This category is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
