Nursing Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Academic Journals

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals 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.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

NPOV[edit]

This page has some really obvious advertising, I would say. Jeekc 10:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish people who find *obvious* problems with articles would edit them out, rather than leave them in and slap an ugly template that doesn't even address the problem on the article page. But there we go. I've removed the mission statement, which was the problematic part of the article. Like all mission statements, it doesn't really say anything, but its inclusion gave the article the wrong tone. There were never any POV problems that I can see, just innappropriate tone problems. Mattley ^(Chattley) 23:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page checked and verified.--RCN Archives 09:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Links in list of fellows[edit]

Some of the new entries in the list of RCN fellows are showing blue (rather than red) but link to another person of the same name. These could be piped to name (nurse) or similar to differentiate them.— Rod ^talk 09:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Rcn-logo.gif[edit]

Image:Rcn-logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a fair use rationale to the image description. I hope it meets the requirments.— Rod ^talk 18:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NURSE priority review[edit]

As part of a review of all nursing wikiproject articles, I have changed this article's importance to mid per Wikipedia:WikiProject Nursing/Assessment#Importance scale. I have downgraded the article to C class as I feel it still requires substantial cleanup (the long lists, for example, and the lack of more than one or two references). If you disagree, please leave a note here so we can discuss it. Cheers, Basie (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of General Secretaries[edit]

Why has the list of General Secretaries been removed? They enjoy a higher media profile and are more notable than the Presidents.Headhitter (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTADIRECTORY. We generally only list "presidents" of societies like this. If you have a reliable source confirming that here, the secretary is more prestigious than the president, you can switch the lists, but there should not be two of these lists. --Crusio (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't notability a more significant criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia than prestige? Headhitter (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For biographies: absolutely. But look at WP:PROF and you'll see that having "held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society" is one of the criteria establishing notability for an academic. So if prez here is not the most prestigious position, that should be the criterion here. --Crusio (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hatchet job[edit]

I think the lists of presidents and general secretaries, and location of offices should be kept. Rathfelder (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldic Crest[edit]

User:Robin S. Taylor Great to see your heraldic work . Unfortunately the one you have created is not accurate to the coat of arms awarded to the Royal College of Nursing in 1946 <https://www.theheraldrysociety.com/shop/images/royal-college-of-nursing/>. I've uploaded the photo on wikicommons <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Y-0397_RCN_Coat_of_Arms.jpg>. Would you mind removing your work or making it accurate ? I'm part of a wikigroup trying to make the UK nursing pages accurate, up to date and referenced and would like to upload the Heraldry Society's photo to the RCN page. Thanks for your help. Mavinhealthhistory (talk) 07:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Mavinhealthhistory[reply]

UKNurses Act of 1949[edit]

There should be information on how men were by regulation second class in the UK Royal College of Nursing until 1960 2600:1700:D591:5F10:FC90:1BE5:7B07:C3A2 (talk) 07:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]