This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Amusement Parks: Six Flags / Roller Coasters Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Amusement parks 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.Amusement ParksWikipedia:WikiProject Amusement ParksTemplate:WikiProject Amusement Parksamusement park Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Six Flags task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by Roller Coasters task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Comics: Batman Bottom‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics Bottom This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Batman work group.

I was at Great Adventure 4 times between the 1997 and 1999 seasons. I remember when the Chiller opened, both sides were launched at the same time.

--Mooshykris 02:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Batman & Robin: The Chiller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141108130751/http://intermountainlift.com/amusement.htm to http://intermountainlift.com/amusement.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Batman & Robin The Chiller 2004 1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Batman & Robin The Chiller inversions.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After scouring Google, I was only able to find the following sources covering this ride in some detail beyond a passing mention:

• Amusement Parks of New Jersey -- Book by Jim Futrell
• Ultimate Rollercoaster
• MachineDesign

If there are any others you know about, post them here. In the next few days, I'll be removing anything that's unsourced and cleaning up the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The recent changes here are a mix of unsourced and poorly sourced claims. Some of these rely on YouTube or online forums, and others are simply unsourced. The phrasing used is also unencyclopedic. This is a request to discuss the proposed change by the IP that keeps inserting these problematic claims. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claims made here are mostly properly sourced, however, proper sources in instances such as these are hard to come by. A video of the exact occurrence being described, while from Youtube, is a living source of the exact moment being described and is wholly acceptable as a proof of claim. The phrasing used is properly written and professional. The phrasing used is far from "unencyclopedic." Willing to collaborate to some degree, but information provided on the page is accurate and insightful for future readers who wish to learn more about the history of this troubled ride. . . one of which this user has personally worked on, mechanically- which this user acknowledges does not necessarily grant an immediate pass on proper sourcing, but indicates this particular user would have a far greater insight to the history of this ride than the current user engaging in dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.35.15.58 (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate you taking the time to respond, but if there are statements in the article that lack proper sourcing, they will eventually be removed. One of Wikipedia's core policies is No original research (WP:NOR) that says you must provide a source when challenged. In situations where sources are "hard to come by" (as you put it), then the challenged information will likely need to be left out until sources are found. That's just how it works around here. WP:NOR also ties in directly with another core policy, Verifiability (WP:V), which explains that while you may have the knowledge, expertise, and experience to know something is accurate and true, the information must still be published by a reliable source.

Here are some of the issues at hand that need to be addressed:

1. "Ultimately, the ride became too expensive and problematic to maintain, and another incident in June 2007 sealed its fate. The park permanently closed the ride following the incident and began demolition in October 2007."
   This statement is properly sourced, but you removed it without explanation. You then inserted some details that rely on a website chat forum and greatadventurehistory.com, both of which are not reliable sources.
2. "The intention was to open the Batman side of the coaster with the remaining 4 un-damaged cars from the Robin side once they were brought back to operating capacity."
   There is no source for this cited in the article.
3. "The following year, the remaining foundation caps under the observatory and the former exit ramp were removed."
   There is no source for this cited in the article.
4. Removal was limited by the park's operating hours"
   There is no source for this cited in the article.
5. "Curiously, the iconic emblem of the Batman and Robin logo featured on the front of the ride's main elements lives on. It is erected at the farm formerly used as a storage lot for the coaster following its removal."
   Curiously? This is the "unencyclopedic" language I was talking about that you seem to be defending. Even if this is true, it requires a source. If no one is writing about it, then we shouldn't be either.
6. "...issues constantly made themselves present"
   This is poor grammar structure. Grates very harsh on the ears. Another example of what I'm talking about.

So let's try this again. I'm going to make a few changes to correct the obvious grammar issues. I'm also going to drop a few "Citation needed" tags to give you some time to locate proper sourcing (note: "some time" means like a week or two). The "iconic emblem" junk statement needs to go, and I'll be removing that. If you find a solid source for it at a later date, we can discuss and put it back in, but this should NOT remain in the meantime.

Sound reasonable? It should if you're truly willing to collaborate. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-It does sound reasonable, but I have a few aspects I disagree with. I will do my best to retrieve sources for the instances you dropped your tags in, and I appreciate you not deleting all the information added immediately. To start, I will address the situation of the "iconic emblem" you took issue with. Here is a photo of what I was referring to- https://www.reddit.com/r/newjersey/comments/a2pw7d/the_sign_from_six_flags_batman_and_robin_the/

So, Reddit is not exactly a "scholarly source," I acknowledge. But as you can see, the emblem remains erected at the location the ride was stored at. And anyone could easily drive past this location and see that the emblem is still there. A photo of the claim I'm making is a reliable source, don't you think? If you take issue with the way I worded the description of this curiosity, feel free to re-write it. This is a niche subject, and you are not going to find many "scholarly" sources on the internet that deal with remnants of a roller coaster remaining in a field. A photo may be the best source we have.

-There is nothing grammatically incorrect about the phrase "issues constantly made themselves present." Please provide further elaboration on your problem with how this statement is phrased.

-greatadventurehistory.com is reliable source for any and all things Great Adventure. The man running the site has been visiting the park since it opened, along with documenting its history for decades via photos, trip logs, interviewing employees, and collecting memorabilia. His efforts to preserve the history of the park far exceed any efforts the actual park itself has made to preserve its history. Notion to accept this site as a reliable source.

-Give me 2 weeks to do my best to retrieve sources for the information I had added. If I am unable to find any information, we could collaborate on restructuring the information to not be presented as solid facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.35.15.5 (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a quick note, please add 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end of each reply, which will automatically add a timestamp and signature to your posts. You can also use colons to indent (: or ::, for example). I went ahead and did this for your last two posts above.

As for the grammar concern of "The Chiller was faced with excessive amounts of downtime as issues constantly made themselves present", it is a mouthful and somewhat on the clunky side. I've changed it to, "The Chiller faced excessive amounts of downtime due to a number of reoccurring issues". Says the same thing in fewer words.

"This is a niche subject, and you are not going to find many "scholarly" sources ... A photo may be the best source we have."

So this is one of the reasons why Wikipedia has the Verifiability policy and reliable source guideline. The first test is that it must be verifiable, yes, but it must also be relevant and significant. Remember, an encyclopedia is a summary of a subject's most important aspects. It is not a summary of ALL aspects. While something may be true and would perhaps be included in a 100-page book, it needs to be relatively significant in order to make the cut in an encyclopedia article, which for comparison sake is only a page or so long. We can gauge significance by looking at the quality and number of reliable sources covering the aspect in question. If, as you say, this is a niche realm where no coverage exists, then Wikipedia shouldn't take the extraordinary step of covering it. That goes against the mission here of following reliable sources. Wikipedia doesn't lead; it is simply a reflection. I suggest you take 5 minutes and really look at WP:V#Other issues, particularly the first and third sections. You'll find that "exceptional claims" like this one "require exceptional sources".

"greatadventurehistory.com is reliable source for any and all things Great Adventure"

This is a self-published website, much like many blogs and fan sites on the internet. Self-published sources are largely not accepted on Wikipedia per WP:SELFPUB. Occasional exceptions are made, like when the author is a subject-matter expert whose work has also been published by independent, reliable sources. Does the author of this site qualify? If so, I can bring it up at WP:RSN, the reliable source noticeboard, to ask for other opinions. If the consensus deems it reliable, then we can use it. Any information you can share now would be helpful.

To close, yes, a couple weeks would be fine, as long as you're actively working to locate sources. More time can be given if needed. If you come across any sources you have questions about, feel free to post them here on this talk page for review. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-A quick update- the gentlemen running Greatadventurehistory.com are published authors. One of their works has been published by Arcadia Publishing SC. Arcadia Publishing is an American publisher of neighborhood, local, and regional history of the United States. You can find their published work, "Six Flags Great Adventure", here> https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/six-flags-great-adventure-harry-applegate/1107104247 4.35.15.58 (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's helpful. I seem to recall one of the editors there had a published background. Let me start a new discussion at WP:RSN and generate some feedback. Let's see what others think before we move forward with including it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]