If not confusing, then at least inefficient and kinda odd.
It was easier around 2004/2005 or so. There was the D100, which was the crop-sensor camera.
Then there was the D1 series, which continued on the F1/F2/F3/F4/F5 series of their pro-level bodies. The pro-level digital bodies were sometimes given sensor or feature upgrades mid-lifecycle, so they were given an X or H suffix (1Dx, 2Dh, etc.)
Then, they introduced the D70. Which was better than the D100. But later, they upgraded the D100 and continued its line into the D200/D300/D300s.
The D70 line continued to the D80 and D90. What's the next logical number? That's a problem.
On the lower end of things, Nikon started a lower-end camera below the D70 to compete with the digital Rebels. They started with a D50, added a lower D40, upped that with a D40X and then a D60. Where to go next? That's a problem.
So they seemingly pulled back and went with a new naming scheme: The low-end was renamed the D3000. Successors were the D3100 and now the D3200.
Above that, they went to the D5000, and now the D5100 with a rumored D5200 along the way.
The D70/80/90 also went to a four-digit naming convention with the current D7000.
The D100/200/300 is now the (outdated) 300s, which some people will say could go full-frame, others argue it will stay DX, but who knows at this point.
Then the full-frame below-"pro" body was announced with the D700, and now the D800 series.
And there's still the pro series. They just do a +1 with every new generation, and of course, sometimes a suffix.
So no, not confusing at all ... The naming madness is due to the fact that digital camera tech is ever-evloving, and cameras need to be updated a wee bit more often than their film counterparts did.