Talk:American Association of Nurse Practitioners

Nursing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nursing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nursing 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.NursingWikipedia:WikiProject NursingTemplate:WikiProject NursingNursing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Close per consensus below to create 3 separate articles. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Academy of Nurse Practitioners → American Association of Nurse Practitioners – The American Academy of Nurse Practitioners merged with the American College of Nurse Practitioners on January 1, 2013. On that date, the academy became the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, and the college ceased to exist. http://www.aanp.org/about-aanp/aanp-acnp-merger provides more information, or please contact Michelle Karns at mkarns@aanp.org for more detailed information. We would also like to link the American College of Nurse Practitioners page to the new association page if possible. Thank you in advance for your assistance. relisting and I will contact the nom to clarify Andrewa (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC) — Miraclecln (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Comment:The source given doesn't say the College "ceased to exist" and the Academy "became" the Association; it says both were "consolidated" to form a "combined" organization. So appropriating the new organization title for one of them seems a bit of a cheek. Also, this article is unsupported by any references; why should the College article be merged here, rather than the other way around? Moonraker12 (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Or should we perhaps have three articles, American College of Nurse Practitioners and American Academy of Nurse Practitioners on the previous bodies, and American Association of Nurse Practitioners on the new one? There is no valid move rationale here as yet. We are an encyclopedia, not a directory of associations, and the old associations are of as much potential interest to us as is the current one. I have suggested this to the nom [1]. Andrewa (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with your direction on this, and support your position above. Tiggerjay (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: Making a new article on the Association, and improving the College and Academy articles, sounds like a good solution. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a strong consensus, see below. Andrewa (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nom supports this approach as well, I will close this since it is no longer a move request. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This is an area for less formal discussions concerning the move and related matters. Although we have some comments above already, I thought it good to create an explicit discussion area in view of the new contributors who may wish to comment and may find the formatting a bit daunting. It's not really, but down here, it's even less so. Andrewa (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed Michelle Karns at mkarns@aanp.org as suggested above asking for her comments. Assuming she gives her permission to do so I will report the response here. Andrewa (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle has replied by email, saying in part The three article approach sounds like a great solution, and giving her contact details which I will not publish here. In view of this I intend to close this RM, and implement the three article approach. It may not happen for a few days, so anyone else wishing to action this feel free, or other comments welcome. Andrewa (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

archival

How is the best process to appropriately reflect the previous organization history? We can't just say it was founded in 2013 and ignore the previous foundation dates, can we? | pulmonological ^{talk • contribs} 17:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request change to midlevel provider

It is inaccurate to say that this association advocates for nurse practitioners as midlevel providers. That is not the stance of the association. It would be fair to update the term to clinician or health care provider or provider, but midlevel is not an accurate adjective as it relates to the association's advocacy. Miraclecln (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:AANP (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]