This was triggered by the question: http://health.stackexchange.com/q/641/165

It has been raised that maybe it’s too broad because of the side effects bit. That may be. In a prior iteration it also asked for “best” medications and people felt that may be too subjective. I actually think that part was fine, but that’s not the issue I’m raising here.

My (overlapping) concerns about this question*:

1. It’s trivial. The OP could have found an answer with a google search. Or whatever “manual” you prefer.

2. It’s not interesting to experts. I’m not an expert in the area. However, if I was answering it, I would be irritated that I needed to come up with references. I imagine this would be even more true for experts.

3. It’s too broad (even excluding the side effects bit). A good answer would be too long for this format.

4. The published literature is too good. Are we going to do better than this?

5. It opens up a can of worms. Are we going to have a question for every disease, “how do I treat X?"

On the other hand:

1. Not everybody thinks so.

2. How do you know?

3. A good summary is possible.

4. Meh, nobody reads that stuff.

5. Why not?

• Is this sort of thing OK here?

• If not, should we have a close reason: "This is a general reference question."?

* _{The purpose of this meta discussion is not to deal with this particular question. I think this is generalizable to any of the zillion possible questions that will likely arise asking similar general reference questions.}

This was triggered by the question: https://health.stackexchange.com/q/641/165

It has been raised that maybe it’s too broad because of the side effects bit. That may be. In a prior iteration it also asked for “best” medications and people felt that may be too subjective. I actually think that part was fine, but that’s not the issue I’m raising here.

My (overlapping) concerns about this question*:

1. It’s trivial. The OP could have found an answer with a google search. Or whatever “manual” you prefer.

2. It’s not interesting to experts. I’m not an expert in the area. However, if I was answering it, I would be irritated that I needed to come up with references. I imagine this would be even more true for experts.

3. It’s too broad (even excluding the side effects bit). A good answer would be too long for this format.

4. The published literature is too good. Are we going to do better than this?

5. It opens up a can of worms. Are we going to have a question for every disease, “how do I treat X?"

On the other hand:

1. Not everybody thinks so.

2. How do you know?

3. A good summary is possible.

4. Meh, nobody reads that stuff.

5. Why not?

• Is this sort of thing OK here?

• If not, should we have a close reason: "This is a general reference question."?

* _{The purpose of this meta discussion is not to deal with this particular question. I think this is generalizable to any of the zillion possible questions that will likely arise asking similar general reference questions.}

This was triggered by the question: http://health.stackexchange.com/q/641/165

It has been raised that maybe it’s too broad because of the side effects bit. That may be. In a prior iteration it also asked for “best” medications and people felt that may be too subjective. I actually think that part was fine, but that’s not the issue I’m raising here.

My (overlapping) concerns about this question*:

1. It’s trivial. The OP could have found an answer with a google search. Or whatever “manual” you prefer.

2. It’s not interesting to experts. I’m not an expert in the area. However, if I was answering it, I would be irritated that I needed to come up with references. I imagine this would be even more true for experts.

3. It’s too broad (even excluding the side effects bit). A good answer would be too long for this format.

4. The published literature is too good. Are we going to do better than this?

5. It opens up a can of worms. Are we going to have a question for every disease, “how do I treat X?"

On the other hand:

1. Not everybody thinks so.

2. How do you know?

3. A good summary is possible.

4. Meh, nobody reads that stuff.

5. Why not?

Is this sort of thing OK here?

* _{The purpose of this meta discussion is not to deal with this particular question. I think this is generalizable to any of the zillion possible questions that will likely arise asking similar general reference questions.}

This was triggered by the question: http://health.stackexchange.com/q/641/165

It has been raised that maybe it’s too broad because of the side effects bit. That may be. In a prior iteration it also asked for “best” medications and people felt that may be too subjective. I actually think that part was fine, but that’s not the issue I’m raising here.

My (overlapping) concerns about this question*:

1. It’s trivial. The OP could have found an answer with a google search. Or whatever “manual” you prefer.

2. It’s not interesting to experts. I’m not an expert in the area. However, if I was answering it, I would be irritated that I needed to come up with references. I imagine this would be even more true for experts.

3. It’s too broad (even excluding the side effects bit). A good answer would be too long for this format.

4. The published literature is too good. Are we going to do better than this?

5. It opens up a can of worms. Are we going to have a question for every disease, “how do I treat X?"

On the other hand:

1. Not everybody thinks so.

2. How do you know?

3. A good summary is possible.

4. Meh, nobody reads that stuff.

5. Why not?

• Is this sort of thing OK here?

• If not, should we have a close reason: "This is a general reference question."?

* _{The purpose of this meta discussion is not to deal with this particular question. I think this is generalizable to any of the zillion possible questions that will likely arise asking similar general reference questions.}