We currently have a system where there are a bunch of canonical resource request questions linked here, which theoretically cover all the bases; then theoretically almost all questions can be closed as duplicates of them. The problem is that sometimes the scope of the question or the scope of the answers doesn't live up to that standard.
For example, this question is our canonical resource request question for particle physics and the Standard Model, which is hugely important. The OP said they didn't have much background, so all of the answers gave texts appropriate for early-stage undergraduates. At least five other questions at a wide variety of levels were closed in favor of that one. I think it's a bad move to close a question where the OP wants a book that assumes QFT knowledge (e.g. here) as a duplicate of a question where the OP needs a book that carefully avoids going into QFT at all.
In this case I put a bounty on the question, edited it to be more ambiguous about level, and AccidentalFourierTransform came through with an excellent answer, but there are still many questions in bad shape relative to their 'close as duplicate' scope, such as
- this one on cosmology (asked by a 14 year old)
- this one on conformal field theory (requesting a low level)
- this one on quantum information (requesting 'foundations', but which has as duplicates questions about quantum computation, and the AMO physics of building quantum computers)
Note that if you check these questions, they don't sound narrow anymore, because I've edited them.
I invite anybody else who cares about the state of our book recommendations to join me in fixing types of questions up; I can only put up so many bounties at once, and the scope of my knowledge isn't nearly broad enough to fix up every question this way.