Talk:Nationwide injunction

Requested move 30 October 2023

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

---

National injunction → Nationwide injunction – "Nationwide injunction" is the WP:COMMONNAME. This includes use in books per Google Ngrams and in scholarly articles per Google Scholar (1460 for "nationwide injunction", 471 for "national injunction", 441 for "universal injunction"). (If limited to articles since 2019, the corresponding numbers are 621, 257, and 139.) Some scholars or judges prefer to avoid "nationwide" as imprecise (see National injunction#Terminology) since these injunctions can extend to actions abroad (hence "universal injunction") or be limited to a judicial circuit, state, etc. SilverLocust 💬 11:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support common name per nom. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 15:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Whatever one thinks they should be called, clearly they are called nationwide injunctions per the data above (and a quick ProQuest search suggests the gap is even more pronounced in press coverage). And since there's no real ambiguity about what the phrase "nationwide injunction" refers to, this isn't a case where we have to avoid the common name for WP:PRECISION reasons. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.