Talk:CitizenCard

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... this was a useful redirect when I created it in 2010, and it will still be one now until its more extensive article is ready for mainspace - David Gerard (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion was requested because Draft:CitizenCard is ready to take its place. I don't know why the note to that effect wasn't visible on the delete request. Thanks, LaMona (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect replaced[edit]

There is a Draft:Citizencard at AfC that has been declined multiple times. This current article (CitizenCard) was a redirect to Proof of Age Standards Scheme. Then this redirect became over-written with the current article. The declined draft is considerably more ample than this article, with many more references. (That doesn't mean it's better, I'm just making a comparison.) The draft version was moved to mainspace (e.g. here) on 4 March (here), then was moved back again on 5 March after being first marked for speedy deletion for advertising (here), then was declined again at AfC. Now this version appears from presumably an entirely different editor. I'll ping some of the reviewers who were involved: User:SwisterTwister, User:Sphilbrick, User:333-blue, User:DGG, User:Graeme Bartlett. The question is whether we should do something with the draft, and whether this article is one that would pass review, or should be PROD'd for the same reasons that the draft article was declined (and twice nominated for deletion)? Thanks, LaMona (talk) 04:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some promotionalism from the new article and I think it is now satisfactory. I will check whether there's anything additional in the draft that should be moved to the new article. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Draft:Citizencard, and most likely that not all contents have to be merged because there are some promotional contents. 333 -blue 07:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CitizenCard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151029102618/https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/news-and-appeals/Pages/New-Proof-of-Age.aspx to https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/news-and-appeals/Pages/New-Proof-of-Age.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Written like an advert?[edit]

@Yuorvee: You tagged that the article contains content that is written like an advert. Which bits? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]