Inspired in three parts by an existing question here, a Meta Stack Overflow question, and a withdrawn follow-up to an answer. While this affects objective lists the most, there are also a lot of non-list questions which can have unreasonably large scopes.
Sometimes a huge scope is appropriate, and sometimes it isn't. It is largely dependent on whether that scope is useful for that particular game or if it just makes the information difficult to parse.
I think that when a question is not broad enough to be vague and ambiguous (and thus susceptible to "Not A Real Question"), but is too broad for answerers to reasonably address, then it probably isn't a candidate for closing and instead comments should engage the author in how to narrow the scope. Closing is primarily for things that do not belong on the site, but this feels more like it just needs a "small" measure of clarification. What does everyone else think about these?