Talk:Posetal category

Not a redirect
A purist might insist that "posetal category" should not exist as a distinct term, since "preordered set" has exactly the same meaning (or "poset" assuming skeletality). However the term is in wide use, including in Wikipedia and hence allowing such uses to be a link. Moreover the information in this article would be out of place in preordered set as being too category-centric. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively one could simply replace the text of this article with a redirect to poset, but this might leave many readers in the dark. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Really?
I've never heard of "posetal category" used to mean "poset, regarded as a category". Also, it's quite different from a "thin category", which means "preordered set, regarded as a category". John Baez (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)