Thread:NerdWithAKeyboard/@comment-14660436-20170704203022

I really don't need to explain this if you read LucidPigeons' blog about antagonist fussing, but let me emphasise some of the points he made with bold text:

"While I am generally fine with secondary and to a much lesser extent tertiary"

"As said, main/primary and secondary are generally seen as alright (as these are generally subject to the least amount of interpretations; warring over such falls under the edit wars section and will not be tolerated), but the use of "tertiary" villains begins to veer into overly specific and is discouraged. Quaternary and below is prohibited."

Yes, quaternary and below are outright not allowed under current policies, but that doesn't mean tertiary should get off scott free either, and that it doesn't exclude the fact that what Lucid means about the term "tertiary antagonist" is basically him saying "you probably shouldn't use the term in the first place", and some others might agree with me that the whole tertiary antagonist gimmick is getting old. I am deliberately changing terms like "tertiary" and "quaternary" etc. to "major", "supporting" or "minor" so that people can stop bickering and edit warring over the antagonistic scale, since major and supporting etc. sound much less specific and subjective.

If you're not happy what I'm doing, you can just ask an admin over this matter, but frankly I'm just trying to follow the Wiki's rules here and prevent edit wars. Thank you. 