NaRQ sounds ridiculous to an outsider when applied to a question that's not in appropriate format, such as Odd macro and no operation variable usage?
Two questions there, but the NaRQ description makes us literally sound inept to explain ourselves. "Difficult to tell... cannot be reasonably answered... "
I think it's rather easy to tell what's being asked. I think it's rather easy to be reasonably answered.
It just needs to be split up. And if not for the comment on the question, I wouldn't know why. I suppose someone can refer to the FAQ, and if they're patient enough, they can infer that questions need to be atomic.
However, I wouldn't get that by NaRQ. I would get "Who are these fools that can't answer a simple question? Screw SO, going somewhere with smarter people."
Equally acceptable would be adding text to NaRQ that mentions that the question is in the wrong format as a possibility, but then it's unclear as to which of the reasons listed in NaRQ is applied.
As programmers we strive to make semantics atomic. Yet, here we are bunching a wide array of reasons into one category.
Off topic is clearly atomic. Yet, NaRQ handles too much, and it becomes unclear as to which of the included reasons is the intended one.
The answer to this request may actually be to rewrite the descriptions of close reasons so they're more generic, and link to a FAQ with specific cases.