I'd like to suggest that we consider that "list of things" is a terrible metric and not something we should base any kind of policy on. In a sense, any question on a site that can get more than one answer to it, is a list of solutions to that problem. There are also questions which are quite compact, but the answer just happens to be a list. When you start bridging policies on such loose terminology as "list of things", it cascades into a nightmare of people closing legitimate questions because they can in some fashion associate the term "list" with it.
I started to hint towards this direction in my most recent meta answer here, but you've got existing tools in the system that already protect against bad apples of this orchard without needing to create additional policy for them. Not even needing to reword the question with edits, frame them in the context of the intended problem to solve. In many cases, these questions are poor questions at heart because they're usually too broadly scoped to allow for meaningful and useful answers. That's what we want to provide, after all - the goal of the community is to be an outstanding resource for readers that helps where other places fail, and that comes from the strength of the answers we can provide. This isn't about this "single definitive answer" term that some people have used, that's irrelevant. Questions and Answers have a scope that works, and we as a network benefit by keeping these pairs in that small scope.
Let's take one of your examples. "What would be the most useful online vim resources", the problem underneath asks basically for everything on the net that can be useful. This can be hit from two directions - it's too unclear to produce meaningful answers since there's no proper metric for the resources, and it's too broad to produce meaningful answers because it is trying to contain way too many potential tasks (learning tutorials, plugins for productivity, reference materials, etc.) within a single question. Scope is about the meaningfulness of the quantity, not the absolute numeric size. Most of the other examples given can be similarly addressed as being too broad or too unclear to produce meaningful content.
You can avoid all these concerns about special taggings or needing Community Wiki (which you usually will not need) by simply avoiding creating an atmosphere that encourages this kind of scenario. Don't shape questions towards being things that you need to provide excess maintenance over the years, don't shape them in ways that cause votes to skew against the actual contributory content of the answer. Judge on the merits of the underlying problem and use that to determine how to handle the question. If you start to see patterns based on that, then you can start working on explicit policies. Until then, that first line of defense, our extant universal policies against material that is too broad to be useful or is too unclear to produce useful answers or otherwise off-topic, that should be able to handle these.
If you find some kind of "list" that you can't seem to close under these reasons, think for a moment if it really does need to be closed. Can the underlying problem and its solution actually be a helpful resource for the community? If that scope is something that works for the community, then it starts to speak towards something that probably can be kept.
