I posted a question which, in a nutshell, has very few answers AFAIK and did not invite wordiness in answers. You can see it on christianity.stackexchange.com at Are there any parallel Russian / Slavonic – English prayer books for Orthodox Christians?
It was put on hold relatively quickly for reasons that were simply not true:
There are either too many possible answers, or good answers would be too long for this format. Please add details to narrow the answer set or to isolate an issue that can be answered in a few paragraphs.
When I started asking, the moderator who closed my question clarified that the close reason was entirely beside the point. The real reason my question was closed was that I solicited all books fitting XYZ narrow condition, and that ran afoul of the "all answers are equally valid" snare: as clarified by the moderator, who has left my question on hold after editing:
See christianity.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask. Key part: "All answers equally valid". If you can find a way to phrase it so that it's not likely to get equally valid answers if you get more than one, you're covered. I also answered more fully in the Meta post. Thank you for asking, by the way! I'm glad you cared enough to ask.
So I'd like to request...
If my question is being put on hold because it ran afoul of the "All answers are equally valid" litmus test, could the stated "on hold" reason be "You asked a question where all answers are equally valid and we don't allow that," and not give me a boilerplate assertion that either my question invites far too many answers, or that my question invites far too much verbosity in answers?
(In other words, could we move closer to a 1:1 relationship between "on hold" reasons and "on hold" messages, or ask moderators to explicitly comment what the "on hold" reason was if it is not the rubber-stamp message the user will see?)