Template talk:Nikon DSLR cameras/Archive 1

Consumer and Prosumer
I think the terms "consumer" and "prosumer" are unclear. In reality the distinction between consumer and professional is a false one, since anyone who uses a camera as opposed to being a dealer or a reseller, is a consumer whether they are professional or not.

In the camera magazines that I have read, "prosumer" refers to high spec compact cameras, not a digital SLRs. If you google "Nikon Prosumer" for example you get hits for the Nikon P5000, which is a different class of camera entirely.

I would suggest replacing the terms "consumer" and "prosumer" with "enthusiast" and "mid-range".

--Molar999 04:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed all such labels per WP:V since they are uncited. Cburnett (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Citations here. Next time attach the Template:Fact instead.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082313nikond300.asp, http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082312nikond3.asp, http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/07030602nikond40x.asp, http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06080903nikond80withpreview.asp, http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021605nikon_d2hs.asp, http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04091605nikond2x.asp


 * Some list "enthusiast". The synonym "consumer" has been used for better consistency with the other templates. Tejastheory (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:V says you, as the restoring editor, must put the citations in the page. You have failed to do so. Cburnett (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't got the time to list all references at the moment. Just about every Nikon press release announcing the camera declares who the target market is, so if any other editor has the time they can add these references using the .  If no one else gets around to it, I'll go ahead and do it myself in a few hours. Tejastheory (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Of the above links the ones for the D2Hs and D2Xs called them by a label, but I can't find any Nikon source calling the D40, D60, or D80 anything. Cburnett (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

D100 and D200
in this box tell, D100 n D200 is prosummer, but in above article D100 and D200 is professionals, how? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.129.186.11 (talk • contribs).


 * The template seems o.k. to me. When you say "in above article" do you mean the Nikon D100 and Nikon D200 articles? In the D100 article it says "designed for professionals and advanced hobbyists" - isn't that what prosummer means? Designed for both professional and amateur (consumer) market? Also, please sign your talk page edits. Thank you. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 02:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

D40 and D40x
The D40 and D40 are both still being produced, with the 40x being a higher-quality version of the 40. I wanted to modify the template to reflect this, adding a second row to the "enthousiast" row starting from the D40x, but I don't know how to do that. Anyone? -- Yoe 19:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur here - but I can't do it either.
 * 58.178.107.64 22:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree also. The D40 and D40x are both being produced and sold and are both aimed at the lowest tier of DSLR buyers.
 * --128.205.180.225 06:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I updated the table to reflect this. In the future if they entry-level line is consolidated into a single model again, rowspan="2" will be needed.  Also, I wasn't able to make the row caption ("Entry-level DX sensor") into two rows, so maybe someone more familiar with wiki syntax can help. Tejastheory (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The D3 and D300 bodies
Nikon has somewhat changed (at least for now) the way in which its high end models are targeted at various market segments, which means that, at least for now, the old system of D2X/D2H/D200 doesn't really apply anymore.

The D3 is very much about high speed, low noise, and *low* pixel density - making it very much a D2H replacement, and nothing like a D2X, with its very high pixel density/resolving ability.

The high-res (densitywise) D300, on the other hand, is a serious step forward from both the D200, and in a way replaces the D2X too - so it could in fact be shown as superseding both models.

On the other hand - if Nikon were to release a full-frame, high pixel density "D3X" (or similar) - then it would fall nicely into the scheme once again. In any case, the D3 certainly cannot be seen, or act as a substitute for the D2X. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.74.250 (talk) 11:57, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

D3 as D2H(s) Replacement
The D300 is definitely a D200 replacement as all the features of the D200 are found in or surpassed by the D300. The D300 is not IMO a D2H(s) replacement as it has lower continous drive 6fps (d300) vs 8fps (D2H). I think the D3 is a replacement for D2Hs as everything from the D2Hs is improved or found in the D3 also it can't be called a high resoulution model because Nikon has had 12 megapixel sensor since q2 2004. And since it's a Full Frame i have renamed the category from "professional - High Resoulution & High Speed" to "professional - Full Frame - High Speed" Sorry if my train of thought is not that coherent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.26.193 (talk) 16:13, August 30, 2007 (UTC)


 * Your train of thought is plenty coherent, I just don't agree with it. Lens quality is only meaningful with a cirtain resolution. The 8mp digicams of today are esentialy upsampled 4mp images because the lenses on those Point and shoots just don't have the resolving power. Even with the best sharpest lenses you can buy, 21mp, like on the Cannon D1s mk 3, are a waste. The resolving power of those great lenses is about 14mp at optimum aperture with good lighting. So, even though 12mp sensors have been around awhile, there is no reason to keep upping a stat that isn't improving the camera. Also, it doesn't make much sense to have a FX format in a HS camera. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 22:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the original unsigned poster. It is likely that Nikon will stop producing the DxH line of cameras although they have not officially announced it; I make this proposition because of the fact that the feature set of the D3 is a superset of the D2Hs feature set and unless I am incorrect (I'm by no means a professional photographer who uses either the D3 or the D2Hs) there are no compelling reasons to use a D2Hs over a D3.  I also believe you are incorrect about your comment regarding megapixels and lens quality; you do not clearly define your hypothesis and I don't see how it is related to the issue at hand.--128.205.180.225 06:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * However, since I personally feel the DxH line will be discontinued in the future (with no successors made), that the rows in the table right now (with both the pro FX sensor and pro DX sensor) are just fine. As far as the listing goes, it is not a question of whether or not the D3 "replaces" the D2Hs, but of whether or not the D3 is the successor to the D2Hs in the same category.  The fact is that the D3 is a new line of camera which simply supercedes the D2Hs in its feature set.--128.205.180.225 06:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * First let me say its a matter of debate. Ok... Sorry that I didn't make myself clear, I believe that the Nikon D3 supersedes both the Nikon D2Hs and the Nikon D2Xs based on the following observations and data.
 * The camera incorporates a FX (135 film sized) sensor. This benefits people who want ultra-wide performance and the image quality associated with a FX sized sensor. The decreased pixel density helps high ISO performance but only because the pixel count is fairly low. A FX sensor hurts sports and nature shooters who need as much reach as possible. A 600mm lens on a DX is the same as a 900mm lens on an FX. It is common to see sports shooters with 600mm lenses on DX cameras. How do they get it on the D3??
 * The D3 has good enough resolution. Lets be honest, the good professional studio shooters use medium format Phase one digital backs that hit 45mp's and the good professional landscape photographers use 4x5 inch view cameras. Not 35mm digital.
 * Looking at the MTF curves of most lenses (including primes) they don't resolve over 14mps on a FX anyway. Whereas with a medium format camera or a large format, the area is much bigger and thus the resolving power doesn't need to be as high.
 * So, in conclusion. It serves the purposes of both sports shooters and photojournalists alike and also throws a bit in there for the rich hobbyist and some studio shooters. Thus surpassing both the D2Hs and D2Xs. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there needs to be some clarification on what exactly is being debated. I don't understand what either of you want the template to look like. Tejastheory (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't really mind the current layout. IMHO, (not that this need to be implemented) the D3 should continue where both the D2Xs and D2Hs left off. See, there is no need to have a new row every time a new feature is introduced. There are the flagship cameras, one or two. Then there is a semi-professional model, then there is the enthusiast, then the entry level cameras. Until another flagship camera is introduced (possibly at PMA in a week) I have to assume that the D3 is the flagship camera for Nikon. I don't know how to code the box and this is just one mans opinion. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 04:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I see (although I'm not quite sure what's 128.205.180.225's idea is). I think an important thing to keep in mind is to take a camera's abilities into a contemporary context.  The 12MP on the D3 makes it a superset of the D2X, sure.  But this doesn't make it a "high resolution" model, anymore than the D300 can be called a high-res model.  12MP was very high resolution among contemporary cameras of 4 years ago when the D2X was first introduced, but it is pretty middle of the road today, given the 14, 16, and 21MP sensors from other competitors.  Similarly, the D3 has a faster fps than the D2H, but the D300 has an equal fps as well, once the battery grip is attached.  This doesn't mean they are direct D2H successors.  I think the overall market needs to be looked at, and the D3 is an entirely different beast from either the D2X or D2H, and has many different applications, primarily because of its full-frame sensor.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejastheory (talk • contribs) 06:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There were recent changes made, but it seems like the discussion was just dropped off rather than continued. I still don't think that the D3 is a direct replacement for D2H/D2x, and rather is a new class of its own.  I also removed the "flagship" designation - I don't believe it has a specific place, since the "high-end", "midrange", and "low-end/entry-level" classifications are clearly defined by price, and I think sufficiently cover all the types of cameras.  Flagship is akin to adding a "very high-end" category, but I don't think a fourth price classification is necessary since there are only three price classes currently. Tejastheory (talk) 08:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, personally, I am somewhat shocked by this revert. The amount of evidence pointing to the D3 being the replacement for the D2 series is essentially irrefutable. Lets take it point by point:
 * Pricing: you yourself seem to think pricing is the be all end all of camera class designation, so here we go. In on June 15th, 1999 Nikon released the D1 for $5,000 USD. Then, a year and a half later, February 5th, 2001 Nikon released the D1H and D1X priced at $4,350 USD / $5,350 USD respectively. As such (and the fact that Nikon had no other digital bodies) the D1h/x clearly replaced the D1. Fast forward to July, 2003. The Nikon D2H List price was... you guessed it: $5,000 USD Does that number sound familiar? Then, on September 16th, 2004 Nikon Released the D2X List price: do I need to write it? -$5,000 USD Then there was the enigma of the D2Hs Which was the only D(single digit) camera to hit $3,500 USD. This is probably because no one would pay more for a 4.1mp sensor. But indeed, the D2Xs Was priced at $4,700 USD I don't need to tell you that the D3 was introduced at, wait for it, $5,000 USD These cameras all clearly share the same price point (if not the exact same price) and there has certainly never been a more expensive line from Nikon. The D700 is much cheaper and its a shocker to me that it finds itself ahead of the D1/2/3 series.
 * External design: The D1, D2 and all of their X,S, and H versions all had build in battery grips, the D3 is the only current nikon with that design feature. As with canon, the built-in battery grip is reserved for the "flagship" cameras at the top of the said line. Also, the D(Single-digit) line also includes much more extensive weather sealing and much higher weight than the D700, D300 or any other Nikon. Also, from the D1 to the D3, no pop-up flash is included as it is with all the other models. How do you explain these clear design patterns?
 * Nomenclature: D1... D2... hmmmm, I wonder if you can complete the pattern? 1... 2... ah, I know, its somewhere between 300 and 700! or perhaps 3!
 * So, in closing, even though the D(single-digit) series changed frame rate, Battery life, number of pixles, ISO sensitivity, Autofocus sensors and yes, even sensor size. The cameras belong in the same line. In 1999 Pros weren't like: "Oh, why would I get this D1? its not the top of Nikon's line!" No, it was the top of nikon's line and for historical reasons it should appear there in the graph. That is what the chart shows, the progression in the professional, Amateur, and entry level lines. It's not supposed to show which is a better camera (the D40 of today easily kicks around the D1)... It's supposed to show what replaced what, when. When the D3 was introduced they stopped making the D2Xs and D2Hs. And why are the D2Xs and Hs "high end" at their time they were the professional models.
 * Also, in direct response to you above, the chart goes (in order): High-end, Midrange, High-end, High-end, High-end, Midrange, Entry level. Why is the D300 high end while the D700 is midrange (defined by price!!!?) Why separate the chart based on sensor size?? You already have a price hierarchy so adding feature categories is strange. Why not organize it based on pixel count? Because of these truths, I will change the template back to my revision and if you still think it needs fixing, we can ask for voters or third opinions. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 17:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you also check you edit summary! it said you were moving the Dx00 series below the Dx series. Look at my format! the Dx00 series IS below the Dx series (historically correct as you say) in Your revision, the D700 is ABOVE the D2x, D1, D2Hs, etc. You did the opposite of what your edit summary said. Perhaps your monitor is upside-down? -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 17:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

D300 as D2x and D2Hs replacement
These categories seem a little silly. The D300 is a DX camera, just like the D2x and the D2Hs. It has a better sensor than either the D2Hs or the D2X. It shoots faster than the D2x and the same as the D2H (8fps). It is modular in that the grip must be added to achieve 8fps, but without the grip it will still do 6fps - faster than the D2x. The D300 autofocus module is improved over both the D2h and D2x. The high iso capability is greater in the D300. The body is professionally sealed against moisture and dust. The grip takes the same style high-capacity battery as the D2x and D2h.

Taking all this into account, the table should really be changed, as it could mislead a photographer into thinking the D300 is less camera than it actually is. Or conversely, the table could suggest that the D2x and D2h are more camera than they actually are.

Here in Canada, Nikon is marketing the D300 as a prosumer camera, but that is a marketing definition. Take a look at www.sportsshooter.com - there are many professional photographers upgrading from a D2h or D2x to a D300. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.31.13 (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this needs some more discussion, if anyone else wants to talk about it. To me, the D300, if combined with the battery grip, is a superset of the D2Hs.  It is a high speed sports camera, with both the top autofocus and D2H-like framerate (8fps).  While the MSRP price range is the same as the D200 (I think?), it seems to me that the camera is aiming for a different market entirely - the high end professional sports market, where I would say the D300 rivals Canon's 1d series.  My vote would to list D300 under DX sensor, hi speed. Tejastheory (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I still miss the E-series in this timeline? Wich were the first Nikon digital SLR's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.8.11 (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The D300 is clearly better than the D2'ish models, that doesn't mean its replacement of the professional D2 series. The D3 is the direct successor of the D2 series. The professional D3 is vastly better than the D300. The D300 is a entry-professional at most, and an awesome prosumer at worst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.43.229 (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * According to Nikon they list it #4 after the D3, D2XS, & D2HS, which is the way it should be listed here. Cburnett (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Formatting bug
On my browser (Firefox) there's a weird bug where the bottom right-half border on the D3 isn't showing up. Not quite familiar enough with the syntax to fix it. Tejastheory (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The rows for the D2XS and D2HS weren't fully created. Cburnett (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

An idea for the references
How about we put the references for the category names in tags so that they appear on the template page, but don't clutter up pages where it's transcluded? This way, the references will still be there to discourage edit warring over the category names, but won't take up space on pages for individual camera models. Cburnett, others, what do you think? A reasonable compromise or not? ǝɹʎℲxoɯ ( contrib ) 03:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we just cite these things on the actual articles for each camera? That's the only place this template shows up anyway, so a reference will always be seen where ever the template shows up.  And then it wouldn't clutter up the template. Tejastheory (talk) 05:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither idea will work to stop anyone. An anonymous user has removed the references and changed the categories back on this particular template 3 times in the last 5 days with no explanation.  This has been my motivation all along: people obviously care more about their personal opinion than finding reliable sources which is blatantly a policy violation.  Cburnett (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see how anonymous IP edits are related to this issue. They're already changing it when you're putting the citations right on the template, so I don't really see hiding the references or putting them on the article pages making the problem any worse. Tejastheory (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So your argument is...is that even though the references are being removed and categories/labels changed...we should remove the references from the template all-together so that even more people will change them at a whim because they're now unsourced in the template? Cburnett (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I'm saying your argument makes no sense. You're saying, "we're having X problem, if we make this change, it's not going to solve X problem!" which may very well be true.  But neither of our proposals here are meant to deal with that problem, and they're not going to hurt it, because the problem you're so worried about is happening anyway!  Either my idea or Moxfyre's is simply to remove the clutter caused by having citations. Tejastheory (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You want to put the citations in the articles, not in the template. Moxfyre wants to hide them on article pages via a noinclude.  Either way you are asking for more users to get into the mindset of altering the categories because they're either not in the template (you) or hidden when in use (moxfyre).  If there is a problem with an anonymous user with citations then removing or hiding them in the transcluded template can only serve to increase people changing the template at their discretion.  Your "solutions" don't make anything better except your asthetics but at the higher risk of Tom, Dick, & Harry changing it because they don't see the citations right there. Cburnett (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The point isn't just to stop people from carelessly changing the categories, it's to unclutter the pages that transclude the templates... without removing the visibility of the references to editors! ǝɹʎℲxoɯ ( contrib ) 00:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Citations exist so people SEE THEM and you want to get rid of them (ok, hide them) because they are "clutter"?! Citations are not here just for editors but for everyone to see...  You're defeating the entire purpose of citations &mdash; visibility &mdash; where visibility matters the most: when reading articles.  Cburnett (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Those particular citations aren't really relevant to the actual articles in which they appear. They are citations concerning the naming of the camera categories, and don't have anything to do with the cameras themselves.  That's why I consider them clutter when they are transcluded into individual camera pages.  ǝɹʎℲxoɯ ( contrib ) 04:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How about just this then - we base the categories on the prices of the cameras. I don't particularly think blindly pasting manufacturer's marketing terms is a good fit - if Nikon decided to advertise "The D40 is a great camera for entry-level users and professionals alike!", would it really make sense to label the camera "Entry-level/Professional"?  Marketing buzzwords do not necessarily bear any relation to reality.


 * A very good point... marketing terms may be "well-referenced" in that they come from an authoritative source (the manufacturer) but they are otherwise quite arbitrary and subject to change. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ ( contrib ) 03:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Prices are at least fairly well-categorized and unambiguous. The Nikon D300 is "high end" APS-C.  The D80 is "mid-range" APS-C.  The D40 is "entry-level" or "low-end" APS-C.  I think that produces an unambiguous classification (which is supposed to be better, the "Advanced Photo Enthusiast" or the "Prosumer"?), allows us to use a common classification across all SLR templates, and gets rid of duplicate labels just because a company decided to use the same marketing word (Canon 5D and 1ds sereis are both "professional full frame", for example).  Tejastheory (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I didn't mind the subjective categories too much myself. Things like "Entry-level", "Prosumer", "Professional APS-C" vs. "Professional Full Frame", or "Entry-level Pentaprism" vs. "Entry-level Pentamirror."  Though I do understand Cburnett's argument that this leads to unmaintainable and unverifiable edit-warring over the exact terms.  *sigh*.  I guess price is a decent stand-in though.  Maybe we can convince DPReview.com to co-opt these timelines for their own site, thus making them an authoritative reference for the category labels? :-P  ǝɹʎℲxoɯ ( contrib ) 03:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I've went ahead and made those changes here. If there aren't any other objections, I'll (or some else can) convert the other templates in a few days. Tejastheory (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I wholly object to using prices by tying them to some "arbitrary" category. If you're going to categorize based on price THEN CHANGE THE CATEGORIES TO PRICE RANGES!  Saying a $1500 camera is "prosumer" is just as unverifiable and original research as saying "camera X is prosumer".  If all you can do is make up  some relationship as some quasi-objective guideline then that just shows how weak your position is for using profession/prosumer/consumer as categorization.  No one has, as of yet, risen to my challenge of finding a source other than an 3rd reviewer.  If these terms are so abundant and well-known then you should be able to find source after source after source after source detailing such.


 * I truly do hate being a complete and utter jack ass about this but it's clear that verifiability is meaningless or, worse, passe to you, moxfyre, and syberwolff as well as the dozen plus anonymous folks who've modified these templates (excuse my inflammatory comment). I don't disagree with the usage of professional/prosumer/consumer as categorization but it is ABUNDANTLY clear that using them is wholly arbitrary and highly, highly subjective which is all the more reason to strike their usage from the templates or find some authoritative source for them (more authoritative than a manufacturer and more authoritative than Joe Schmoe for reviewing site X that does a review.


 * Honestly. Sit back and look at the situation here.  None of you have risen to the challenge of finding a good source for these categories.  No, seriously: think about it.  If you can't find me some book on photography that spells these out then doesn't that show you that there's even more of a need to not use them?  If you can't find me 30 books (exaggerating) then doesn't that signal to you that these are more subjective than you'd like to think?  Come on, cut me some slack on being the jerk here.  I'm getting tired of it.  If you're attitude is "well, that Cburnett hasn't responded here in a while...so I'm right" then what the hell is the point?  Syberwolff's argument is that the majority of randomly-selected reviewers say category X then he's got it right.  Your argument now is "no one is disagreeing with me, so I'm right".  I don't even want to begin to quote policies on why this is entirely the wrong approach to this situation.  Verifiability, original research, not a democracy, etc. etc.  Cburnett (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the references has caught on with at least one person. *sniffle*  Cburnett (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "it's clear that verifiability is meaningless or, worse, passe to you, moxfyre, and syberwolff as well as the dozen plus anonymous folks who've modified these templates"
 * I've never suggested that verifiability is unimportant. What I have objected to is your notion of what constitutes verifiable sources for these categories.  You consider books to be verifiable sources, marketing literature to be verifiable sources, and online photography reviews and web sites NOT to be verifiable sources.  This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.  These products have lifetimes that are too short to get any serious treatment in books.  And marketing literature is biased and constantly changing.
 * Who is trying to maintain continuity through all this? Why, the online photography sites are, by arriving at more-or-less consistent terminology and categorization for the products.  (Photography magazines have done this too... would you consider them to be reliable source?)  Magazines and online reviews have become the authoritative sources for information on these products.
 * As I've said before, Cburnett, I understand your concern for the issue of verifiable information and appreciate your insistence on it. I just think that you've been, well, too pedantic and inflexible when it comes to accepting reliable sources for this information.  ǝɹʎℲxoɯ ( contrib ) 04:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please understand the underpinning concept of verfiability which is reliability. Right there on WP:V, second sentence: "...by a reliable source."


 * Syberwolff linked to robgalbraith.com and infosyncworld.com. The former is a freakin blog and the latter is a one paragraph summary that spouts "entry-level" with no rhyme nor reason behind it.  The others: engadget.com = one paragraph; digitalcamerareview.com = review by what seems to be a forum member; amazon.com = a random user's two sentence sound bite; ... I don't care to click the rest.  It's clear that he was just googleing around to find ANYTHING to back up his position with complete disregard for source reliability.


 * I chose manufacturers' press releases because they are reliable and verifiable. MUCH more reliable than an amazon list.  Seriously, an amazon list.  I've maintained all along that I'd be fine with dumping press releases for something better but nothing of syberwolff's that I clicked through compares.  The manufacturer's have the distinct advantage of discussing their own products which puts them first-in-line for authoritative.  Any biases are clear to anyone clicking the link.  Cburnett (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Cburnett, I don't know why you keep harping on "prosumer" and "professional". I agree those terms are fairly ambiguous, and not standardized.  That's why I've labeled them as high-end, midrange, etc. which describe price, which is very verifiable and not open to interpretation. Tejastheory (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a way of categorizing them that could hold 50 years from now? Xavexgoem (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think, given past history, any of the current options (high-end, midrange, entry-level by price, or pro, prosumer, consumer by capability) are likely to hold for the next 5 or even 10 years. Given that digital cameras, like a lot of consumer electronics, is still a relatively new technology, I think it'd be nearly impossible to predict any of the changes that may come in 50 years (example: would anyone imagine a thing as digital cameras in 1958?) Tejastheory (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not just put the price ranges in directly? Why hide behind terms when you're really using numbers?  I think you could do pretty well to classify them as <$1000, $1000 to $2000 and >$2000 (I arbitrarily picked).  It would be completely clear to anyone reading the template why their are grouped as they are and, to top it off, the verifiability goes through the roof.


 * However, this immediately raises a few questions. Street vs. MSRP?  What do you do with cameras that drop in price?  The original Canon D. Rebel was pretty much the same street price as the 40D is now but they are clearly not in the same class.  That considered then how do you handle cameras in the same line (10d, 20d, 30d, 40d) that have different price breaks?  Why $1000 instead of $800?


 * Better yet how about a single image with "Cost ->" (rotated 90 degrees CCW) thus achieving some method of sorting as well as being invariant to today's prices. Cburnett (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really have a problem with prices, except that they're going to change. The price of the Rebel, for example, has gone from starting at $1000 down to $800 for the XSi.  In 10 years, inflation may mean these go back up over $1000 - so it's susceptible to a lot of external factors that have a reasonable probability of changing in the next few years.  That's why I think price classifications work best - no matter what the actual numbers are, the current model in the D40 series will be the cheapest (thus "entry-level"), the D80 series will be in the middle (thus "midrange"), and the D300 series will be the most expensive (thus "high end").


 * The cost thing could work, I suppose, but I think it just adds another layer of complexity that forces a reader to interpret a graph when words can just state the information explicitly. It sounds reasonable though - anyone else have thoughts? Tejastheory (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And some people still change it. I think they flaw in your methodology has been revealed: "entry-level", "mid-range", and "high-end" are being interpreted as "consumer", "prosumer" and "professional" because you have no explanation as to what they mean.  You aren't defining them anywhere.  So people what they want and we're back to square one.


 * It would seem the only amicable solution is to strike them all outright. Does categorizing them give you much of any help navigating or is it there to inform?  I find it much more informative that navigational and considering the utter headache and hours of wasted time I don't think they warrant their space.  Doing so would make the templates basically a product time line with different product lines.  Cburnett (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And another... Cburnett (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well the issue here is mostly anonymous IP's who make unilateral changes without being willing to discuss them, so I think the problem here amounts more to vandalism than anything. So it isn't about the current content - whether you have "prosumer" or "midrange" or removed them altogether, you would still have these same people editing the pages unilaterally without discussion. Tejastheory (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal?
I notice that syberwolff has requested mediation here: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-31 Nikon DSLR cameras

I'm not too familiar with these sorts of things, but I'm wondering if third parties are allowed to contribute to the discussion? Because it would seem to be limiting if a mediation decision was made based on discussion limited to just two people. Tejastheory (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Tejastheory, yes third parties are welcome to contribute to the discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Is mediation still required? Geoff Plourde (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the notice on the template as the case was closed (some time ago, apparently). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

D700 as mid-range ?
I don't agree with 67.240.23.47 's edit of the template, as the D700 sits between the D3 and the D300, making it a high-range model. Nikon brands it as a professional camera, see: http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25444/D700.html SirDarius (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The D700 is midrange because it's in the midrange price point, compared to the D3 which is the high-end. Tejastheory (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But its launch price is higher than the D300's, however the D300 is placed in the high-end. See http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082313nikond300.asp and http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08070103nikond700previewed.asp. Therefore I think either should the D700 be placed in high-end, or the D300 be placed in mid-range. SirDarius (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look at the category labels, they all say "High-end FX", "Mid range DX". Thus the label means that the D300 is the high-end DX camera, which is true, and that the D3 is the midrange FX camera, which is also true. It wouldn't make sense to call the D300 the midrange DX camera because it is the most expensive DX camera, and wouldn't make sense to call the D700 high-end FX because it's only the second most expensive FX camera. Tejastheory (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, works for me. SirDarius (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. D300 superior to D700? What's next - a "high-end" $100 P&S? NVO (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup. These labels are relative, within a camera's particular category.  Wouldn't you agree that the Canon G9 is a "high-end" compact camera?  Or that the D40 is an "entry-level" APS-C DSLR camera? Even if the D40 beats out the G9 in most categories? Tejastheory (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Every new feature doesn't need a new row!
Seriously people, There should just be 5 or 6 rows: Entry level, Midrange, Semi-pro DX, Semi-pro FX, Professional High speed, Professional, High res. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 04:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nikon has 7 distinct product lines in its history, which is how the table is organized. Which lines would you suggest merging? Tejastheory (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is debatable that they have 7 distinct product lines in their history. Thats because, what is distinct? Anyway, the D3 should be stuck in in front of the D2hs as the: "Professional High-speed" category. Then when the D3X is released it should go in front of the D2x as the "Professional High-resolution" Otherwise we'd have 9 rows at that point... -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 22:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well we have 7 categories right now. I think there's a legitimate case to be made for D3 replacing the D2H.  At the same time, a counterargument would be that, having a full-frame sensor in the absence of a D3X (which is pure speculation), the D3 represents a much more all-around camera which is currently the best at high-speed and high-resolution.  This is in contrast to the D2H, which at 4MP was a specialized high-speed camera (wasn't the best high-res camera for say studio, or landscape), and the D2X, which was the best high-resolution camera (but wasn't the best at high-speed shooting). I think the case for D3 as a replacement to D2H would be much stronger if there were an actual D3x high-res model.  However, at the moment that is pure speculation, and Nikon may never end up producing such a camera (at least one that would be introduced and sell side-by-side with the D3 like the D2H/D2X did) Tejastheory (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On another note, the idea of having the D3 re-merge the D2H and D2X rows possibly makes sense. Anyone have thoughts on this? Tejastheory (talk) 05:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If I understand what you are saying then, yeah, that sounds like a good way to do it. Have the D3 have a fat row in front of both the D2h and D2x. Good Plan. I might add that the D3x while not confirmed is very likely. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 16:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * Support Option 1 See the exhaustive comments above. Price point: D3 is identical to the D1 and D2 series. Nomenclature: 3 follows 2 follow 1. 1... 2... 3... Body design: No pop-up flash, included vertical grip, weather sealing. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 17:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to poll the general sentiment of the community, that's fine, but note that decisions on Wikipedia are not decided by a vote or poll. Otherwise we'd end up stuck with the popular consensus on every contentious issue, even if it weren't right. Vote. Tejastheory (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems like a fairly good way to establish consensus, unless you have an alternative. It also may just help this come to a close more quickly. I'm not really interested in continuing to argue because it isn't a productive use of anyones time and I need to take a step back. Anyway, I digress... -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 19:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * These templates are navigational templates. The more details you put in there the less they are about navigation.  I entirely agree with the sentiment of  above.  The more details you put the more contentious they get, especially if you use vague, unclear words like "prosumer".  I'd go for option 1 over options 2 but drop the green color as it's ancillary detail that's not needed for navigation.  If you want a feature matrix (FX vs. DX) then make Nikon DSLR cameras and go nuts.  KISS! Cburnett (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The D3 is clearly just an evolutionary step from the D2Xs/Hs It doesn't need it's own row. I like Option 1.(Giligone (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC))


 * Another vote for Option 1, more inline with what Nikon mention about their offerings. Plus it does indeed look like the D700 starts a new product line, but not the D3. I think that while confusing, the D3 is just about correctly placed. However if a D3x comes out, then we'll have to make some more edits. redandwhite90 (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw this late so I'll vote. Option 2. Why? Because while some of you may see the Nikon D3 as "evolutionary", compared to the D1 and D2 models; and some are mentioning "price points", let's face it: both the D3 and the D700 use a larger mirror box assembly, etc. than the so-called FX models. Option 2, to me, shows that separation. I expect to see many manufacturers going with "full-frame" 35mm size chips (either CMOS or CCD) simply because most of their lens lines support a 24mm x 36mm format, with only a few lenses offering "DX" format. I have a D300 and I've been waiting for a full-frame chip for some time. However, Sony's new flagship model with it's very impressive resolution has me thinking about waiting until 20-24 or more becomes the standard. My prediction is that in a year or two, only the low end DSLR's will have FX sensors. I expect that, in a sense, the long "fight" between 35mm and medium format will be 'won' in the digital arena by the successor models to the film cameras that some of us have been using for years.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you mean ""only the low end DSLR's will have DX sensors"". --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 22:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - as an owner of a D100, I don't think this camera was ever High End. It was always below the D1H/D1X options and later on the D2H, so I can't fully support either option. Option 1 is perhaps a little better, as there is a level above High end, called Flagship, while with Option 2, the D300 is High end and the D700 is Mid Range, which seems wrong to me. If Option 2 is adopted I can see us having the same discussion again when the D3H and/or D3X are released. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 22:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

D3X did not replace D2X
The chart gives the impression that the D2X was sold until the D3X was introduced and replaced it as the high resolution flagship. This is not the case. The D3 is as high in resolution as the D2X, with the added advantage of full frame. Besides, the D2X was not manufactured after the D3 was introduced. The D3 was the sole flagship Nikon body from fall '07 to fall '08, and should be listed on both rows for that period. --rogerd (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right. I think this is better. 212.159.240.24 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC).

D5000 is replacement of what?

 * D40
 * D60
 * both D40 and D60
 * between D60 and D90 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergey shandar (talk • contribs) 19:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was put in between the D60 and D90. It certainly does not replace the D40 due to it's price.68.83.12.109 (talk) 11:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

By Matthew Choi: I think it should not be a replacement for D40, and yet its price is set between D60 and D90, and dpreview claimed that it's not a directly replacement for anything, so there is a big chance that it is, in fact, a new product line.

Entry-level Proposal
References: --Sergey Shandar (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Nikon has unveiled the D5000 upper-entry-level DSLR ...", D60 body only - £399.99, D5000 body only - £ 719.99, D90 body only - £ 849.99, http://www.dpreview.com/news/0904/09041402nikond5000.asp
 * Introduction prices: Nikon D40 - $599 (Kit), Nikon D50 - $899 (Kit). http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/

The new D5000 competes in PRICE and TECHNOLOGY with the Canon 450D/500D and this are MIDRANGE SLRs!!!
Thats the main reason. And it has a new name.

So its a NEW CLASS!

TheinfinitelyProlonged (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree on price and technology but new name. The only names left D10, D20, D30 in entry level so that can be reason to change name.--Sergey Shandar (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

They are not midrange DSLRs... because they are not in the middle of that camera company's DSLR range. There are half a dozen terms to refer to DSLR categories: Hobbyist, Enthusiast, Pro-sumer, Consumer, Entry Level, Flagship, Pro, High-End, Mid range, Semi-Pro, Amateur, etc. We are not going to cater to everyones favorite word for midrange DSLRs. If a camera manufacturer has 7 DSLR's on the market at a given time, numbers 2 through 6 are not mid range, maybe number 3, 4 and maybe 5 but certainly not 2 and 7.

The D5000 is, as of now, at the bottom of Nikon's range of DSLR's. THIS ARE entry-level SLRs!!!
-Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 23:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of this template is hopelessly in violation of WP:VERIFY
This template purports to divide the product line up into categories such as high end, midrange, and so on. From what I can tell, these categorizations are the opinions of the various editors. Is there any verifiable source which states that, a D3X is a flagship model or that a D90 is a midrange? If not, then I don't think we should be making those categorizations ourselves. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, agreed, is there anything to do about it? I'm not sure. Really, there is no consensus among sites that review cameras, camera manufacturers, camera retailers, or people who talk about camera's as to the name of various levels of camera. Like I wrote above, I have seen probably half-a-dozen terms per 'level' when it comes to DSLR's. We could pick a source and stick with its descriptions (DPReview.com comes to mind) but that seems like less citing a source and more borrowing their private naming system. Anyway, just because editors like myself happen to be exerting some kind of free-thought in regards to an article doesn't mean these things are products of opinion... (which they may well be, but it isn't a giving that they are opinion) It pretty well understood that the D700 is 'high end' in comparison to the D40 and the D3x is clearly 'flagship' in comparison to all the DSLR's in nikons line. I guess to sum it up, I don't necessarily think what we call different levels of DSLR needs a citation, it should probably be consistent across brands, but alas, I spend too much time writing hear to effect such changes. ;) -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 05:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I´m sure technologies can be compared. And price-ranges too. So whats the problem? The names, midrange, entry etc? Wispanow (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Better names will be:


 * 1) Consumer
 * 2) Semi-professional
 * 3) Professional
 * Here the D5000 will be Consumer, the D90, because of its higher capabilities (lenses, modes) Semi-professional, only the D3/D3x mainly for professionals. Hope this can be seen easier. But: It isn´t important, because the classes have to be comparative to Canon etc. And so the D5000 is in competition to 500D > Midrange. Wispanow (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Consumer, Semi-Pro, Pro categorization are just the same. The D5000 is definitely entry-level and not mid-range. The market is yet undefined, we can have several options like the D700 and D300 line merging, the D40 and D60 line giving way to the D5000 line... why not simply eliminate these classifications and see? Or maybe we can just divide in Pro-Body (metal magnesium alloy bodies) and Am-Body (polycarbonate ones)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.226.88 (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

However, if D5000 is entry-level then Canon EOS 500D is also has to be entry-level then Canon has no mid-range at all :-( --Sergey Shandar (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

D3000, D5000
Just another idea for the template:

--Sergey Shandar (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Have a look my page for the price comparison. --Sergey Shandar (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the price (kit $850), D5000 is a successor for D60 (kit $750), D40 (kit $800) and D50 (kit $900). --Sergey Shandar (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Distinguishing bodies without autofocus-motor
Would it be an idea to give bodies without an autofocus-motor a different background color? It limits the lenses you can buy, just as the DX/FX difference does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.16.106 (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the color would be if Nikon releases an FX, no autofocus-motor camera? --Sergey Shandar (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Early models
These may be historically relevant but I feel they should be left out of this template. --212.159.240.17 (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * When will you start, delete also the currently uninmportant D1 and D1H, D1X? Wispanow (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Then add them to the left it is a time line isn't it? --212.159.240.18 (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

D40 Discontinued?
I was wondering why it looks like the D40 was discontinued after the first quarter of 2009. It is still for sale and still advertised on Nikon's website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.124.209 (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to say when it was discontinued. Most of the Nikon web sites shows only Nikon D60 and no D40 (for example: http://nikon.com.au, http://nikon.com, http://www.nikon.co.uk).--Sergey Shandar (talk) 06:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

D3S or D3s?
What is the right name for the cameras D3s, D300s, D70s, D2Hs, D2Xs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergey shandar (talk • contribs) 04:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The right name? I fail to see what you're asking. Those are the camera's real names. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk · Contribs) 00:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. What is the right name? D3s or D3S, D300s or D300S, D70s or D70S etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergey shandar (talk • contribs) 14:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nikon says here that it is D3S, and D300S, and here that it is called the D70s. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 22:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nikon's name suffixes like that are displayed on the cameras and in marketing material in subscript, thus the correct display in normal text in my option is X, H, and S.
 * Jb17kx (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Separate articles for D40x and D70s
D300s, D3s, and D3x all have their own articles. Why can't the D40x and D70s have their own too? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk · Contribs) 00:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't vouch for all the models but the D40x have very little changes to the D40. It's like having a separate page for each option you can put on a car. 96.247.124.209 (talk) 07:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

inserting a template
can someone tell me HOW to insert a template like this into a page? i'd like to have the same sort of grid for the Nikon SLR page for Sony DV cameras, but can't work how to insert it, even though i have all the data ready! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick Michael Thomas (talk • contribs) 05:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

based on what?
Hello, what is the basis of categorization in this table? --BlackKnight (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Comparison_of_Canon_EOS_Digital_Cameras
Anybody interested to make a Nikon table? Find it useful. Wispanow (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already created the article Comparison of Nikon DSLR Cameras similar to the Canon one. I am planning to expand it further. --JovianEye (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Sensor Type Column
The sensor type column in this template provides ambiguous information. Of all the Nikon DSLRs produced only 5 models namely D3X, D2Xs, D3S, D3 and D700 use full-frame sensors all other models use the APS-C sensor. Thus, I would suggest that the entire type column be removed from the template. Additionally the article Comparison of Nikon DSLR Cameras can provide users with more detailed information about the sensor sizes. --JovianEye (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been over a week since I raised this issue and since no one has anything to say about it, I am removing the sensor type column. --JovianEye (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Has the D5000 been discontinued, if so is there a reliable source for it?
At the moment it is claimed that it was discontinued in Nov '10. The d5000 article supports this with sources from 2 rumor sites. I can't find any reliable sources for this, and Nikon's site still shows it. Don't understand how to edit this template, if it is wrong!93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nikon Japan lists the D5000 as discontinued, see here in Japanese. Unsure why other regions list it as a current product. SCΛRE  CROW  09:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

D5100 announced 5th april 2012- so why is it shown earlier in table?
Don't know how to change dates in the template, but is currently wrong!93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey mate. It's 2011 if you haven't double checked.  SCΛRE  CROW  07:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Timeline
What happened to the timeline?? I referred to the timeline A LOT! Why was it removed and replaced with just a table in categories?? Every other major DSLR brand still has the timeline. Tmlim526 (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I removed the timeline by being a bit BOLD. The reason why I removed it is because the timeline does cause some ambiguity. For instance the arrival of Nikon D5100 does not mean that the D5000 is really discontinued because Nikon continues to market the old product in many regions and countries. The same is the case with the D3100 and D3000. The timeline also poses another problem which will arise as years go by. The old version already spans 13 years and might probably look like Template:Canon EOS film cameras in the future due to lack of space. Jovian Eye talk 01:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. Even if older models are still marketed, it doesn't mean that they are still manufactured. Also, Nikon Japan has archived the D3000 and D5000. I think that the timeline is fine for the moment although the format will probably have to be revised in the future.  SCΛRE  CROW  03:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I just like the timeline so I can compare the age of the technology between the cameras. So I don't need it to be exact.Tmlim526 (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

D600
Why was this added? There is no reliable information about this camera except some questionnable "leaks" on a rumors forum. BadaBoom (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

MILCs
time is moving: so have we. tried move to Template talk:Nikon DSLR and MILC cameras, but all links in the listed cameras has to be changed: no time now. Guess a bot can do that. Tagremover (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

D600 Classification
Nikon UK categorizes cameras as Professional and Consumer. As per Nikon UK, D600 is a consumer camera. Nikon's Europe product registration site has similar classification --Anish Dosslin 20:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anishdosslin (talk • contribs)


 * See Tagremover (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Tagremover (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)