Talk:Color Naming Rule/@comment-410526-20160901173103/@comment-25936766-20160901173828

1-Except it's not even a stretch. It's literally a common name for the plant. Not even close to what you're trying to say.

2-There were already multiple examples that did the same.

-Port: "Port may refer to port wine, which is typically a red." After stating how Peter means Stone.

-Roman: "Roman's name and weapon could relate to the famous Roman candle firework which is normally associated with the color of fire (though it can be any number of common firework colors) . Torch also brings to mind the colors of flame." Even though it already says there's a color called Roman Silver.

- "Branwen is Welsh, meaning "blessed white raven/crow", which corresponds to his/her first name." After stating how Ravens are black-feathered.

-"Sustrai means "roots" in Basque, which are typically evocative of a woody brown." After stating how Emeralds are green.

What about them? Is that information not "superfluous" as well?

All I did was add extra info that did no harm nor did it deny or go against the already-present info. And here you are, deleting it for being "superfluous", even though there were already multiple examples with "superfluous" information, that you happily ignored when editing my additions out.

Still with this bullshit? Either be consistent with your rules, or don't enforce them.