Talk:Dobermann

Why this page is named Dobermann, not Doberman or Doberman Pinscher

I've moved the page to Dobermann because the breed is known by this name by the kennel clubs of Australia, New Zealand, the UK and by the international association (the FCI). The American and Canadian kennel clubs use "Doberman Pinscher", so I think we should go with the majority. I hope this is OK with everyone -- sannse 08:37 Apr 5, 2003 (UTC)

Genetic description clarification

I'm not quite understanding the genetic description of how the colorations work. So let me explain from the beginning what I'm not getting: In a simple situation, the dog inherits one gene from its mother and one from its father, so it *always* has two genes. The form of each gene can be dominant or recessive; e.g., let's say that green is the dominant color for frogs and red is the recessive color. If the frog has GG, GR, or RG, then it is green; if it has RR, it is red. But in this case we're talking about the dog having 4 color variants, which you can't have in this situation--even if the combination of an R and G somehow makes a chartreuse frog rather than green, there are only 3 color combinations possible-- green (GG), chartreuse (RG or GR), or red (RR).

Right.

I think what you're saying is that there are 2 separate *sets* of genes that control the color.

Yes, that's what I meant to say. I guess the proper term would be two genotypes, which I'm not sure that I used in the article. I was trying to avoid "genotype" and "phenotype", as they seemed a little too technical; but you're right. The Dobermann has TWO color genotypes, one (let's say D & d) that determines if the coat stays black or blue, let's call it "color": (DD, Dd, dD are all black or blue, and dd is either red or fawn). And the other (G & g) determines something else, let's call it "hue". So, Gg, GG, gG are all either black or red, and gg is either blue or fawn. Combining these two genotypes, we'd get:

DDGG: Black
DDGg: Black
DDgG: Black
DDgg: Blue
DdGG: Black
DdGg: Black
DdgG: Black
Ddgg: Blue
dDGG: Black
dDGg: Black
dDgG: Black
dDgg: Blue
ddGG: Red
ddGg: Red
ddgG: Red
ddgg: Fawn

(BTW, the way I call them "color" and "hue", there are official names for both these genotypes--I don't think either of those are correct, as I just made them up for this example. I've got a book somewhere that gives the specific genotype names; I'll look it up if you think it'll make the article easier for the reader to understand. Or, do you think all this is getting too technical for an article about a dog species?)

Above, you can see that 9/16 alleles (is that the right term?) produce the most common, Black Doberman. Blue and Red are each produced by 3/16 of the alleles. And the last 1/16, the rarest, makes Fawn. The genes aren't all evenly dispersed though: The "d" recessive gene is far more common than the "g" recessive, which explains why Red Dobermans are so much more prevalent than Blue ones. The Blue and Fawn Doberman is born far less frequently than 3/16 and 1/16 of the time, respectively, due to the rarity of the "g". However (I'm not 100% sure), I think the distribution between "D" and "d" is roughly 50/50, because the Red Doberman does seem to occur about 25% of the Black. For example, my dog was one of 13. 3 of them were red. Neither parent was. Again, if you think we should include this, I'll have to do some more researching.

In other words, there's one gene pair that's GG, GR, RG, or RR; there's another pair that can be, say, either A or B, where A is dominant, so there can also be an AA, AB, BA, and BB. So I *think* what you're saying is that if the first gene pair contains G (GG, RG, GR), then it is what you're calling "dominant", and if the second gene pair has A anywhere (AA,AB,BA) then it is "dominant", and then the RR and BB versions are "recessive".

Yes, that's how I was using the two terms. Something's only considered to be a recessive phenotype (physical manifestation of the genes) if both the genes in the genotype are recessive (i.e., "carriers" [AB, BA, RG, GR] are generally not considered to have the recessive gene, even though they carry it). Maybe we should use the terms "homozygous" and "heterozygous" instead? Again--how technical do you think we should make this? I mean, as long as we link it to pages on genetics, I think it should be OK to use technical terms when discussing genetic variations, no?

This does give me four color possibilities. Is this right? If so, I'm glad to try rephrasing things so that it's clearer because it took me a while to figure this out. Elf | Talk 20:28, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yup, be my guest. It took me a long time to figure out how to phrase it all so that it didn't sound confusing. But, even after writing it, I felt it was likely going to be hard to understand, especially for people who know nothing about Dobermans and/or genetics. I figured I should just put it down there and that someone would eventually come along and make it less confusing. BTW, in case you found the part on albinism confusing...ANY of the 16 combinations above can lead to an albino Doberman, since the recessive homozygous albinism gene inhibits the pigment proteins from being created in the first place, no matter what color the pigment is (just like in humans--there are white albinos, black albinos, Asian albinos, etc, and they all look "whiter" than any of them would otherwise look).64.12.117.16 03:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. I'll try to take a look at rephrasing. I agree that we won't really want detailed/technical discussion about genetics here, but a summary of why there are 4 colors genetically is (IMHO) kind of interesting. Elf | Talk 22:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What makes a "famous" Dobie

I removed "Prinz v Norden Stamm" from Famous Dobies. His fame appears to be simply that he was a successful champion show dog and popular sire. There've got to be thousands of dogs, including other Dobies, for which this is true. "Famous" should be distinguished in some way that the "man on the street" might have heard of or would be interested in, not merely famous among Dobie breeders. Elf | Talk 18:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Quill 22:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

for once i think elf is right, but i also think there should be a section for dobermann krufts winners

REQUESTED PHOTOS

Would like photos of:

Dobie with uncropped ears and undocked tail
Dobie with cropped ears

Elf | Talk 18:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the doberman pinscher, should be medium not large, large doberman tand to be sick, and look very ugly.

Should the image that exists be replaced with a less blurred one also? If so, I will try and get one of our dobermann at some point in a pose similar to that one. -localzuk 01:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be nice with a image less blurred for the article. Lennart.larsen 13:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

English commonwealth spelling

I think that due to the article being presented in commonwealth english it is natural that the spelling in the article be commonwealth also, this is also following the rules of editing on this site —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SlayerX326 (talk • contribs) .

The rules of editing on this site are leave it in the commonwealth or american version in which it exists in most cases; what other spelling makes you think it's primarily in commonwealth eng? Elf | Talk 21:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see is the measurements are in imperial (US) units and the words such as colour is spelled 'color' - so it seems like US English to me. -Localzuk (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just found it odd that an article be written in american english with a commonwealth english title. If nobody else shares this view then it is fine with me. The title is why I believed it to be a commonwealth article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SlayerX326 (talk • contribs) .

I think 'Dobermann' is the name of the original breeder so is not really commonwealth english - it is German. -Localzuk (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, understood. Might be helpful to know that, the way the the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog Breeds decided on names of articles is by most common spelling among all major english-language kennel clubs, so the content of the article would be more indicative of the language variant used than the title. (Especially interesting to note how many breeds there are with perfectly understandable English-language breed names...that almost no one uses, preferring the non-English versions. It's like the Fédération Cynologique Internationale (World Canine Organisation)--no one in the american-english dog world calls it the World Canine Organization, they all call it the FCI and wrestle, usually badly, with the french full name. :-) ) Elf | Talk 19:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which photo to use

Anyone have any preference on which photo to use on the page for now (agreed that both are not as clear as desireable and a better photo thatn these would be even better, but we ain't got one at the moment)? Choices appear to be:

.

Elf | Talk 21:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My vote goes for the right hand one. The detail on the face is not perfect but it is far less blurry. We have a good pic of a face later in the article which serves to show the detail that is lost.-Localzuk ^(talk) 21:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's hard to decide, over exposed and out of focus or blurry and or just plain blurry. Neither? :) For some reason i like the left better, if the overexposure could be corrected on the right then maybe the right one - Trysha ^(talk) 23:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The exposure of the right hand one has been corrected as much as can be. Any more and it looks washed out and wrong. I cannot see the image being blurry myself. It is much less blurry than the original. -Localzuk ^(talk) 23:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a better image if you want to use it:

File:Broncovddoberwache1.jpg

reputation of loyal?

At least in Spain, Dobermann's (vulgar) reputation is of treachery, being seen as dogs able to suddenly attack their owner. The article kind of negates this reputation...--euyyn 18:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is 'references'. From everything I have seen, read, experienced - the Dobermann is a loyal dog and has a reputation of being loyal. If you can provide references to the otherwise then do so but if not, we should stick with what is there. I have added references to these claims now. -Localzuk ^(talk) 18:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I certainly don't know where can I find references to support that some popular belief exists... Any idea?

I don't doubt dobermann are loyal, I simply say that (at least in spain), there exists a prejudice against them. --euyyn 01:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did read when getting those references that it is known that there are some bad 'strain's' of dobermann's due to bad breeding, so I do not doubt that they are likely seen in a bad light due to this sort of problem. For the references, I would suggest looking at any societies, clubs and organisations such as those in the USA and UK that I posted references to. Also, take a look at any dobermann books that originate there. You may also find some in newspapers. -Localzuk ^(talk) 10:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article should have something like this as Dobermanns are one of the most feared dogs in the world. And its not just from films and bad breeding, a large part of the negative image of dobermanns comes from the second world war where dobermanns were used to guard concentration camps and flush out the members of the resistance in France Lazmac 18:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't really have much to do with loyalty though. However, if you wish to add something, please ensure you cite references as this article is in dire need of some in-line references.-Localzuk ^(talk) 17:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"External links"

As Monkeyman said on a user page, "There is a standard format for the external link section here." As much as I hate to revert anything Elf has done, I think it's worth following the guidelines (there's an alternative mentioned there that might look better, btw).--Curtis Clark 01:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the sentiment. :-) However, subheads look really bad especially with only a few links underneath. I chnged to the ; format here but I don't think the nested bullets look bad and anyway I think it's consistent among dog breed articles. (OK, that's juts because I don't want to go find them all and change them. But someone should. But not to === subheads. Yuck.) Elf | Talk 02:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the appearance of subheads, but I've seen how screen readers render HTML, and read accounts by people who use them, who appreciate the list of headers they provide, as a way of rapidly understanding the structure of a page. The nested bullets achieve roughly the same thing; since it is a style guide, maybe we should add them as a third alternative.--Curtis Clark 04:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: View source before expounding. The ; format creates a definition list, which is perfectly fine structured markup. I'd still support nested lists if you think we should take that on at Wikipedia_talk:External_links, but I'm okay with the <dl>.--Curtis Clark 04:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image with tail

http://flickr.com/photos/thebilly/26185145/ - He doesn't look much like a Dobermann to me, but who am I to doubt his owner? pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is overweight and has very light markings on his face. I would say it is a bad example really. -Localzuk ^(talk) 15:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Labradober?--Curtis Clark 18:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I dunno, it definately has dobie face (although as I said, the markings seem very light) - it just is very fat. I standing picture would be good. I prefer 'doberdor' myself :)-Localzuk ^(talk) 18:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Dobermanns

I believe that the Dobermanns named "Roscoe and Desoto" were from "The Chipmunk Movie" and not "Oliver and Company". It also might be interesting to note that the names come from two streets "Roscoe" and "Desoto", which intersect each other in Los Angeles's San Fernando Valley.