Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-31 Nikon DSLR cameras

What's going on?

 * I and Cburnett disagree over validation of the article. He insists on using manufacturer titled categories, but that is hard/unintelligible because A. the manufacturer doesn't always list their own category for each camera they release, B. the manufacturer doesn't always stay consistent, and C. the categories were setup to be universal throughout several photography time line templates to make them easier to understand. These terms were not just made up, they are the accepted terms throughout the photographic community whether the camera manufacturers recognize them or not.

Mediator notes
I will try to help and serve as a third opinion but this is my first time and I might need additional assitance hence I'll leave it at new. Janus8463 (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but it seems as if User:cburnett has no interest in stating his/her position. This process requires consensus to work and avoid conflicts.Janus8463 (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Administrative notes
You could find the third opinion process useful. PhilKnight (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Case closed, lack of cooperation from parties. Seddon69 (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Options
Well let's start naming out solutions. Given the discussion on the talk pages, here are the few options I think are available (feel free to add more):

1. Go with "popularly-understood" labels, without the need for an official source. Nearly everyone would consider the Nikon D40-D40x-D60 series to be an "entry-level" model, for example. Yes, someone may argue differently, but I would say the number of people who would classify the D40 as a "prosumer" or "professional" camera to be in a very, very small minority. Thus, going with popular consensus would make sense for a handful of cameras where there is a very clear consensus (we don't require a citation on the hand article that "The human hand consists of a broad palm with 5 digits", for example). However, this may be more contentious for certain model lines (is the D300 "professional" or "prosumer"?)

2. Assume marketing terms used in press releases, with citations. This has the advantage of being very verifiable, and from a reliable source. However, marketing terms don't necessarily correspond to a camera's actual price range or capability set - a marketing department could advertise the next Nikon D40 as a "great camera for enthusiasts and professionals alike!", but it doesn't really make sense to classify it as a "professional" camera, just because Nikon's marketing department said so.

3. Use marketing terms, with citations, but hide citations using. Some think that having citations appear in templates (which are not supposed to be sources of information (articles) themselves, but are rather navigational guides to such information) makes them cluttered. However others think that citations are needed to be visible so readers can see the source of information, no matter what the context, so noinclude tags would defeat the purpose. This is a bit of a compromise between 1 and 2, having citations and verifiable information but not have it clutter up the main page.

4. Use some third party's publication as references for product classifications. This may lead to some contention, such as source A calling the camera a "professional" model while source B says its "prosumer", but in general I think this will be less contentious than #1 going with "popular consensus", and that a "popular consensus" among reputable publications can be established.

5. Use prices to classify different models. This is mostly non-contentious, (the current model of the D300 series will always cost more than the D80 series, which will always cost more than the D40 series). However, classifying purely by price may not be as descriptive as other classification criteria.

Tejastheory (talk) 06:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Goals
So people's opinions on what the priorities here may vary, so this is more subjective. Here are what I think should be goals for these templates (in no particular order of priority):


 * A classification system of 'some sort'. I don't believe blanking the category labels completely is a good option - it makes the template extremely confusing.
 * Non-contentious classifications. The classifications chosen should be reasonably agreeable - there should be no reason to have an edit war or debate over any particular classification.
 * Classifications should be consistent across time. If Nikon releases a D400 succesor to the D300, there should be no reason that the classification for the entire series should change (unless the capabilities/price of the camera change drastically, which we may consider unlikely)
 * The template should be kept uncluttered and easily navigable.

Tejastheory (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Cburnett
I have not bothered to post here because, frankly, I don't really give a crap any more. I've been arguing for WP:V the whole time and have stated numerous times that I only care the sources are verifiable and authoritative. This all stems from Random J. User changing the templates for whatever reason. WP:V DEMANDS that contentious content be sourced by those who add it or it must be removed. Initially, I opted for the latter (which led to edit warring with Tejastheory) but took it upon myself (which WP:V does not require) to find sources (which led to edit warring with Syberwolff who outright removed sources).

I reject digging up random review sites because, at best, they are 3rd party sources whom have no authority to speak as a reliable source. No one has, to my knowledge, risen to my challenge of finding a book or some kind of photography association or a world-renowned digital photographer to use as a reliable source, and so we are stuck with manufacturers or random review sites.

Personally, I don't disagree with the consumer/prosumer/professional classification system but my opinion is irrelevant when finding reliable and authoritative sources that WP:V demands. I don't give a crap any more because I'm tired of fighting for policy against people willing to toss it aside because it'd be more convenient. It would seem Syberwolff still thinks WP:V is something to ignore when its convenient. Cburnett (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)