Talk:List of Kentucky companies

PHP info edit reversion
Hi i am not a wikilister so apologies for my naive(?) edit but i dont understand why it was reverted, reason given - None of the other companies have a description - doesnt appear to be a WP reason for the edit reversion. the list as it stands is not very informative to the reader ie. what do the companies like Ashland, Inc.; Broadbent's; or Columbia Sussex (amongst others) do? a reader would have to click on the links to find out. one of the goals of WP:WPLIST is to Make all lists conform to the standards of Featured list criteria which in part at 3. Comprehensiveness. (a) ...it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. i also had a quick look at a few stand alone lists that have featured list status (List of tallest buildings in San Francisco,List of national parks of Sweden and List of airports in the Okanagan) and they all have information about the 'things' on their list. - this edit could be 1 little step for this list to get to featured list status:) ((although this may be all irrevelent as for some unknown reason the wikiproject lists banner isnt on this talk page:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ps. here is a list of people, each with a brief description - List of people connected to Gothenburg - kentucky companies list could become the same:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolabahapple (talk • contribs) 14:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Gothenburg list, I have no objection (nor do I think anyone else would) to adding descriptions to those on the list. In fact, as a general rule it's a good idea. But when only one single entry -- especially that of a company -- has a description but the others don't, it adds undue emphasis to that one item.
 * a reader would have to click on the links to find out - This is the assumption for lists on Wikipedia in general, and it's not a bad thing. As Wikipedia isn't a directory of just anything that exists but rather contains [mostly] lists of articles, the function of a list is largely navigational or premised on the significance of the list information on its own (that being a company in Kentucky is alone a notable subject for a list, regardless of other attributes of the entries). If people want more information beyond the fact that it's a company in Kentucky, that's what the separate articles are for. I agree that short descriptions on a list can be good, though, as long as it's neutral, and concise/succinct. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for the information about lists:)Coolabahapple (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)