Are chrestomathy style requests acceptable?

Question

I was thinking about a class of real questions that are really answerable here, in the overview style and that's something like what is asked for on http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Rosetta_Code. This would be tantamount to asking for the views of each tradition that takes a stance on a particular issue, like an overview question – but in a concise way. Answers would have to include written, authoritative viewpoints, not "I'm an Evangelical and this is how Evangelicals read the Bible" type answers.

This apparently is called a chrestomathy, and I think we could use a tag crestomathy-request (as opposed to crestomathy, which would be a meta-tag) to denote this kind of a question.

---

At the very least, I'd like to get my first question unclosed. FWIW, given the criteria for what an "overview question" is, I think it's topical now.

Answer 1

This seems like a subset of the "overview" question type, so I'd say they're generally on-topic. However...

• Some "overview" questions, particularly ones asking for the views of all of Christendom, are still too broad. It may be worth specifying a particular subset of Christendom.
• I don't really like the idea of a separate tag for these. If anything, we should have an "overview-request" tag first. But either seems like a meta tag to me.
• Also, keep in mind that we generally don't enforce how people answer questions. Some time ago I tried to figure out what “Not An Answer” really means, and the short version is that questioners can't resort to NAA flags whenever answers don't meet their specifications. So I can't say "All answers to this question must be exactly 500 characters long" and then flag any violators. Similarly, answers that don't actually follow the chrestomathy format, but are still kinda sorta overviews, according to current practice wouldn't qualify for NAA flags.

So to conclude: I like it. Let's give it a try.