Talk:Groundhog Day (film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Groundhog Day (film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

Groundhog Day (film) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 2, 2021, and on April 1, 2021.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 26, 2020	Good article nominee	Listed
September 6, 2020	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Film: Core / American FA‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is on the project's core list.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Comedy FA‑class High‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Pennsylvania FA‑class Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Pittsburgh FA‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Library of Congress FA‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Cinema FA‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as High-importance).

Template:Vital article

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

King, Mike (2008). "Groundhog Day, The Apostle, and Vanilla Sky". The American Cinema of Excess: Extremes of the National Mind on Film. McFarland. pp. 225–227. ISBN 0786439882.
Sutton, Paul (2009). "Aprés le Coup de Foudre: Narrative, Love and Spectatorship in Groundhog Day". Falling in Love Again: Romantic Comedy in Contemporary Cinema. I. B. Tauris. pp. 38–51. ISBN 1845117719.
Walters, James (2008). "The Search for Tomorrow: Groundhog Day (Harold Ramis, 1993)". Alternative Worlds in Hollywood Cinema. Intellect Ltd. pp. 135–154. ISBN 1841502022.

Extremely Similar: "Doubled and Redoubled" by Malcolm Jameson

See either Unknown (magazine), February 1941 or in The Unknown, D.R. Bensen, Ed. Copyright 1963 by Pyramid Books. I'm not sure whether that belongs here or not, or how to present it, but the story is quite similar, although most details vary.

Problems with the page.

Is there a reason for a section on the films of 1993? Also why does it mention the difficulties of the working relationship between Ramis and Murray twice in the production section. Bob3458 (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What section on the films of 1993? And the working relationship is relevant and at different points in the production, so yes? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The release section has a bit about the films of 1993 which I personally don’t think is relevant to the page Bob3458 (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it's relatively short and provides context. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Darkwarriorblake, it provides some much needed historical context to the film. Dimadick (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Metaphysics of the time loop

There's an interesting article about the metaphysics of Groundhog Day in the latest issue (141) of Philosophy Now. JezGrove (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

weird gut feeling

I don't know why, but I have this strange feeling that someone chose this specific day to feature this article for a reason 67.167.161.150 (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well i'm the one that nominated the article for this day on purpose months in advance, to be humorous. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk)

They should have made it the featured article on 3rd February as well. Opportunity missed... :( 109.158.50.106 (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles don't run twice here. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would be hilarious if it ran every February 2nd though. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I didn't expect this. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intro paragraph question

In the intro section of this article, I found this line

The film has been analyzed as a religious allegory by Buddhists, Christians, and Jews, all of whom see a deeper philosophical meaning in the film's story.

On first pass of this, I took it to mean “every single Buddhist, Christian and Jew sees a deeper philosophical meaning in the film’s story.” Which jumped out at me immediately as pretty funny. I’m wondering if this is grammatically correct, or if it can be reworded somehow.

Iokerapid (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can see where you're coming from, but I think it's pretty straightforward. Does anyone else have any thoughts? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I personally see all as meaning all the groups mentioned not every single individual that is in those groups.--67.70.101.238 (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]