Comments on an article by D. S. Chester et al. (see record 2026-29451-001). Chester et al. raised objections to the use of the term "dark" for describing antagonistic traits, such as narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Their central claim is that "dark" is stigmatizing, sensationalistic, imprecise, and potentially problematic. While their concerns merit careful consideration, it is notable that the authors provide no scientific evidence to substantiate them. Here, the commentators defend the continued use of this terminology while providing bibliometric evidence demonstrating that the term "dark" has facilitated interdisciplinary scientific progress and helped consolidate a rapidly growing field of research. While Chester et al. highlight the term "dark" as imprecise because of its multiple meanings, its consistent use within personality research, as shown in bibliometric networks, suggests a shared scientific understanding that mitigates ambiguity when applied with conceptual consistency. Abandoning this label would risk fragmenting a field that has achieved rapid and cumulative progress under its unifying influence. Chester et al. caution that "dark" is sensationalistic and risks delegitimizing the study of antagonistic traits. We acknowledge that the term carries rhetorical power, but this feature can be seen as a strength rather than a flaw. Its accessibility has helped consolidate research on antagonistic traits and fostered interdisciplinary dialogue within psychology. Terms that resonate widely often catalyze scientific discourse; the challenge is not to discard them, but to apply them responsibly.