user37622: Before adding a new close reason, it must be consulted with the community. The new close reason would be "Not reproducible or was caused by a typo". It was already discussed 6 years ago but there was no closure and I think I can't add the new close reason based on the old voting.
EDIT: Now questions which could use this close reason are closed with other reasons so this new close reason gives better explanation for the question poster.
Please vote on this post for this new close reason. You can share your thoughts about it in comments or as answer.
Stack Overflow has this close reason and I would use their texts:
Input Title

Not reproducible or was caused by a typo

Input Guidance

While similar questions may be on-topic here, this one was resolved in a way less likely to help future readers.

It looks like this in close reason selection:



Post Owner Guidance

This question was caused by a typo or a problem that can no longer be reproduced. While similar questions may be on-topic here, this one was resolved in a way less likely to help future readers.

Privileged User Guidance

This question was caused by a typo or a problem that can no longer be reproduced. While similar questions may be on-topic here, this one was resolved in a way less likely to help future readers.

Concensus Description

Closed. This question is not reproducible or was caused by typos. It is not currently accepting answers.

This post notice looks like this:

EDIT: This close reason and its wording was fine tuned by SO Meta members in collaboration with moderators and CMs.

user42015: I would vote for introducing this new closing reason.
While the first sentence in the descriptions (with the "not reproducible" and "typo") leaves a bit open what exactly is meant, the second sentence ("less likely to help future readers") is the important part in most cases. I don't want to advocate against the first sentence though. We need to have a single sentence description part, which can be used as title. Such a short sentence will always leave something open.
Also: From my experience (might be different when looked at from the real numbers) the close votes are mostly done by the more experienced users on this site, which will not be confused by the option. And question writers will get a more fitting close reason. Currently we often only use "off topic" and then write a comment that C/C++ syntax is off topic. These comments might still be necessary to give more details, but more information for the user is better. And it comes with rather little cost.

user10794: I was uncertain about this, however I must admit that this question is a good case in point. The problem was confusing = with == in code. This is not so much a typo as a misunderstanding of the C++ language, however if the question were to remain it would just be solving one person's coding problem, without really contributing to the general Arduino knowledge-base.
However I do have a problem with this:

This question was caused by a typo or a problem that can no longer be reproduced.

Surely they are widely different things? A typo is just a typing error, for example misspelling a word, using capitals in the wrong way, and so on.
A problem that can no longer reproduced is a totally different beast. You might try the posted code out and not reproduce the results the poster claimed. Surely this is something else? Maybe your environment, or hardware, was different?
Even the question I quoted above wasn't really a typo (unless you accidentally typed = instead of ==) but more likely to be a confusion about how C++ works compared to, say, SQL.
How about three close reasons? :)

A typo (eg. mistyping float as flat).
A lack of understanding of C++, which would apply whether or not you were using the Arduino (eg. using = for an equality test)
A problem that cannot be reproduced. (eg. a = 2 + 2 giving 5, when everyone else gets 4).


user4143: I just closed one that could have been closed as this. However it's no hardship to just do a custom close with your own message. Do we really need a other close reason?

37622: <p>Before adding a new close reason, it must be consulted with the community. The new close reason would be &quot;Not reproducible or was caused by a typo&quot;. It was already <a href="https://arduino.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1276/can-we-have-a-no-longer-reproducible-close-reason">discussed</a> 6 years ago but there was no closure and I think I can't add the new close reason based on the old voting.</p>
<p><em>EDIT: Now questions which could use this close reason are closed with other reasons so this new close reason gives better explanation for the question poster.</em></p>
<p><strong>Please vote on this post for this new close reason. You can share your thoughts about it in comments or as answer.</strong></p>
<p>Stack Overflow has this close reason and I would use their texts:</p>
<p><strong>Input Title</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Not reproducible or was caused by a typo</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Input Guidance</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p>While similar questions may be <a href="/help/on-topic">on-topic</a> here, this one was resolved in a way less likely to help future readers.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It looks like this in close reason selection:</p>
<hr />
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/bp9Qi.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/bp9Qi.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<hr />
<p><strong>Post Owner Guidance</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p>This question was caused by a typo or a problem that can no longer be reproduced. While similar questions may be <a href="/help/on-topic">on-topic</a> here, this one was resolved in a way less likely to help future readers.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Privileged User Guidance</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p>This question was caused by a typo or a problem that can no longer be reproduced. While similar questions may be <a href="/help/on-topic">on-topic</a> here, this one was resolved in a way less likely to help future readers.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Concensus Description</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Closed.</strong> This question is <a href="/help/closed-questions">not reproducible or was caused by typos</a>. It is not currently accepting answers.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This post notice looks like this:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/byACl.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/byACl.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>EDIT: This close reason and its wording was fine tuned by SO Meta members in collaboration with moderators and CMs.</p>
 42015: <p>I would vote for introducing this new closing reason.</p>
<p>While the first sentence in the descriptions (with the &quot;not reproducible&quot; and &quot;typo&quot;) leaves a bit open what exactly is meant, the second sentence (&quot;less likely to help future readers&quot;) is the important part in most cases. I don't want to advocate against the first sentence though. We need to have a single sentence description part, which can be used as title. Such a short sentence will always leave something open.</p>
<p>Also: From my experience (might be different when looked at from the real numbers) the close votes are mostly done by the more experienced users on this site, which will not be confused by the option. And question writers will get a more fitting close reason. Currently we often only use &quot;off topic&quot; and then write a comment that C/C++ syntax is off topic. These comments might still be necessary to give more details, but more information for the user is better. And it comes with rather little cost.</p>
 10794: <p>I was uncertain about this, however I must admit that <a href="https://arduino.stackexchange.com/questions/85845/programming-i2c-connected-lcd-screen-with-timer-wont-enter-timer-loop">this question</a> is a good case in point. The problem was confusing <code>=</code> with <code>==</code> in code. This is not so much a typo as a misunderstanding of the C++ language, however if the question were to remain it would just be solving one person's coding problem, without really contributing to the general Arduino knowledge-base.</p>
<p>However I do have a problem with this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This question was caused by a typo or a problem that can no longer be reproduced.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Surely they are widely different things? A typo is just a typing error, for example misspelling a word, using capitals in the wrong way, and so on.</p>
<p>A problem that can no longer reproduced is a totally different beast. You might try the posted code out and not reproduce the results the poster claimed. Surely this is something else? Maybe your environment, or hardware, was different?</p>
<p>Even the question I quoted above wasn't really a typo (unless you accidentally typed <code>=</code> instead of <code>==</code>) but more likely to be a confusion about how C++ works compared to, say, SQL.</p>
<p>How about three close reasons? :)</p>
<ul>
<li>A typo (eg. mistyping <code>float</code> as <code>flat</code>).</li>
<li>A lack of understanding of C++, which would apply whether or not you were using the Arduino (eg. using <code>=</code> for an equality test)</li>
<li>A problem that cannot be reproduced. (eg. <code>a = 2 + 2</code> giving 5, when everyone else gets 4).</li>
</ul>
 4143: <p>I just closed one that could have been closed as this. However it's no hardship to just do a custom close with your own message. Do we really need a other close reason?</p>
