Talk:Nazi zombie

Inclusion of TV shows and video games

It feels weird to me that TV shows and video games aren't listed while feature films are, someone should add them. Here are the ones that I could find, but there are almost certainly more:

Video games:

Call of Duty: Zombies

South Park: The Stick of Truth

Uncharted: Drake's Fortune

Wolfenstein 3D

Wolfenstein: The Old Blood

Zombie Army Trilogy

Zombie Army 4: Dead War

TV:

Everybody Hates Hitler from Supernatural

Hunters (2020 TV series)

92.18.39.193 (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Nazi Zombie Talk Section

Why are all those films listed on the page (current revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nazi_zombies&oldid=791553812)? Also the page should say that Call of Duty Nazi Zombies is known simply as "Zombies". --NoToleranceForIntolerance (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The films are listed on the page because they are where this genre came from, before video games existed. --ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk) 00:56, 07 December 2019 (UTC)

"Horrors of War" is a 2006 film. It had an article page written about it back in 2009. I tried to improve the overall quality of the article about that film.ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk) 15:54, 04 January 2020 (UTC)

Frankenstein is a zombie

Frankenstein's Monster is a zombie. He was undead flesh that was returned to life. The Magic the Gathering card game card, "Frankenstein's Monster" had the creature type errata changed from "Summon Monster", to "Creature — Zombie". That is some outside evidence that Frankenstein's Monster is a zombie. The film "Frankenstein Conquers the World", is a Nazi Zombie movie. It had Nazi Germany giving the undying heart of Frankenstein's Monster to the Japanese during WW2. Not all Nazi Zombie movies are like "Shockwaves", or "Dead Snow". Some of the early ones such as , "Creatures with the Atom Brain or The Frozen Dead", or "They Saved Hitler's Brain", are different than more modern films. They however, are still Nazi Zombie films too. Same as any film that trays to resurrect Hitler. They also count as Nazi Zombie movies. Resurrected Hitler is the same as Zombie Jesus. Both are zombies coming back from the dead, technically. Please stop deleting information, it was correct in the first place.ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2020

Sorry but sourcing your material from Magic the Gathering really isn't reliable. Usually when the zombie subgenre is discussed, Frankenstein, despite being a resurrected being, is not usually included. Again, everything you do is based on original research which is not allowed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

On further research, The Year's Work at the Zombie Research Center]' published by Indiana University Press, discuss the topic stating in Shelley's novel, the monster speaks, reads literature, feels things, experiences qualia, etc. But "Frankenstein isn't really representatie of a zombie text" and that the creature is more of an influence on future zombie works.So no, it shouldn't be included. Despite what a card game says. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Not all zombies are mindless flesh eaters like in Zombie Apocalypses films. Or mindless minions in Voodoo films. Some can think, and talk. The Zombie Master in "Land of the Dead" could think for himself. There is a Nazi Zombie film, "Frankenstein's Army". Many Nazi Zombie films are inspired by the story of "Frankenstein". It was in the pop culture of the 1930s with the Universal film. It inspired most of the Nazi Zombie horror movie genera. Mad scientists conducting experimentation to bring back the dead. Very Doctor Frankenstein. I also think, The Monster, should be just a monster. But the Magic Card was only mentioned to state that there are many out there that do consider The Monster to be a Zombie. Please do not remove the Frankenstein related Nazi Zombie films from the list. They do relate to the subject of Nazi Zombies. Those films are Nazi Zombie related.ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2020

Frankenstein's Army is a Nazi Zombie movie. "The genre became a popular topic, with the popular trend of zombie films in the 2000s, which included films such as Horrors of War, Dead Snow, and Frankenstein's Army.".ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2020

Your arguments are primarily original research, which I've stated before several times does not fly, you have to back up your research with sources. This is why I suggested you not understanding the rules of wikipedia, you have to bring that to the talk page here. Despite other films such as Day of the Dead having the occasional intelligent zombie, its a rare exception amongs the hordes of the undead. I don't think things should be included to the genre pool here if they are only tiny elements. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Not original research. You even gave me a source that mentions the film "Frankenstein's Army" in relation to Nazi Zombie movies. Frankenstein's Monster maybe just a monster, but it does relate to Nazi Zombie movies, and I have also mentioned that there are some that think it is a zombie. Such as Wizards of the Coast, and players of Magic the Gathering, where it is considered a zombie. Should have stayed a monster, but they changed the card text to zombie. ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2020

References

Sourcing

This article is completely unsourced. It's also describing itself as a WP:SETINDEX, for which we wouldn't normally require sourcing. However listing films here is subjective, not WP:BLUESKY obvious, and thus does require sourcing. This is not a set index, it's much closer to List of Nazi zombie films. See also Category:Nazi zombie films. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

See, "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Set_index_articles". This is a set index article (SIA), that deals with all the Nazi Zombie related subject matter. This is a list article, not a normal type of article. Please learn what you are talking about before making edits that are in error. ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a list article. For which we need sourcing. Your additions here, Jojo Rabbit, are clearly contested already. I don't recall The Boys From Brazil having any zombies either, although I'd be happy enough with "Nazis as a horror trope" for scope. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The movie "The Boys From Brazil" involves the resurrection of Adolf Hitler. It is the same logic of Jesus Christ having been resurrected and being "Zombie Jesus". It falls into the logic of it all. It is relevant to the subject matter. The film "Jojo Rabbit" has an undead Hitler with a bullet wound to the head. Jojo had been told that Hitler had blown his brains out, and latter there was a portrayal of Hitler as an undead zombie or ghost. It was all in Jojo's mind, but technically it was a portrayal of an undead Hitler. Some might see it as sort of a stretch, but I feel it is relevant to the subject matter. I will say that I didn't include the "The Kidnappers" 1967 episode of "The Time Tunnel". It had Aliens from the year 8,400 A.D. stealing Hitler from 1945 and scanning his brain into their computer database. It involved only time travel, and might have only latter resurrected him as a virus in their computer system. I tried to only include relevant pop culture subject matter. ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2020

I'm agreeing with the user above. As genre is subjective, we need to specify which films have the topic at hand. Not to mention the list contains details that are unsourced (years released, etc.). Its not obvious to a person that a film contains the subject at hand just by seeing a title so you'll need a source for the following: when the item was released, and its content. The lead itself describing its topic is also unsourced. So far, this article does nothing a category does not accomplish. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Specifically, it should follow the rules per WP:SOURCELIST, Lists, whether they are stand-alone lists (also called list articles) or embedded lists, are encyclopedic content just as paragraph-only articles or sections are. Therefore, all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view, plus the other content policies as well. Although the format of a list might require less detail per topic, Wikipedia policies and procedures apply equally to both a list of similar things as well as to any related article to which an individual thing on the list might be linked. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@ZombieHorrorMovie13:, I am pinging you here to notice my message. You have been adding original research by adding themes and genres from films without them being a) attributed to the genre. You've removed my cited statements on the genre, and removed banner tags by copying and pasting a statement say I'm making a mistake but haven't shown any rules I'm breaking. Per WP:SUBJECTIVE, genre is subjective and you'll need sources describing films as this genre here. and as stated above in WP:SOURCELIST, you'll need citations for these films and various forms of media. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Please stop making edits that consist of Vandalism to this list article. You attempted to butcher the opening of the article, and requested sourcing, for a List Article. You seem to not know what you are doing, by making mistakes while editing, and attempted vandalism. The vandalism has been undone, and will continue to be undone. Please try to make constructive edits, without attempting further vandalism to the article. ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2020

I've added cited material to an article with no sources and added banners that note the errors in the article. As it is, the article ignores WP:RS WP:OR, WP:SUBJECTIVE and WP:SOURCELIST. Can you explain why it doesn't need to follow these rules @ZombieHorrorMovie13:? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I am following the rules.  : See, "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Set_index_articles". This is a set index article (SIA), that deals with all the Nazi Zombie related subject matter. This is a list article, not a normal type of article. Please learn what you are talking about before making edits that are in error. Also, please stop attempting vandalism to the article. ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how where I vandalized the article. I removed unsourced intro and added sourced statements. Where's the vandalism? In fact, adding sources makes it follow your page you linked where it states "The list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." and that each item in the list "Its inclusion of items is supported by reliable sources.". I've read this page before and I've read it again now, and just by adding titles as you have been doing it hasn't been stating the following (There should be enough information on each item to differentiate it from the other items.) from the rule page you stated. Again, your page you provided supports my edits more than your removal. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

You changed the opening of the article to, "Nazi zombies are a small theme of horror films." That is not correct. It goes beyond being a "small theme". It also has to do with Video Games, and Comic Books. You were simply doing vandalism by trying to delete information. The article is written from a Neutral point of view. It has information about the horror trope that is found in films, video games, and comic books. You however seem to be just another vandal, trying to butcher everything. And, yes I have read WP:RS and WP:SOURCELIST? WP:SOURCELIST. I am following the rules for a "List Article". Please learn what the hell you are doing, and stop trying to do vandalism. ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2020

How is it not correct? THere is no reference in the article to what you are speaking about, so that falls under WP:OR. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

You refuse to admit that you attempted to do vandalism to the opening of the article that was already written from a Neutral point of view. You attempted to delete how the Horror trope has to do with comic books, and video games. You also attempted to have a bias point of view by saying it was, "a small theme of horror films.", when it has to do with more than just horror films. And, again, this is a List Article. It lists all Nazi Zombie related Movies, Video Games, and printed materials. This is a List Article, and doesn't not need to be sources. You seem to not know what the hell you are talking about. You are just trying to do vandalism to the article, and butcher it in general. ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2020

Writing from a neutral point of view is good, I'll agree with you there but you can't ignore other rules when doing that. I think you'll have to provide back-up that the genre is important in other media, because so far it's all WP:OR. Can you explain why you don't need sources? Maybe copying and pasting the part in the talk page here. Otherwise, I'm sort of hearing the WP:ICANTHEARYOU, as you seem to be repeating yourself, and not responding to how adding sourced content fails. I did my research, I added sources, and they were promptly removed. I'll try to ask again though, please copy + paste the specific rule I am breaking here.Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

(Failure or refusal to "get the point") Does seem to apply to you. You fail to understand that this is a List Article. You should understand, "moving on to other topics would be more productive." Also, "Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted". You did not act in good faith, by attempting vandalism to the article. I have already posted the information link about List Articles. Please, go away, and stop attempting vandalism. ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk) 09:57, 17 April 2020

Asking me to "go away" isn't exactly civil. You don't own this or any article on wikipedia and neither do I. I've read your link you posted, and it says the opposite of what I think you are trying to say. Again, I'll ask a second time, I would ask you don't refer to me in every response as a vandal. Like you, I am trying to improve the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I try my best to add information to the list article "Nazi zombies". It lists the Films & Television, Video Games, and Books & Other, sources of Nazi Zombie related materials. I have tried my best to make it a better, more complete list. Other people keep coming along to vandalize the page, and delete relevant information. It is so hard to try and make a single article better when others just try to keep tearing down my efforts. I have tried to do non bias contributions, and list all the relevant information in the list of "Nazi Zombie" horror pop culture sources. Someone even tried to claim a copyright issue on the image of a "Nazi Zombie" that was shown on the article. I was 100% the creator of that image. There was no copyright violation, but the image was deleted anyways. I made a Nazi Zombie horror movie. I was just trying to make the article better by listing all the Movies, Video Games, and Comic Books that relate to Nazi Zombies. To make it a better list article.ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2020

Again, I appreciate your effort to add it but you need sources to back it up as we don't post original research on wikipedia. Reading your profile page you seem to think if anyone edits or changes your edits, they are vandalizing, but you have yet to follow some of wikipedia's bigger rules (i.e: providing a source, avoiding original research) or even having lists that contain more information than just a title. I've asked you what extempts you from these rules, but you have ignored the rules I've suggested to you. I'm not sure what more there is to say other than I'd ask you again if you can show what rule specifically states that you are exempt for adding sourced content? For example, I find very little evidence that the genre you speak of involves comics. This is niche, despite you saying its not. What sources do you have to back this up? Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, Bad People came along and deleted a good article, "Don't Play No Game I Can't Win" was a good article, and A-Holes deleted it. I do not "seem to think if anyone edits or changes your edits, they are vandalizing". Some people changed my edits for the better. The vandalism is deleting information, or whole articles. You came here to this article, "Nazi zombies" and deleted information from the intro. You also are just trying to tear everything down and delete it all. If you want your sourcing requirements, how about you add them to the article yourself? How about you go google search all the movies, TV shows, Video Games, and books, and do all the sourcing for them. Instead of deleting information and whole articles. How about you try to be a good constructive person, and not a negative bad destructive person? The only problem here is you attempting to vandalize pages, and delete them all together. ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2020

I did add sourced comments. You removed them (as can be seen here) As for sources, if you want content you write on wikipedia to stay, per WP:ONUS, its up to you to add sources for your own content you provide. Not others. Content without sources should be not be included. What's the benefit? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I left your Fascist "Rules-Nazi" needs sourcing banner. But, please just stop from deleting the relevant information to the article. I still feel that the Needs Sourcing banner is vandalism to the page. It is added to say that something is wrong with the article. Added by someone that isn't trying to make the article better. Added by someone that just wants to rub dirt onto the article instead of cleaning it up to make it shine. If you wanted to make it better, you should have instead have done your own research to add sourcing, that only you seemed to want in the first place. Instead, you just wanted to rub dirt onto the article to make it worse, by slapping your banner onto it. Anf, that isn't all you tried to do. You also tried to delete relevant information, besides adding the banner ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2020

The sourcing you used was wrong. "Zombie Lake" and "Oasis of the Zombies" are not late 1970s films as your source says. They are films from the early 1980s. You used a source that had wrong information. I was trying to do a re-wright, with correct information. But you keep changing it to the wrong information from your source. How about you let me do a more correct re-wright, without deleting all the relavent information?ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2020

I'll be happy to remove technical information out of the place, but saying late 1970s films isn't incorrect as its not clear when these films were shot. But i'll be happy to remove that bit. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

You now have it poorly worded. There is "and the late European films", which makes no sense. All you are doing is butchering the article opening. You took out mention of Shockwaves 1977. It was better written mentioning, Exploitation Films, War Films, Wartime Propaganda, Now there is no mention of Hellboy, or Overlord, an the Resurrection of Adolf Hitler. Some movies in the genera deal with resurrecting Hitler. Jesus Christ is considered as "Zombie Jesus" by many. The same logic also applies to Resurrected Hitler, as "Zombie Hitler". You have deleted too much relavent information from the opening paragraph. You said, "Nazi zombies are a small theme of horror films", which might have been true in the 1970s, but now it is its own genera of Horror Movie. You used an outdated opinionated source. You have detracted from the quality of the opening of the article. I have attempted to go back and do a re-wright that is more correct, but now I seem to be blocked from editing a disputed opening to this article. I am just trying to make it better, and more correct. You on the other hand have used outdated incorrect sourced information. Just because it has sourcing, doesn't make it correct information. Can't you just fix it to have the correct information? ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2020

The "Books & Other Section" sure has a lot of ISBNs listed for many of the printed sources. There is already some sourcing there. But, nothing seems good enough for you. ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2020

The article was totally butchered. There were 110 Nazi Zombie titles in the Films & Television section, now there are only 26 listed. Around 75% of the article was butchered. ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2020

Many of the films mentioned were short films which I could'nt clarify the plot, the premiere, or the themes of the film. Others had some really questionable films. (Jojo Rabbit for example). Other items on the list included music videos and films that were never completed. If you can find sources backing up some other films, I'd say they should be re-added. If not, wait until then. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• NaziZombie03.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• NaziZombie03.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Importance of citing lists

I've slowly started adapting the films into a cited list. Sources currently added include the earliest release known release date, the director, and a space for any extra info if its needed. I've removed some films I could find no sources for, and one specifically was for Worst Case Scenario, a film that despite having an article and a listting, is an unfinished film that is not complete and will not be released. If this doesn't stress the importance of having sourced content, I don't know what does. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nazi zombies/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 23:14, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 17:46, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Dibs. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

• Heads up I was hoping to get to this today or tomorrow but I've been laid out by a post-holiday plague so it'll be a bit before I'm smart enough to read things again. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Prose

• "Nazi zombie fiction combines the Nazi exploitation genre with the horror genre." feels a little stilted but I can't figure out how to loosen it up. I think it's that we go directly from this to a history of the use in fiction, so there's no follow-up. I would suggest moving this sentence into paragraph 2 maybe? It feels like it flows into that content better.
  • Done.
• "declined until returning in the 2000s" I think you could lose "returning" here, as "declined until" contextually suggests that the decline stopped
  • Done.
• "Nazi zombie video games" this phrasing seems to suggest that "Nazi zombie" is a genre of video game; I might tweak to something like "Video games began to feature Nazi zombies around this time"
  • Done.
• Suggest mentioning comics/literature in the lead as they are mentioned in the body
  • Mentioned comics, besides that all I found was one example of a pulp fiction story.
• Having now read the whole article, I might suggest including a brief background section discussing zombie and Nazi tropes in general. Because Nazi zombies as a concept rely so much on pre-existing ideas from zombie fiction and Nazi history and related fiction, it might be nice to have a grounding in those things first rather than encountering them for the first time deeper in the themes section
  • I'm not sure what the best approach to this might be. For the time being, I've moved part of the introduction in the "Themes" section up to "Genre" so the basic explanation is there. It's a bit more difficult to cover the basic tropes of zombie fiction because it changed over time.
    • It occurs to me that maybe "Genre" should precede "History" altogether. You'd expect "description of the thing" to be before "history of the thing", right? You could probably get a few sentences in there about pre-existing tropes. I do think you need an explicit mention of zombies originally being something that isn't the living dead, because otherwise the later phrase "making this one of the first zombie stories to depict zombies as the living dead" will be confusing to the modern reader, who may not know they were ever depicted otherwise. You probably also want a mention of zombies as cannibals/flesh-eaters, because a couple times later you call attention to depicting zombies not as cannibals without ever establishing that they are normally such.
• Nazi horror is redlinked farther down, but not in its first appearance in the History section - deliberate?
  • Fixed.
• "Revenge of the Zombies follows the same general plot as King of the Zombies" since you just used the name of both films in the previous sentence, suggest trimming at least one here or possibly combining the two sentences
  • Removed per next point.
• "instead of having the female character play a sacrificial role for the American protagonists" this is a surprising sentence because there's no indication that anyone played any kind of sacrificial role for anyone in King of the Zombies - can you expand on that?
  • It's not really relevant to the Nazi zombie element, so I've cut this part.
• " who had been taken by his father" taken like killed? kidnapped? stole their corpses from a graveyard?
  • Reworded so the emphasis is on the Nazi experiments.
• "but these were influenced by the science fiction stories" drop the "the" here since you're not referring to any specific stories. Also, the "but" implies this is in contrast to something, but it's not clear what
  • Fixed both.
• I think it might be helpful to describe (briefly) what zombies were depicted as prior to Romero, since the difference is not clear from the prose (yes there's the brief mention of brainwashing but otherwise it does mainly seem to be raising undead)
  • I'm not sure how to approach this. The "modern image" of the zombie is kind of abstract and the main contrast is that the early ones weren't clearly defined as a unified concept of a "zombie".
    • Still think having a background section would go some way toward resolving this, because if you're saying a guy invented the modern version of a thing, you need to clearly establish what it was he did differently than before.
• Suggest combining "Shock Waves (1977) was the first film..." with the following sentence and trimming a bit; currently it reads a bit stilted. Maybe something like "Nazi zombies in film were popularized by Shock Waves (1977), the first film to depict them as Romero's shambling corpses."? Gives a bit of variety and flow. (You could sfnm the refs if that'll bug you.)
  • Reworded a bit and then combined the sentences after this one.
• Would suggest moving the new style of zombies mention up to the first mention of 28 Days. Something like - "The zombie film genre was revived by films like Resident Evil (2002) and 28 Days Later (2002), which popularized a new style of swiftly-moving zombies." Then you can add the bit about films of this era to the sentence that lists them.
  • Reworked the paragraph.
• The source also calls Horrors of War a war movie, I might emphasize that (side note - that we don't have an actual article about WW2 movies is crazy to me)
  • Done.
• Awkward but I think the comic books at the end of that last para in History need their own paragraph, even if it's gonna be a single line, since it is a new topic
  • Done.
• No sourcing on Nazi zombies in modern literature, eh?
  • Couldn't find anything.
• "Critics of Nazi zombie fiction describe it as mere parody or as a misrepresentation of Nazism's threat." - Any way to expand on these analyses? "mere parody" of what? Misrepresentation in what sense?
  • The source doesn't go into a lot of detail, but I added "as something that can be contained or defeated".
• "where also depict a scientific explanation" - "which"?
  • Fixed.
• Suggest expanding the caption for the image to provide some context that it's costume/special effects from a film
  • Done, though I'm not sure about the wording
• "but they are not separated from their living identities the way that many zombies in fiction and still retain their Nazi affiliation." something missing here
  • Fixed.
• "Media about Nazi zombies rarely mentions the Holocaust directly, as the presence of zombies provides a new moral justification for killing them while the Holocaust is only remembered implicitly." The way this is worded seems to imply that this is purposeful on the part of filmmakers/authors and I'm not entirely sure we can say that in wikivoice. Are there any more details we can expand on?
  • Watered this down a bit, open to further wording changes.
• " the Nazi characteristic of individuals giving up their individuality to the Volksgemeinschaft" - "Volksgemeinschaft" needs a brief gloss in text here I think to be of much use to the casual reader
  • Done.
• "Discourse around Nazism..." as written, this sentence and the one that follows feel more like background about Nazis in fiction than directly related to themes of Nazi zombies
  • I agree. Removed.
• "Video games involving violent gameplay require moral disengagement on behalf of players" this feels like an uncomfortably subjective assessment to make in wikivoice
  • Rewrote so its stated as the intention of the game designers instead of an objective fact.
• "zombies have no moral considerations" - probably better phrased as "violence against zombies has no moral considerations"
  • Fixed.
• It feels odd that the movies section is so comprehensive but Zombie Army Trilogy isn't mentioned in the video games section, only in themes
  • Added a mention.
• "zombification of the Imperial Japanese Army, which presents the risk of Orientalism" in what way?
  • Switched to "Orientalist caricatures and stereotyping" to make it clearer, open to better wording.
• "This takes on additional meaning when it is compared to ideology like Nazism, where it becomes stronger as its numbers grow." - current wording is a bit awkward. Suggest something like "This can be seen as analogous to the "mob mentality" that occurs when large numbers of people begin to adhere to an ideology like Nazism", which I think feels (more) in line with the source.
  • Reworded per the spot check below.

Spot checks

Will return for spot checks. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrarily checking a subset of refs as selected by a random number generator, plus a couple that I mentioned above:

• 1a Miller - "Zombie films first appeared as a genre in the 1930s." - While I don't doubt it, the pages from Miller cited don't seem to support the assertion. Checked p 139 in case it was earlier and I don't see it there either. Closest thing on p 141 is "Taken together, these three films [from later] extend familiar themes of mad science (...) and the undead", but nothing specifically about zombie films first appearing as a genre in the 1930s.
  • Those were the first generation of zombie films, but you're right that the source doesn't explicitly say first and I must've filled that blank myself. Removed.
    • Removal feels less optimal compared to finding a citation, since the date gives useful context, but I won't fight about it at GA.
• 1b Miller - Good
• 8 Faragher - "King of the Zombies ends with the American protagonist snapping his friend out of a zombified state by appealing to their friendship" - As a nitpick, McCarthy is still pretty clearly a zombie when he turns on Sangre. Faragher herself only says that he "turns on his master", not that he recovers.
  • Fair point, reworded.
• 11 a&b Kee - Both good
• 15 Miller - "The films They Saved Hitler's Brain (1963) and The Frozen Dead (1966) were about evil Nazi scientists who tried to raise Nazis from the dead." - Sole mention of these films is in this passage, "The association of evil (or at least, horribly misguided) science, Nazi Germany, and zombies that these films began continues, initially in not-quite zombie films like They Saved Hitler’s Brain (1963) and The Frozen Dead (1966)" which doesn't actually mention them featuring evil Nazi scientists who tried to raise Nazis from the dead
  • I looked at the edit history and it seems I butchered this while copyediting. I've reworded it.
    • Looks good
• 26a Hoglund - Good
• 26b Hoglund - Does not mention the second-wave films employing modern fast zombies, in fact, it specifically says that the zombies in Horrors of War are "stumbling and ineffective"
  • I've put this under the subsequent Miller citation, which does support everything here. I also checked a clip from the film to be sure, and I saw a running zombie, although it does seem to be the case that the film is lacking zombies and they're ineffective.
    • Mmm...it covers fast zombies being in Horrors of War, Outpost, and Dead Snow, but doesn't mention Blood Creek and Frankenstein's Army at all, and while it discusses Stone's Army/War of the Dead, it doesn't discuss the speediness of its zombies.
• 33 Bishop - Bishop is a little ambiguous here. To me it sounds like he's contrasting Horrors to Lake and Oasis by its setting, rather than its genre. Lake and Oasis are both straight horror films set after the war, whereas Horrors is set during the war, making it both a period piece and a war film in addition to being a horror film. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm not entirely sure we can confidently say it doesn't function as a "traditional horror film" based on Bishop alone
  • Just to be safe, I've changed it to "features characteristics of" the other genres, though I'm open to other wording.
    • Yeah, reasonable
• 34 Ward 2012 - Good
• 48 Bridges - Good
• 73 Chapman - See my last bullet point in the prose section - not wrong per se, but could be phrased better
  • Reworded, "mob mentality" is the phrase I was looking for.
    • Works for me

I was able to access all of these sources. Honestly I'm both surprised and concerned here. Of the 12 citations I checked, only 6 are unreservedly solid. The refs to Faragher, Bishop, and Chapman aren't badly wrong per se, but perhaps strain the source/could be phrased better. Miller 1a, Miller 15, and Hoglund 26b all make statements that I have not found in their respective sources. I'm not going to quickfail, but I do think this means I will have to do another set once you've addressed these. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I've made the fixes for the spot checks as listed above. And since I had them in front of me, I also double-checked all of the Höglund, Miller, and Whittall citations, making a few minor wording changes and dropping a few redundant ones. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

No problem, I've replied - mostly good but the Miller sub for zombie speed has some issues. I've generated another set of checks, which follows, ref numbers are from the current revision:

• 4 Luckhurst - minor typo, should be p68 not p60 I think, but otherwise yup
• 16 abc Jüngerkes & Wienand - all 3 good
• 17 Bridges - both good
• 28 Ward - yup
• 33 Ordona - yup
• 45 Bridges - yup
• 52 Webley - reasonable
• 55 Hoglund - yup
• 57 Miller - yup
• 63 Hoglund - yup
• 65 Jüngerkes & Wienand - yup
• 69 Chapman - yup

Okay, much better on second go, no concerns here. Minor formatting nitpick that isn't a GA thing at all so obviously I won't die on the hill of it, but I noticed that Ordona gets a biblio entry and a sfn, but Walker of Rock Paper Shotgun gets a cite web; should be consistent one way or another. Other than that and the Miller thing noted above, I'm satisfied with the source checks. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Premeditated Chaos, I've replied to everything above. Quick fixes are done and I'm interested in your opinions on some of the more structural changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for being such a delinquent on this, I've replied above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I think I'm gonna pass this here, the spot checks are now solid and the prose is fine. The background suggestion is more of a FAC-level comprehensiveness situation; I don't want to hold this up longer seeking perfection when good is good enough for GA. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:52, 5 February 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.

South Park?

Would it be worthwhile to mention that South Park: The Stick of Truth uses Nazi Zombies? It’s more parodic, but I feel it’s one of the more iconic uses of the trope in "recent" video games Crystal Drawers (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Added. I had removed it when I was adding examples based on what was used in literature about Nazi zombies, but this is a relatively recent use that continues the timeline, similar to Overlord (2018 film). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:32, 30 December 2025 (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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) HurricaneZeta^C 03:18, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

---

Nazi zombies → Nazi zombie – See WP:PLURAL as well as the article zombie, which is singular. I can't really see why exactly this is plural. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:09, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I presume this can be done boldly, it seems unlikely to me that anyone is going to challenge it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Well never mind then. I support per WP:PLURAL and how it's used in similar articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:02, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose as the topic is commonly known by the plural. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support Not a big change, but still a useful one Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 04:43, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PLURAL. Will not cause any confusion amongst anyone trying to research the topic. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:59, 1 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.