Question - is it possible to appeal a Referee's decision on a creation request?

Hello, this is my first post on the forum so apologies if I've blundered it a bit but I've been a member for a while now and I've recently started trying to add new pages for some coins I own but are not listed on the site. Recently I came across a coin which I identified to be a small 1 Nummi piece of the Ostrogothic king Athalaric, but when I went to the page for that particular coin I noticed it wasn't the most specific, specifically with varieties. I attempt to be very granular with identifying ancient coins so I had matched mine to a listing in the BMC Vandals catalog. I decided the listing was flawed enough it would be more worth it to just create an entirely new page from scratch in an attempt to give a better alternative for anyone attempting to, say, put together a whole group of the varieties listed therein.

After a few days of the page being up for review, I checked the page and it had been denied. The reasons given for the denial, to me, seemed a bit lacking. the full comment reads:
"Hello! This page already exists here (as a 2-1/2 nummipiece, with mention of sometimes being called a 1 nummus piece): https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces152311.html. And BMC is a catalogue of their own collection, so while they list 10 numbers, there could be less than 10 varieties. 49, 50, and 52 could all be the same type, for example--just offstruck in different ways. With that being said, I updated the referece (used the first number), and added a comment about varying legends. Thank you. :)"

I gave more information overall than the original listing, however, and generally attempted to make it more fleshed out (more info in the "Features" section, more detailed descriptions, a screencap of the reference, etc.) so obviously I was a bit annoyed bythis being discounted so swiftly.


So Long story short, I just would like to know if there is a way to get a second opinion on the validity of the post and, if that would be impossible, what I would have to do to improve the original page at such a level. The changes made by the referee were minimal (i.e. they did add a coment about the legends, but that was literally just saying "lettering can vary") and I feel like users would benefit from the higher distinction of types.

Again, sorry if I'm coming off as inexperienced, or if this has already been asked, I just generally shy away from the social aspect of this site. I can provide screenshots of the rejected page if requested

Hello again.

My apologies for annoying you with my rejection. There is not really a way to appeal a referee's decision other than having a conversation with them. If you would like a further explaination of my rejection, I can provide it here. It can be difficult to elaborate in the textbox for acceptance / rejection.

-----

Firstly: if a page already exists, I always think it is better to add to the existing page rather than just create an entirely new page. Had I accepted your request, that would have created a duplicate listing, which is always best to avoid. That is not necessarily a problem for me specifically because master referees can delete pages, but regular referees do not have that ability, so it is always a good habit to try to edit an existing page, if it already exists.

To me, a duplicate listing is typically an automatic rejection (although I do try to copy over any information I think would really add to the existing page). Had you sent an edit for the existing page, I would have been able to pick which parts were accepted and rejected.

With all that being said, I will now look at the request specifically (from what I can remember about it, at least).

-----

The exact attributions of some of these coins from the Germanic tribes--specifically the bronze pieces--can vary by source. With the specific page in question, your request was for a 1 Nummus piece from a mint in Ravenna, whereas the already existing page was for a 2-1/2 Nummi piece from a mint in Rome.

The coins themselves are the exact same--it is just the sources that make different claims, and we do not split pages based on sources alone. When creating the existing page, I went with the information I saw most often or thought was most logical, and mentioned the alternate claims within the comments section.

-----

The next biggest thing with your request was the varieties, which was splitting the year-lines based on BMC Vandal; however, BMC Vandal is not a good source to divide the year-lines by.

For these Germanic coins (and many other coins from old places), the legends often have quite a few varieties, which are not always fully readable due to being struck off-flan or being too worn. And this is where BMC Vandal is flawed: they are cataloguing their own collection, which is full of varieties in the legends, but those varieties are often a result of the coins being struck off-flan, hence the typically incomplete legends they report.

The dies for these coins were never made like this, for example: [...]ST - INI[...], and so there should not be a year-line for a legend like that. And... that covers most of BMC Vandal's varieties.

And if BMC Vandal shows a typical coin someone would aquire, most legends would be not fully readable in the first place, which is why I always keep legend varieties in the comments section. Otherwise, I would need an 'uncertain legend' line, which is not an actual type--it is an uncertainty.

If someone wants to document their legend in the personal comments, they can do that. But the exact legend is not typically a very important aspect to coin itself--they are minor varieties that are often impossible to fully read. However, while exact legends may not be important, I still like mentioning the different varieties. Take this page, for example: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces42146.html. To build that page, I documented the legends on every type I saw with fully readable legends.

One thing BMC Vandal showed is that an I can either appear at the end of the first part or the start of the second part of the legend, which is why I included the legends I could confirm that were visibly different. Even though the end of the first legend variety is questionable with BMC Vandal's pictures, there is definitely at least two legend varieties. There may, of course, be more, and if you can find alternate confirmable varieties, please request to add them--I am always happy to recieve new legends.

-----

The rest seemed to be more minor things:

For descriptions, I like to keep everything concise and make everything as consistant as possible. Changing the general wording on this one particular page would mean I would feel obligated to go through every page within the Ostrogothic Kingdom (and all other Germanic tribes I am referee for) and update the descriptions on the ones that are identical (and this particular description of the obverse is used a lot). While changing them all can be done, I would prefer not to do that when I find the current description to be sufficiant.

For the reference number, you expanded BMC Vandal to be the full range of references (47-59, I want to say?). I am never a fan of this. For the reference section, I try to use the very first reference number as a 'start here' point to finding the exact reference. If every reference catalogue was expanded to include every single reference number range, the reference section would look very ugly while also being unsearchable, so... that's why I stick to one number.

There was also the pictures, but if I recall correctly, that was from BMC Vandal, which I already said I would not split the year-lines by.

For features... I saw the value was different, but did not copy that because the existing page is listed as a 2-1/2 Nummi page, and yours was listed as a 1 Nummus piece. I cannot remember what else you included in your features section though. If there was something else you included that you think I overlooked, please do not hesitate to mention them.

-----

And... that is all I remember from your request. I can elaborate more on anything, if you would like, but that is the best I can do from memory.

Best regards,
Sulfur

And my apologies for the block of text.