Unfortunately, your proposed measure is also subjective (which I believe is what you meant by "objective"). It's left up to the individual's opinion as to how much topping makes it Aromatic or not. Where do you draw the line? With that measure we're not communicating any more effectively, and "Aromatic" is no longer about aroma, which is at least slightly intuitive.
To me, I say that anything that has a topping, not a casing is an aromatic. And yes, I meant to say objective. I'm sorry my not speaking English has done wonders for my Japanese but nothing for my English. One drop of Cherry or one hundred, it's had a top note added to it and it's an aromatic.
In theory I agree, but in practice it seems that one would communicate most effectively and efficiently by not trying to use "English" when talking about a blend where latakia is not a defining taste. If I ask a tobacconist for an English, I'm most likely going to get something latakia.
That's actually a concern that's commonly on my mind in all contexts. Usually it's a matter of a word's severity being watered down or its definition expanded; this case is unusual in that its definition has been significantly narrowed and shifted.
I personally don't use the term English to define a blend that has components of Latakia. But that's just me. When I talk to my tobacconist, and am looking for a suggestion, I will talk about the flavors of a specific blend, and usually the components.
That is, as you say, subjective. My wife has enjoyed the room note of everything I've tried. I can't even imagine anyone not liking a nice campfire smell, although apparently it's common.
There's a line in a song I like that goes "her perfume smells like burning leaves" (it's about a troublesome goth girl), and every time I hear that line I'm like "why don't women wear perfume that smells like burning leaves?"...
It's very subjective. I was just answering your question
Is there anything wrong with added scent components for the sake of folks around you?