 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
The character makes a single appearance in the series, besides what the article even admits is a 'brief flashback'. I've seen the show and read the manga, so I know what I'm talking about. The character is inconsequential to say the least. Why is there such an extensive article here? Not only is the character irrelevant and forgettable compared to the main characters, the character is neither notable as being a formidable force for Alucard, nor notable for being weak, as Rip is able to kill many humans with ease. It should be apparent to anyone familiar with the series that this article is easily composed of more text than the anime's script and manga devoted to the character are combined! This is a problem mirrored on every other character page I've seen for this series. The article for Anderson is longer than the first 8 or so manga volumes combined. What fanatic was able to create these ridiculously long articles? Just because a character is NAMED does not mean it is NOTABLE. /rant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.85.224 ( talk) 19:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Image:Rip Van Winkle.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Removed "Van Winkle seems to have a limited amount of these bullets, as she only uses one at a time. In fact, she uses only five on-screen before death throughout the entire series and only one directly against Alucard (so far: she might use them again during The Dawn.) It's possible that this could be due to the fact that she has to go through the slow process of manually reloading the musket after each shot, forcing her to rely on taking out her all of her targets with a single, decisive shot during engagements" useless and speculative information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.254.46.108 ( talk) 07:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
The character makes a single appearance in the series, besides what the article even admits is a 'brief flashback'. I've seen the show and read the manga, so I know what I'm talking about. The character is inconsequential to say the least. Why is there such an extensive article here? Not only is the character irrelevant and forgettable compared to the main characters, the character is neither notable as being a formidable force for Alucard, nor notable for being weak, as Rip is able to kill many humans with ease. It should be apparent to anyone familiar with the series that this article is easily composed of more text than the anime's script and manga devoted to the character are combined! This is a problem mirrored on every other character page I've seen for this series. The article for Anderson is longer than the first 8 or so manga volumes combined. What fanatic was able to create these ridiculously long articles? Just because a character is NAMED does not mean it is NOTABLE. /rant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.85.224 ( talk) 19:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Image:Rip Van Winkle.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Removed "Van Winkle seems to have a limited amount of these bullets, as she only uses one at a time. In fact, she uses only five on-screen before death throughout the entire series and only one directly against Alucard (so far: she might use them again during The Dawn.) It's possible that this could be due to the fact that she has to go through the slow process of manually reloading the musket after each shot, forcing her to rely on taking out her all of her targets with a single, decisive shot during engagements" useless and speculative information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.254.46.108 ( talk) 07:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)