Current category is wrong, because I personally screwed up in its creation in 2010. It should be pulled unless a good, well-sourced page about the "pseudo-historical story" can be written in the next 30 days. T:CAT NAME simply doesn't support its existence otherwise.
I can't help but notice how bloated the pseudo-historical stories category has become. As of today, it contains 800 stories. That's an awful lot for a category that only covers a specific type of story. So I'm proposing that it be broken down into subcategories based on the medium i.e. pseudo-historical TV stories, pseudo-historical novels, etc. And while there aren't nearly as many "pure historicals", we might want to consider doing the same for them just to keep things consistent.
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 cannot 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 category were to remain in its current, bloated state.