Thread:Yeerk/@comment-28171460-20180808144225/@comment-34202220-20180808185525

>I could be mistaken, but were you the one to suggest that category?

Nope. I looked back on your wall to see if I had said anything that made you think that (wasn't hard because I've only been here since last December), and found a categories rant I made (if you look on your wall, go 7 pages back). It seems like "Supporting Character" used to be called "Secondary Protagonist." I don't remember those details now. I've even been writing "secondary protagonist" on some of my pages, lol. Shows how bad my memory is. Anyway, Back then, I said:

Previously, "secondary protagonists" was a category for the "next most important" character after the protagonist. Fergie, Mark, Elliot, Andy. I didn't like the name, but used it because that's what the community had been using. I agree with the name change to "supporting characters," but I wish it had a restriction set like, only "next most important" characters or something. The problem is every character that is not the protagonist is a "supporting character." Why have a category at all?

You replied and said:

Maybe we should implement a "Minor characters" category. Then we could add a description to that category that says a character is either secondary or minor (or neither).

So nope, wasn't me. I've always said if there's no distinction between secondary and everyone else, we don't need the category at all (cause anyone who is not a protagonist or antagonist now falls in it). But! Did discussion move past this point for "Minor characters?" If readers/editors want a distinction between characters like Mark and Fergie and minor characters like Mom and Dad Alicia from Camp Jellyjam, that might be a good way to do it.