This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Classical Greece and Rome This template is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome Poetry This template is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry LGBTQ+ studies This template is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Women's History This template is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History

This sidebar duplicates the existing {{Sappho}} almost exactly – of the seventeen articles linked from it, sixteen already appear in that template. It's also being placed on the exact same articles. What's the motivation for making an entirely separate navigation box which does virtually the same thing? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241124205200","author":"Caeciliusinhorto","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Caeciliusinhorto-20241124205200-Why_duplicate_existing_navbox?","replies":["c-Piccco-20241124230400-Caeciliusinhorto-20241124205200"]}}-->

Oh, the motive was to collect all relevant stand-alone articles in a template (so far, same thing as the navbox) that is placed in a prominent position within the article, where it's more easily visible and accessible. While I noticed the navbox earlier, I was under the impression that a navbox and a sidebar could exist simultaneously, so I just went with it, because I supposed that it would be helpful. I knew that there exists a Socrates sidebar and a Socrates navbox, although arguably Socrates is a more prominent historical figure and perhaps this might not be a good comparison. Piccco (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241124230400","author":"Piccco","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Piccco-20241124230400-Caeciliusinhorto-20241124205200","replies":["c-Piccco-20241125000100-Piccco-20241124230400"]}}-->

Although I believe that it can be helpful, If you think it is useless, we could open a vote for deletion. Alternatively, it could be simplified by removing some perhaps redundant parameters, like the image, and keep it as a simple sidebar with the poems. Generally, I'd be interested to hear what more experienced editors think. Piccco (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241125000100","author":"Piccco","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Piccco-20241125000100-Piccco-20241124230400","replies":["c-Caeciliusinhorto-public-20241125103900-Piccco-20241125000100"]}}-->

Given that clearly this duplication is a thing that is done elsewhere, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Navigation template#Navbox/sidebar duplication about the general principle. My feeling is that we should as a general rule avoid having both unless there's a good reason but the current guidance does explicitly say both may be appropriate and then doesn't elaborate on that. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241125103900","author":"Caeciliusinhorto-public","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Caeciliusinhorto-public-20241125103900-Piccco-20241125000100","replies":["c-Piccco-20241125124000-Caeciliusinhorto-public-20241125103900"]}}-->

Thanks, I just read it. Piccco (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241125124000","author":"Piccco","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Piccco-20241125124000-Caeciliusinhorto-public-20241125103900","replies":[]}}-->