A rose by any other name? Maybe??
I personally reject -- totally reject -- universal salvation on semantical grounds 'cause I believe that that particular term lends itself more easily to the accusation of Unitarianism, so if N.T. Wright calls it out by name and by that name in particular, then he may simply be wishing to distance himself from Unitarianism.
I do realize that many people hold to many/most of the things that I hold to and would, for their own reasons, prefer the term "universal salvation."
It's not just my semantical belly-ache over the term. Quite a few folks who believe in the Universal Restoration reject -- blatantly reject terms such as "Universalism," "Universalist," "universal salvation," and one or two other designations. I've seen pastors and theologians spend hours behind the pulpit criticizing "universal salvation," and writing books against it, and then comfortably sit with Universalists afterwards and go on and on and on about Jesus Christ, the Restorer of all men; the eternal forsaker of none.
I guess it's analogous to Pentecostals preferring to be called Charismatics, or preferring to be called Four Square, or Assemblies of God, etc. Some Pentecostals wear the "holy roller" slur as a badge of honor, while others roll their eyes over it and say that that does not accurately represent their theology, their style of worship, etc.
I don't know if we'll ever come up with a term for the Universal Restoration and it's adherents that every ""Universalist"" will feel comfortable with. But few of the other Christian groups are entirely happy with what they call themselves or with what others have tagged them with. The debate still goes on in some circles about even being called a "Christian."