This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
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/