Category talk:Strachey family

Not a proper subset of
By my count, 4 members of this family were part of the Bloomsbury Group, and we have around 18 articles about the family. Thus, while this is enough to merit a "see also", it should not be a subset per WP:SUBCAT, which states "If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second, then the first category should be made a subcategory (directly or indirectly) of the second." and "When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions[clarification needed]) to belong to the parent also." "If two categories are closely related but are not in a subset relation, then links between them can be included in the text of the category pages." If this was 20 articles, all of whom were also members of Bloomsbury, and 1 who wasn't, I could see it as a subset. Here the ratio doesn't support it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The Strachey family members who belonged to the Bloomsbury Group are already categorized as members of that group. So, having the Strachey family category as a member appears confusing and unnecessarily duplicative. As Obi-Wan pointed out, WP:SUBCAT asks that we avoid incorrectly implying membership that doesn't exist, in this case by the majority of Strachey family when only a small minority are members. So, I propose that we remove the Bloomsbury Group category from the Strachey family category and let the Bloomsbury Group wikilink in the lede speak for itself. I don't feel strongly one-way-or-the-other about including a 'see also'. —Waldhorn (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)