`  :::Thank you. Yes, I suppose that would have been better. It was just that I am not interested in categorizing carnivorous plant articles as such. I am working my way through the order Caryophyllales, and this was blocked up completely because of the Nepenthes-items. These were categorized in Nepenthaceae a subcategory of both Caryophyllales and of Carnivorous plants and in both these main categories. This is against common sense and against the guidelines on categorization. The result was a hopeless mess. I tried to gently nudge  into cleaning up his act, but he did not get it. I did not feel like getting into a big hassle and tried to do the sensible thing. :::Categorization depends on the number and nature of the things to be categorized. This means that on the whole there is no fixed ``right categorization`` but that it needs to be adjusted as items are added. At the moment the Category Caryophyllales contains lots of non-related items, and the exceptions belong to the family Cactaceae (in category Cacti, which looks to be allright) and a few genera only (Amaranthus, Drosera, Nepenthes) so at this moment it seems clearest to move these items into subcategories dedicated to each genus  this has several advantages. As items are added it will be wise to look at it again and to add new subcategories. As I see it, at this moment this looks best. However I have not finished yet; a category should not contain that much over 150 items and Caryophyllales will be near the upper limit even after Nepenthes is properly filed away. The same goes for Carnivorous plants, although as I said I have no real interest in those and would gladly leave that to you, as long as it does not interfere with Caryophyllales.  `