Requested feature overview description.

Instead of a post being deleted for being considered a human (According to how the guidelines defines them), a janitor / staff member could instead delete a post with the option of it being too similar to a human being. This would come with some slight alteration to the guidelines.

Why would it be useful?

This would remove some confusion when it comes to posts being deleted. I had this experience first-hand when a post involving a character with light blue skin (Which was, according to the artist, a spirit/ghost) got deleted with the reason being that it was a human being.

Now I don't know about you, but I've never seen a human being with light blue skin, so I had to bother the janitor who deleted the post about the issue. I think the problem with the current way its being handled is that the post claims that it is indeed a human being, which often can be wrong, even in specific tag-what-you-see situations because of how the guideline defines a human being, which goes against the norm most people have.

This kind of problem would be fixed by simply clarifying that the post was not deleted because of a character, indeed being a human, but instead by saying it is too close to a human being to be considered pertinent to the site.

Now, all things considering, this problem could have also been avoided by me looking at the guidelines more closely, however I doubt I'm the only person that will read the deleted message and instantly assume that human being refers to what is commonly considered homo sapiens, not what the guidelines categorizes as counting as humans. Not only this, but simply adding the clarification would save a lot of people the time of looking at the guidelines. I do not personally see any reason not to add this option, but if you do have any reasons not to add this feature, let me know.

What part(s) of the site page(s) are affected?

Guidelines on this topic, deleted pages, whatever staff members use to file out a page deletion, flagging images. I believe any other pages that may be affected I would have no way of knowing about due to this being more on the staff member's side.

The deletion reason field is just a textbox. We can put whatever we want in it.

Considering that humanoids, even things like elves, are still considered relevant enough because they have nonhuman features, there isn't much of a reason to have people say "it's too close to a human". The human-only posts get deleted because there are no discernible nonhuman traits, otherwise traits that would make them nonhuman.

Edit: Skin color isn't used as a factor because human skin can already vary wildly in color, whether it's natural or artificial. Tattoos/dyes and things like argyria exist in the real world and don't make something less human.

Royallyoffended said:
Now I don't know about you, but I've never seen a human being with light blue skin

Shows such as Doug and Equestria Girls were one of the reasons for that ruling. The characters are clearly human, but have random skin colors. It makes no sense to tag them as humanoids instead of human.

TV Tropes lists many more under Amazing Technicolor Population.

The reason for this feature request is simply to clarify and avoid possible confusion. This would not change in any way wether posts are deleted or not; the rule would stay identical, it would simply get clarified.

Ratte said:
Edit: Skin color isn't used as a factor because human skin can already vary wildly in color, whether it's natural or artificial. Tattoos/dyes and things like argyria exist in the real world and don't make something less human.

The rule is tag what you see, I do not see how an artificial skin color change could be taken into account unless it was explicitly told in the picture.
But this is fairly irrelevant.

Ratte said:
The deletion reason field is just a textbox. We can put whatever we want in it.

Ok then should the request should probably be changed to changing the wording on that one rule.

Royallyoffended said:
The rule is tag what you see, I do not see how an artificial skin color change could be taken into account unless it was explicitly told in the picture.
But this is fairly irrelevant.

I brought it up because you asked about skin color specifically. This is frequently asked and thus it's frequently answered.

Royallyoffended said:
Ok then should the request should probably be changed to changing the wording on that one rule.

I'm not sure this would matter because it's still Tag What You See. If human-only work is disallowed and a picture of a blue human is uploaded, it's still just a blue human. There's nothing about it that's verifying nonhuman. Deleting it for it being "too close to a human" is like saying an apply is "too close to an apple". Of course it's too close, because that's what it is based on our system.

I kinda do want an "irrelevant to site;human only" flag reason for when I find images that were uploaded after the rule change and were auto-approved but I can kinda see why we don't have that since you'd probably get it a lot on pending posts and human only posts that were uploaded before the rule change and therefore were grandfathered in.

I still really don't know what I'm supposed to do with posts that fit into that very slim definition, tho...

darryus said:
I kinda do want an "irrelevant to site;human only" flag reason for when I find images that were uploaded after the rule change and were auto-approved but I can kinda see why we don't have that since you'd probably get it a lot on pending posts and human only posts that were uploaded before the rule change and therefore were grandfathered in.

I still really don't know what I'm supposed to do with posts that fit into that very slim definition, tho...

You can send links to a janitor or administrator over dmail if you think they're worth bringing to our attention. We don't mind reviewing those things.

Ratte said:
You can send links to a janitor or administrator over dmail if you think they're worth bringing to our attention. We don't mind reviewing those things.

Oh, yeah. I guess I forgot it was possible to communicate with people other than using the report system; I think I might have a few of those bookmarked in my horribly organized "deal with later" type folder. I'll be sure to do that whenever I decide to go through and clean those out.