Talk:Decree nisi

Law Mid‑importance

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

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin 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.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Italics or not?[edit]

I suspect not, in which case the italics in the "usages" section need to go. If it is supposed to be italicised, then it should be throughout. Huw Powell (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, Chambers does not italicise it. Huw Powell (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Decree nisi. 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/20100622083458/http://www.opsi.gov.uk:80/revisedstatutes/acts/ukpga/1973/plain/cukpga_19730018_en to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1973/plain/cukpga_19730018_en#pt1-pb1-l1g1-l1p1-l2p5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 00:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence was wrong way around[edit]

I've restored my edit. As is clear from the subsequent text, a decree nisi will become absolute by default, *unless* it can be shown that the decree is faulty in some way. The previous text suggested that by default, a decree nisi would not become absolute.

https://thelawdictionary.org/decree-nisi/

OK -- I've clarified what you wrote; I think you just missed that one word that needed to be changed. That was why I originally reverted -- I couldn't tell what you intended. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]