Template talk:BJAODN

Keeps the image of Jimbo.

I know it was a prank, but it fits so well. If I hadn't have seen the edit history, I wouldn't have known it was a prank. What's wrong with keeping it? --Diriector_Doc├─────┤^Talk_Contribs 18:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 30 December 2025

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

---

Template:BJAODN → Template:Silly Things – "BJAODN" seems likes a outdated name, so i'm supporting moving it to "Template:Silly Things". ~2025-40346-02 (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Alt proposal - Template:Unfunny garbage. Gonnym (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Your proposal seems to be a joke, i guess... ~2025-40346-02 (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose The template still contains a decent amount of BJAODN content, such as WP:BOB, which is retained for historical reasons. Due to this, I wouldn't say the current title is "outdated". While there may be a slight reason to move, it's a technicality at best and this is a solution looking for a problem for something that isn't causing any problem whatsoever. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:33, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. BJAODN is an established term in Wikipedia history. Arguments that this not something a Wikipedia reader would search for do not apply as Wikipedia readers search for articles, not templates. JIP | Talk 22:08, 7 January 2026 (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.