that, the Commonwealth spelling has generally not have been noticed at all,[3] and when it finally was, it wasn't even done consistently.[4]

Even as a proponent and regular user of American English, I would consider this enough to settle the issue. It boils down to simply evoking a minor technicality in the guidelines, but considering that it would otherwise require lengthy outside comments, an RfC, or (heaven forfend) a consensus vote, I think it's enough to confirm this as a Commonwealth English article. That way everyone can concentrate on actually improving the article instead of fighting over editorial minutiae.

Would everyone be okay with this, or do we have to start calling in impartial observers, friends, allies, enemies and veteran admins to argue the alternatives and examine the evidence?

Peter ^Isotalo 10:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that my disagreements with the article currently concern precisely two words, let's split the difference. You can keep "only" or you can keep "centimetres" in British English, whichever you care about more. While I do think that "only" is an unneeded adjective and it connotes a POV that somehow this is a bad thing, it's not worth going into the wiki-warzone over. And likewise, given that hands apparently is a more common term in America, I still think US English is more appropriate, but it's not worth any further real spats when we really are talking about one word. Do whatever, I'm done. Montanabw^(talk) 04:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I frankly don't care much about the English variant either. I just tried to clear up the issue by applying the guidelines we have on the matter.

However, I am very confused by the claim that a simple "only" would somehow be disparaging. For me, as a non-horse-person reader, it clarifies the issue of usage of this rather obscure unit of measurement in one fell swoop. And since it's obviously both true and is referenced, it can't possibly be considered undue POV. It's not against any of our guidelines so I don't see the point in trying to haggle about its removal.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Not worth haggling over, just feels similar to words like "obscure," as it implies a value judgement that horses and the traditions of horsemanship are likewise obscure. To say that the hand is used to measure horses or the hand is "only" used to measure horses basically says the same thing, no need for overkill, or, if you will pardon the pun, beating a dead horse with unneeded adjectives. Montanabw^(talk) 21:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as the history section, JLAN, you've added some good stuff and I'm fine if you want to add material on handsbreadth to bulk out the history section if it seems relevant. Montanabw^(talk) 04:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

US mini people don't ever call them "ponies" it's a BIG BIG deal to them

(hidden text found in the article) Well, so what? The article is not telling anyone what they have to call things, it's about the hand as a unit of measurement. Also please note: the US is not the world; miniature ponies are so called in several places. So, are the "US mini people" people like these: "Our Ponies" or these: "Miniature Horses and Miniature Shetland Ponies of pedigree"? Maybe not such a big deal after all; and maybe no "Edit war potential, best to avoid", as suggested in the edit summary. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Editing citing future edit wars does seem a little much. Any good with lottery numbers? 46.208.185.38 (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have had the real life debate over this, truly, it IS best to avoid. But also, it's disrespectful to NOT use the status (horse or pony) the breeders themselves prefer. Shetlands are ponies, Shetlands that are of the proper bloodlines and tiny can be called mini-Shetlands, that's not the issue. The Miniature horse in the USA is a distinct breed registry, and other mini breeds are also called horses by those who breed them (the Falabella being another example). There are some mini-"pony" registries called such too, but they are the minority, have far fewer animals registered, and trust me, you do NOT want to be on the receiving end of a mini breeder's wrath should you dare to call them ponies! Been there, done that! =:-O

Let's just deal with that one when we come to it, OK? Where in Wikipedia does it say that we have to distort the facts in case some party gets angry? What happened to WP:Be bold? Meanwhile, perhaps you'd stop fiddling about with that bit of the text for a while? The miniature horses and ponies, miniature mules, donkeys and Shetlands are all individually referenced, there is no discussion of what those animals are or ought to be (though they should probably be linked, come to think of it), just of how they are measured. The "last hairs of the mane" thing is extremely confused and poorly documented, as a large number of sites identify this point with the withers. The Australian source is one of the few that are clear and specific (well, actually, it's the only one I was able to find that is). Besides, it would be disrespectful not to use it, right? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving it out of this article as much as we can, but it's not "distorting" the facts -- the truth is, the ideal mini (a least in AMHA rules) IS supposed to look like a horse and not a pony. (Not many succeed, but that's a different debate) I define "respect" as giving careful consideration to what those who are involved firsthand prefer-- doesn't mean we obey in lockstep, but if reasonable, it's worthy of serious consideration. I agree with you on the mane hairs thing, personally, but it IS the standard of the largest mini association, the AMHA (and I've judged these little buggers, so I AM familiar with their rule book) it's true that they often have withers that are hard to find, and on wiki, that was a battle I lost with the mini people long ago. Montanabw^(talk) 19:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

{{3O}}

So, yet another boring, childish and completely trivial edit war between Montanabw and me, over the section Hand (unit)#Use in measuring horses. Rather than just replacing the text that is actually based on the sources cited, which would doubtless be reverted yet again, I'm requesting a third opinion on this one, see if that gets us anywhere. Here the two versions:

I agree. This is a completely trivial manner. Just leave it "horses, ponies". There's no advantage to doing it the other way, and it's obviously controversial. This is your third opinion. Gigs (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Current version, as desired by Montanabw

Use in measuring horses

Today the hand is used for measurement of the height of horses, ponies, and other equines. It is used in a number of different countries, including the USA and some that have formally adopted the metric system, such as Australia, Canada, Ireland and the UK. In most countries of the world, including continental Europe, and in all FEI-regulated international competition, horses are measured in metric units, usually metres or centimetres. In some countries, such as South Africa, measurements may be given in both hands and centimeters. [...] In those countries where hands are the usual unit for horse height, smaller equines are frequently measured in inches rather than hands, such as miniature horses/ponies mini-mules,, many donkeys, and Shetland ponies. Miniature horses in the USA are measured at the base of the last true hairs of the mane rather than at the withers.

Previous version, as repeatedly removed by Montanabw

Use in measuring horses

Today the hand is used only in measurement of the height of horses, ponies, and other equines. It is used in a number of different countries, including the USA and some that have formally adopted the metric system, such as Australia, Canada, Ireland and the UK. In most countries of the world, including continental Europe, and in all FEI-regulated international competition, horses are measured in metric units, usually metres or centimetres. In some countries, such as South Africa, measurements may be given in both hands and centimetres. [...] In those countries where hands are the usual unit for horse height, inches rather than hands are commonly used in the measurement of miniature horses, ponies and mules, of donkeys, and of Shetland ponies. Miniature horses, but not miniature ponies, may be measured at the base of the last true hairs of the mane rather than at the withers.

References

I'd be interested and grateful to know the views of others on the small differences between the two, and on which best reflects the information given in the sources. If anyone can explain to me how the Australian association can be cited as a reference for a bit of (dubious) information about the USA, or why it seems so important to one editor to assert that particular bit of dubious information, I'd be doubly grateful. Some of the discussion further up this page may be vaguely relevant to the matter too. I apologise for drawing attention what appears to me to be a storm in a tea-cup. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Note on my edits

Last set of edits was trying to improve flow and readabiliy, hence I rearranged some of the sentences, moved things into different paragraphs. Other than tossing some adjectives I don't think were needed and altering a word of two (which I hope kept nuance of source), I had no intention of altering content. I think some of my non-philosophical objections were simply that the structure of that section had been bugging me. So take this in good faith. I popped in some hidden text, which was mostly for JLAN and OK w/me to toss it when read without need for comment, or if it really warrants a discussion, move it over here. Montanabw^(talk) 04:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, discussion. I'm usually up for that. I've been criticised in the past for using hidden text, so have not replied to any hidden comment. I agree on the reordering, but not on all the wording changes. I look forward to comment on the current version. Perhaps we could discuss further changes here?

On that note, I suggest eliminating the whole of the Terminology section, and incorporating the two tiny facts it contains (how a height in hands is read, and the idiotic but undeniable concept that hh may stand for "hands high") elsewhere. The rest of it seems to be how-to (as I think I have remarked before), and so has no place here.

On the topic of hidden text, there seems to be something generating endless hidden messages reading "Bot generated title" across the project. If there is such a bot, it does a very poor job, as it fails to generate either the publisher or the access date for web links, which thus need to be either manually edited or removed.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a bot that does a fast convert of bare URLs, which is handy when you have a bunch of them in the article. As for the terminology section, sometimes it's best to keep what someone inevitably will add later if we toss it. And address what is a too-common form of blatent ignorance -- If I see one more ad in Craigslist for a "15.5" hand horse, I may just throw up both hands and scream! As for the hidden text, it's a fine line. I use it to explain my inline edits, where I think they won't be all that controversial if people see my reasoning. But they can devolve into a discussion in the article itself, which is a good time to bring them here. Montanabw^(talk) 23:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)