user157: This question about the environment was posted recently. While no-one can doubt OP enthusiasm I personally don't like questions with loads of little parts that require separate answers. Is that just me? I notice this got upvoted
The reason I don't like them is

I think questions should be tightly focused so that it is obvious what is being asked. Ultimately we what people and search engine to find our content. With a sprawling question that is less likely.
If someone has got 3 questions why not make it a bit easier for people who would like to answer and ask them as three separate questions. Why oblige someone to answer everything you've ever wanted to know about Buddhism in one post? Give them a break.
If some one only knows the answer to some parts and another poster knows some other parts of the question- who get's the accepted answer (I know we are not great at awarding the accepted answer)?

In fairness - at least the above question was around a theme. I'm sure I've seem far looser agglomerations of queries before.
With these questions I would like to

Politely ask OP to split them up
Wait a bit
Ask again and inquire if they need any editing assistance
Cast close votes and ultimately put them on hold as been too broad

Is that a reasonable approach. Unreasonable? Grumpy? Hysterical?

user143: A couple of us did politely suggest to the OP this morning that this question be split up. There are some good questions there but answering it as it stands will be an undertaking along the lines of writing an entire term paper. It's unlikely there will be much of a response due to all of the information being requested.
I think your suggestions 1 - 4 are very reasonable. 

user-1: 
I think questions should be tightly focused so that it is obvious what is being asked. Ultimately we what people and search engine to find our content.

I agree with the above.
I don't think the problem is much the count of "? marks in a question, but if the whole is clear and coherent. In other words, I don't think there is a problem having many questions within a question. But a "bare enumeration" format with very tiny sentences for each question is something else: the individual questions may not be very clear, and they don't seem contribute to understand the doubts of the questioner.
@ChrisW answer has elaborated on his own question formats with lots of sub-questions. As someone who posted answers to them, I can say I like them.
I think they have a very focused theme (a main question mark), they may even come with a current thesis informing from where the person comes from. And the lots of (related) sub-questions either add to understand his place (which indirectly adds to the understanding of the question) or adds to the question itself, but still grounded in the main question. Furthermore, even if a sub-question, by itself, comes as opening broad territory, its surrounding context still makes one feel rooted in the main question, and so a reader (and an answer) may not get so distracted by it.
On the answer side, I don't think chris' examples tax who wants to write an answer (as the enumeration taxes). First because an elaborated question is very personal, whereas the bare enumeration...
...is the opposite. Also they are more superficial. If something is not very clear or seem broad, there is this short period of trying to decode it. The problem for me is trying to decode an impersonal, one-sentence question, that is, to put the effort to understand and write an answer for a question that did not get the same effort -- and perhaps, have not much importance for the one who posted it? 
In this format, all sub-questions have the same weight, and it seems to me it only takes one of these sub questions to come as too broad or difficult to understand to be put off with the entire post, whereas a clear question still can be answered, and one is free to just ignore sub-questions he is not interested in trying to understand or answer. Presumably, voting is still as clear as any other simple question.
Finally, to go back to one of chris examples, a short answer may still satisfy the core question: Andrei's answer, the accepted one, is very short. 

The question of matter (Buddhism's views on environmental stewardship questions) is interesting in this discussion, I think, because there are many sub-questions, they are in the same theme, and yet don't seem quite right. 
I would try to synthesize all this as: if we can at least delineate "a main question"....not necessarily to be able to succinctly write it down in a sentence (since many of our doubts have trouble with being boxed that way), but if we can identify a point that is the main one asked to be clarified, we might be in the good track regardless of the number of parts a question has?
Otherwise:

With these questions I would like to

Politely ask OP to split them up
Wait a bit
Ask again and inquire if they need any editing assistance
Cast close votes and ultimately put them on hold as been too broad


I think the above is ungrumpy, unhysterical and reasonable.

user18: I think there's a lot of overlap. It's poorly written, I think, with no explanation. Better would be a couple of more general questions around stewardship and the environment. Most of the questions could be combined, I think.

157: <p><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/8959/157">This question</a> about the environment was posted recently. While no-one can doubt OP enthusiasm I personally don't like questions with loads of little parts that require separate answers. Is that just me? I notice this got upvoted</p>

<p>The reason I don't like them is</p>

<ol>
<li>I think questions should be tightly focused so that it is obvious what is being asked. Ultimately we what people and search engine to find our content. With a sprawling question that is less likely.</li>
<li>If someone has got 3 questions why not make it a bit easier for people who would like to answer and ask them as three separate questions. Why oblige someone to answer everything you've ever wanted to know about Buddhism in one post? Give them a break.</li>
<li>If some one only knows the answer to some parts and another poster knows some other parts of the question- who get's the accepted answer (I know we are not great at awarding the accepted answer)?</li>
</ol>

<p>In fairness - at least the above question was around a theme. I'm sure I've seem far looser agglomerations of queries before.</p>

<p>With these questions I would like to</p>

<ol>
<li>Politely ask OP to split them up</li>
<li>Wait a bit</li>
<li>Ask again and inquire if they need any editing assistance</li>
<li>Cast close votes and ultimately put them on hold as been too broad</li>
</ol>

<p>Is that a reasonable approach. Unreasonable? Grumpy? Hysterical?</p>
 143: <p>A couple of us did politely suggest to the OP this morning that this question be split up. There are some good questions there but answering it as it stands will be an undertaking along the lines of writing an entire term paper. It's unlikely there will be much of a response due to all of the information being requested.</p>

<p>I think your suggestions 1 - 4 are very reasonable. </p>
 -1: <blockquote>
  <p>I think questions should be tightly focused so that it is obvious what is being asked. Ultimately we what people and search engine to find our content.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I agree with the above.</p>

<p>I don't think the problem is much the count of "? marks in a question, but if the whole is clear and coherent. In other words, I don't think there is a problem having many questions within a question. But a "bare enumeration" format with very tiny sentences for each question is something else: the individual questions may not be very clear, and they don't seem contribute to understand the doubts of the questioner.</p>

<p><a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1534/382">@ChrisW answer</a> has elaborated on his own question formats with lots of sub-questions. As someone who posted answers to them, I can say I like them.</p>

<p>I think they have a very focused theme (a main question mark), they may even come with a current thesis informing from where the person comes from. And the lots of (related) sub-questions either add to understand his place (which indirectly adds to the understanding of the question) or adds to the question itself, but still grounded in the main question. Furthermore, even if a sub-question, by itself, comes as opening broad territory, its surrounding context still makes one feel rooted in the main question, and so a reader (and an answer) may not get so distracted by it.</p>

<p>On the answer side, I don't think chris' examples tax who wants to write an answer (as the enumeration taxes). First because an elaborated question is very personal, whereas the bare enumeration...</p>

<p>...is the opposite. Also they are more superficial. If something is not very clear or seem broad, there is this short period of trying to decode it. The problem for me is trying to decode an impersonal, one-sentence question, that is, to put the effort to understand and write an answer for a question that did not get the same effort -- and perhaps, have not much importance for the one who posted it? </p>

<p>In this format, all sub-questions have the same weight, and it seems to me it only takes one of these sub questions to come as too broad or difficult to understand to be put off with the entire post, whereas a clear question still can be answered, and one is free to just ignore sub-questions he is not interested in trying to understand or answer. Presumably, voting is still as clear as any other simple question.</p>

<p>Finally, to go back to one of <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/5862/what-are-examples-of-identity-view">chris examples</a>, a short answer may still satisfy the core question: <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/5900/382">Andrei's answer</a>, the accepted one, is very short. </p>

<hr>

<p>The question of matter (Buddhism's views on environmental stewardship questions) is interesting in this discussion, I think, because there are many sub-questions, they are in the same theme, and yet don't seem quite right. </p>

<p>I would try to synthesize all this as: if we can at least delineate "a main question"....not necessarily to be able to succinctly write it down in a sentence (since many of our doubts have trouble with being boxed that way), but if we can identify a point that is the main one asked to be clarified, we might be in the good track regardless of the number of parts a question has?</p>

<p>Otherwise:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>With these questions I would like to</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li>Politely ask OP to split them up</li>
  <li>Wait a bit</li>
  <li>Ask again and inquire if they need any editing assistance</li>
  <li>Cast close votes and ultimately put them on hold as been too broad</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>I think the above is ungrumpy, unhysterical and reasonable.</p>
 18: <p>I think there's a lot of overlap. It's poorly written, I think, with no explanation. Better would be a couple of more general questions around stewardship and the environment. Most of the questions could be combined, I think.</p>
