user18: I just converted a couple of questions to community wiki posts. This is half question, half comment, as I'm pretty sure that's a good response to such posts. Community wiki posts basically work outside of the SE rep system (see this post for more info), so there isn't need to get a single right answer.
Seems like this is a better response than flagging/closing bucket list questions as really such questions can be terribly helpful within the wiki framework.
So, the question is, amirite?

user289: I like narrow book requests better than "what's a good book to read" questions. It actually is difficult to track down book about Shingon, it is sometimes tricky to find published liturgies for some types of Buddhism (easy to find a liturgy that covers Pure Land, but hard to find a liturgy that gives any emphasis to Huayen/Avatamsaksa)
My kindle has like 100 samples of Buddhist books, and those will be out of date in 5 years, when a whole new batch of Buddhist books hit the scene. SE is never going to keep up with the river of new releases. Worse, in hypothetical "whats good to read question", after 3 years the best anwers will be at the bottom of the list and the best books of 2015 will be permanently at the top!

user254: Amirite?
Yes I think you are right: I was pleased to see your knowing about the CW feature, and using it.
CW can be useful, for building reference lists, for example:

Terminology index - a list of bike part names and cycling concepts
The Definitive C++ Book Guide and List


Incidentally, the authors have done more than only convert these topics to CW:

To deal with the problem of indexing/sorting, the former (list of bicycle terminology) puts each entry in a separate 'answer' and edits the 'question' so that the question has an alphabetical list of links to each entry
To make the answer coherent, the latter (list of C++ books) deletes every answer except one, locks the topic so that new answers can't be added, and edits every reply into the single common answer


Also some reference lists are less useful than others: for example, IMO What are some entertaining/fictional movies, books, etc. might be too broad a topic (too many possible answers and not enough value e.g. commentary/context added to each answer, so it's a mere list of lists).
But, whether a topic is ...

Just right (i.e. normal)
Ought to be CW (i.e. unusual)
Ought to be closed (i.e. too unusual)

... is a bit subjective, a judgement call. For example although I thought that asking "What are some entertaining/fictional movies" was too broad, I thought that my own question "Chronological or other sequence for beginners" was helpful even though it too attracted a list of lists in reply.

There used to be a chat room in which to mention Dharma Books. People on this site don't use the chat rooms enough to keep them unfrozen.

18: <p>I just converted a couple of questions to community wiki posts. This is half question, half comment, as I'm pretty sure that's a good response to such posts. Community wiki posts basically work outside of the SE rep system (see <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/11740/what-are-community-wiki-posts">this post</a> for more info), so there isn't need to get a single right answer.</p>

<p>Seems like this is a better response than flagging/closing bucket list questions as really such questions can be terribly helpful within the wiki framework.</p>

<p>So, the question is, amirite?</p>
 289: <p>I like narrow book requests better than "what's a good book to read" questions. It actually is difficult to track down book about Shingon, it is sometimes tricky to find published liturgies for some types of Buddhism (easy to find a liturgy that covers Pure Land, but hard to find a liturgy that gives any emphasis to Huayen/Avatamsaksa)</p>

<p>My kindle has like 100 samples of Buddhist books, and those will be out of date in 5 years, when a whole new batch of Buddhist books hit the scene. SE is never going to keep up with the river of new releases. Worse, in hypothetical "whats good to read question", after 3 years the best anwers will be at the bottom of the list and the best books of 2015 will be permanently at the top!</p>
 254: <p>Amirite?</p>

<p>Yes I think you are right: I was pleased to see your knowing about the CW feature, and using it.</p>

<p>CW can be useful, for building reference lists, for example:</p>

<ul>
<li><a href="https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/q/244/1097">Terminology index - a list of bike part names and cycling concepts</a></li>
<li><a href="https://stackoverflow.com/q/388242/49942">The Definitive C++ Book Guide and List</a></li>
</ul>

<hr>

<p>Incidentally, the authors have done more than only convert these topics to CW:</p>

<ul>
<li>To deal with the problem of indexing/sorting, the former (list of bicycle terminology) puts each entry in a separate 'answer' and edits the 'question' so that the question has an alphabetical list of links to each entry</li>
<li>To make the answer coherent, the latter (list of C++ books) deletes every answer except one, locks the topic so that new answers can't be added, and edits every reply into the single common answer</li>
</ul>

<hr>

<p>Also some reference lists are less useful than others: for example, IMO <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/7359/254">What are some entertaining/fictional movies, books, etc.</a> might be too broad a topic (too many possible answers and not enough value e.g. commentary/context added to each answer, so it's a mere list of lists).</p>

<p>But, whether a topic is ...</p>

<ul>
<li>Just right (i.e. normal)</li>
<li>Ought to be CW (i.e. unusual)</li>
<li>Ought to be closed (i.e. too unusual)</li>
</ul>

<p>... is a bit subjective, a judgement call. For example although I thought that asking "What are some entertaining/fictional movies" was too broad, I thought that my own question "<a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/4112/254">Chronological or other sequence for beginners</a>" was helpful even though it too attracted a list of lists in reply.</p>

<hr>

<p>There used to be a chat room in which to mention <a href="http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/16470/dharma-books">Dharma Books</a>. People on this site don't use the chat rooms enough to keep them unfrozen.</p>
