I am afraid that the introduction of this box at this time is seriously flawed. The "Justices" listed will not all become justices - in fact, 25% (Lord Hoffmann, Lord Scott and Lord Carswell) will have retired and it is possible that Lord Saville will call it a day at roughly the same time (having not sat for 8 years) to clear the way. Lord Hope will be the Deputy President and should probably be marked as such in the info box. I strongly suggest that this info box is removed, at least until the opening of the Court (supposedly October 2009), at which point the Law Lords box can just be changed over. It is just plainly incorrect at the moment: not one "Justice" listed is currently a Justice of the Supreme Court.

Has anyone read this (above)? 131.111.234.142 (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel it is unnecessary to list all the "of Welwyn Garden City" bits after every judge's name. It adds nothing to them and is simply used to distinguish between peers with the same surname. None of the present judges shares the same surname, therefore it is just an unnecessary piece of heraldry. It makes much more sense in a navigation box to able to look and see quickly each judge's (simple) name. Johnhousefriday (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the nature of their titles - it is not "simply used to distinguish between peers with the same surname", it is an integral part of their names. Some peers (like Lord Mance) do not have such an element in their titles, but some do, and when they do it is not correct to leave it out. Accordingly, the versions previously there were not their "simple names", they were simply wrong. See territorial designation. Proteus (Talk) 14:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

See the Court's biographies page and the most recent judgement issued. The Court doesn't use these titles either. I understand the nature of the territorial designation, but they're not only unnecessary official names and rarely used, but frankly just a silly piece of heraldry. If you insist on using their full and correct names, then surely Lord Hope for example ought to be referred to each time as The Right Honourable James Arthur David Hope, Baron Hope of Craighead, BA, LLB, KT, PC, FRSE? Obviously this would be silly, but so is adding all these territorial designations. Johnhousefriday (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The court is wrong (and there are plenty of reliable sources saying so), and you're straw-manning with his full legal name. Also, they're absolutely nothing to do with heraldry, silly or otherwise. You might like to consider that their articles are indeed titled using these names. Why do you say that referring to the PSC as "Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers" is overcomplicated when his article is at Nicholas Phillips, Baron Phillips of Worth Matravers (in compliance with long-standing naming conventions which have been established by consensus after almost endless debates)? The naming conventions obviously don't agree with your opinion (because that's all it is) that his full title is "unnecessary" and "silly". Proteus (Talk) 16:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The court is not wrong, I am not wrong, and you are not wrong either; the wrongness or otherwise is determined depending to what accuracy the names must be held. I submit that the accuracy required here is minimal - this isn't some formal document where things like "of Worth Matravers" matter. It is a template at the bottom of the page to link to the judge's own articles. It requires quick and clear name recognition, which means all this stuff on the end of each name just clogs the thing up. Johnhousefriday (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)