|Northamerica1000||My mailing list||Promoted "Did you know" articles||My notepad||My talk page templates page||My accolades page|
WP:REDUNDANTFORK and the entire Wikipedia:Content forking page was written specifically in regards to articles, and states nothing about Portal namespace content. Fact is, there is nothing about portals on the page at all; even the word "portal" is not present. Conversely, the word "article" is used 100 times throughout the page (as of this post, link).
Ultimately, the use of Redundant fork toward Portal namespace content is a slippery slope and overextension of the Content forking guideline page, as well as the intent of the page when it was written; it's about articles. That said, I can understand that others feel that RF it is applicable toward automated portals. However, per the slippery slope, Redundant fork could then potentially be used to rationalize the deletion of old-school, curated portal pages as well, since they also present content from various articles. North America1000 15:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Question about WP:MISSING
I have been focusing on all things carrot. Your carrot soup article is pretty nice. What about carrot muffins?
Hey NA1k, saw you reverted my re-automation of Portal:Nigeria's DYK. I think the advantages of an automated DYK outweigh the disadvantages in certain portals, including this one. In the case where a portal is based on a proper name, and where it has maintainers, I think there is little risk of getting an odd result. The portals where this was a problem were ones where the selected words had multiple meanings (Portal:Badgers comes to mind), so I would strongly advise against automation in those cases. But the DYK, like the Main Page's DYK, is supposed to be based on up-to-date info., and this requires lot's more work in in sub-paged based DYKs. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)