Thread:Dino-drones/@comment-22439-20141128210508/@comment-1187034-20150424200051

I see you have ignored BastionMonk, so I will repeat this again: We do not categorize creatures according to their diet.

As Bastion once said: ''Categories are supposed to group related topics. "Carnivore" and "Herbivore" both cover half of the animal kingdom. I think that is too general to be usefull. Carnivores will contain Megalodon, Tyrannosaurus rex, Sea Scorpion and Thylacosmilus. These animals have close to nothing in common.

If we use these categories the "Read more"-thumbnails at the bottem of the articles will not show similar topics. If I read the Sea Scotpion article, it will recomment Velociraptor. I do not think that is usefull.

For dinosaurs we already have the categories Theropods, Sauropods, Ornithischia. All carnivores belong to Theropods, and all herbivores belong to Sauropods and Ornithischia; with a few exceptions. So, I don't think that "Carnivore" and "Herbivore" really adds something.''

As for why I removed the "Dinosaurs" category from the articles you edited, the manual of style regarding category hierarchy: ''Allosaurus must be put in Theropods, NOT in Dinosaurs or Reptiles. It are the categorie Theropods that is put into Dinosaurs, and Dinosaurs is placed in Reptiles.''

If you want to some category work I'd suggest removing any categories about a creature's diet from articles.