Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-5791028-20170604151827/@comment-188432-20170605000617

As the author of that category, the text upon it, and the redirect at pseudo-historical, I have to say that I was wrong on every count. This dates from 2010, and, well, I just plain screwed up.

It's wrong because it violates T:CAT NAME's admonition that we should name categories unambiguously. Until a proper article is written -- and sourced -- at pseudo-historical story (noun, not adjective!) there really can't be a category.

In 2010, I remember looking for some kinda reference material to back up the definition, but I think it was really just a fan thing. If people can now write an article that's well sourced, we should strongly consider deleting the category.

If such article can be written in, say, the next 30 days, and its reference sources check out, then and only then should we consider breaking up the current article. Otherwise, the article should be deleted as vague -- and it would be easier to delete if the article if it were to remain in its current, bloated state.