Talk:Jim'll Fix It

Pickles

I believe there was a 1950s series called Ask Pickles which had a very similar format and was hosted by Wilfred Pickles. Lee M 09:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There was this 1948 board-game, apparently: [1]. And this BBC TV show which ran 1954-56: [2], where "Members of the public fulfill their wildest dreams" (not just the host, then). Sound familiar to anyone? The publicity blurb ran: "It doesn't matter how old you are, you can still make your own special dream come true if you get in touch with Wilfred Pickles. Maybe you want to feed a lion or pat a giraffe on the tiny top of his head; or perhaps you'd rather see the lovely lights of London reflected on the Thames, or ride pillion on a motor bike. Maybe you want to meet a film star or you might even want to have a fight-all right! Just ask Wilfred Pickles. He'll try to fix it for you."

Pickles' earlier radio series "Have A Go" had over 20 million listeners a week and a mailbag of around 5,000 letters. Contestants could earn £1/19/11d by sharing "their intimate secrets". (no comment). Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Were there other precursors as well? - most British shows got their ideas from the US after all. I assume (hint, hint) that the material you're unearthing isn't just going to sit here unloved and unwatched, but that there will be a bright spanking (perhaps not) new article for us to admire in due course....  :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Haha, maybe. I've added a note at Talk:Wilfred Pickles, so it could be added there to start with. But maybe there's a Stub Doctor in the house? I might drop him a note! The BBC of the 1950s seems like another planet, doesn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a children's show

I wouldn't call Jim'll Fix It at childrens show, more of a family entertainment show. It was required viewing for many families in the 1970s and 1980s. Zerbey 02:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Jim'll Fix It was a family show, not a children's programme, and I've changed the article to reflect this. Most (but not all) of the "fixees" were children, but the producers have said that this wasn't intentional. It was just that far more children than adults actually sent in their wishes, and the wishes they received from children were more imaginative (i.e. would make better television) than those they got from adults. 217.155.20.163 12:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

My daughter, now 31, appeared in the Christmas show 1984/5(?) dancing Swan Lake with Wayne Sleep.. can this be added with the publicity photos?

I've removed an email address as it is not wise to include these. Although as this question was asked in 2009 it would be, to say the least, interesting to know whether the enquirer still wants the picture included(!) Britmax (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Jimm Fixx

Was the show named after Jim Fixx? 188.223.5.83 (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sexual Abuse Allegations

Should there be any mention on the article regarding the recent allegations of sexual abuse on the page especially as allegations have been made in reltion to the programme "Jim'll Fix It" now I am not going to make a section myself on this page but I wanted to see what the mood was on creating such a section as I think some of the lagacy of the show is going to be reflected by this from now on in some way regardless of weither or not they are true. Its very regreatful to be making a dissussion on this given as it was a programme that ran for eighteen long years (Not many programmes live that long). (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC))

Some specific allegations relating to the programme have been published in reliable sources, so I've added a brief paragraph, linking to the article on the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal and quoting the programme's producer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggested edit

{{edit semi-protected}}​ The description of the standard format in the "Conception" section is incorrect. Please change: "The standard format was that the viewer's letter, which described their wish, would be shown on the screen and read out aloud. This would be followed with a quick chat between Savile and the letter writer, where they would discuss the wish. The wish would then be enacted (either live in the studio or shown pre-filmed), and finally the viewer would be presented with a medal which had the words "Jim fixed it for me" engraved on it" to this: "The standard format was that the viewer's letter, which described their wish, would be shown on the screen and read out aloud, initially by Savile, but in later series by the viewer themselves as a voice-over. Savile would then introduce the Fix, which would either have been pre-filmed on location or take place "live" in the studio. At the end, the viewer would join Savile to be congratulated and presented with a large medal with the words "Jim Fixed It For Me" engraved on it." 91.216.105.21 (talk)

I don't know whether this is true or not. It's certainly unreferenced, but so is most of the article. I'm reluctant to make changes based solely on an anonymous contributor's memories, but if other editors agree that it is a valid correction I have no objection either. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. If I remember rightly, we often don't require citations for summaries of book plots, TV storylines, etc., because we say that the plot/storyline/etc. is the source. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a valid suggestion. The proposed edit is a more accurate description of the show's format. 64.175.36.97 (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Chippendales Appearance

It doesn't harm the article in any way by it's removal, but I think it should be noted that the entry regarding the male strippers "The Chippendales" appearance in a 'fix-it' was a well established story, reported widely by the BBC and other media at the time it raised public concern. At no point was Savile himself accused of any failing or even considered to have behaved untowardly. The criticism was of the show itself allowing such an item. In light of what was been reported since about Savile's behavior, it may be viewed in a different light today, but the editor who removed the note regarding this incident, noting in their edit that it was "blatant vandalism" is quite wrong. The entry was part of the Jim'll Fix It wiki page long, long before any scandal was attached to Savile. It would be better for the wiki project as a whole if editor's did not get over zealous in their caution and start deleting at random, without understanding the full history of the page or the entries contained therein. As I wrote, this deletion makes no difference to the page, but it is an example of heavy handed, ill thought out editing. In the same vein, I see no valid reason whatsoever for the Abba related 'fix-it' or the Holy Land trip with the orphaned boy to have been removed. None whatsoever. 64.175.36.97 (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

But it didn't have a source, so the editor was justified in removing it in this edit - as indeed any editor would be justified in removing many other unreferenced parts of the article. If a reliable source for the information can be found, and if the incident is considered sufficiently notable, it can go back in. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. Either deliberately or unintentionally. The editor deleted it as "blatant vandalism". It clearly was nothing of the sort. When something is reported widely in the written press - in the days before all news was online - that does not make it an invalid contribution. The source of the Radio Times letters page was clearly referenced. Sorry that the Radio Times letters page wasn't online at the time. It wasn't my edit or contribution. I'm just making the point that editors are heavy handed and using ill judgement in their desperate attempt to curry favor and become administrators to win brownie points with wiki and then exercise the power of bans and blocks. The other edits regarding Abba, the Holy Land and indeed several comments from Roger Ordish about the way "fix-it's" were arranged were all sourced as the BBC documentary made about the show. Since wikipedia does not permit linking to YouTube, the editor didn't use the actual video as a source, but quoted the broadcast. It's ridiculous that a broadcast television video is unacceptable to wiki as a source. No wonder so many editors are just giving up on this wiki project. The application of edits by certain editors are quite ridiculous. 50.0.103.34 (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It should not have been removed with the comment "blatant vandalism". Yes, that was heavy handed behaviour by a single editor. So, reinstate it. If you have a good source, it will doubtless be accepted. If you don't have a source, it may be accepted by default, until such time as another editor decides that the whole article needs to be cleaned up to reflect best practice. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to restore any edits to this page. Even if I wanted to, it's locked. I also know what happens to users of wiki who defy editors who have asserted ownership of pages. Editor 50.0.103.34 has clearly had the same experience. I no longer will even edit with a user name for fear of retribution. I just think it's a shame that this article has been weakened and relevant, referenced data has been removed. It happens all the time in wiki. It's no longer a place for people to add enhancements to articles. I quite agree that it's ridiculous to demand online references for things that happened in the pre-online world. But that's wiki! 64.175.36.97 (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2017

Please change IS to WAS in the first sentence. The show is no longer broadcasting new episodes. (Grammatically correct as other articles are) 2A00:23C4:D90:2D00:3049:EAAC:7FD9:626F (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: An understandable request. But not just a simple question of grammar. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, television programmes still exist after they were first broadcast, e.g. Jazz 625. Articles about television programmes should all start like this. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

2022-02-14 follow-up

Please change WAS to IS in the first sentence per MOS:TVNOW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.25.197 (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Tol (talk | contribs) @ 16:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)