Talk:Journey Through the Decade

Title

The manual of style states that odd capitalizations are only meant for the Japanese audience. However, Gackt's official English language website lists the title of the single as "Journey through the Decade".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Journey Through the Decade → Journey through the Decade — Per WP:MOSMUSIC#Capitalization and WP:ALBUMCAPS, there is currently no prohibition for the T in "through" to be capitalized. As mentioned in the section above, in all reliable sources in Japanese and English, this song is titled "Journey through the Decade".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose – Actually per WP:MOSMUSIC#Capitalization it does states not to capitalize short prepositions & defines short as less then five letters. "Through" is a preposition with more than five letters, therefore it should remain capitalized. 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢  11:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Why? It was chosen to be lower case and that's evident from the B-sides with the "J.t.D" names.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Because we don't care what the "official" rendering of names are when it comes to capitalization. We follow standard title-case formatting, and that requires a capital "T" on "Through". Powers ^T 20:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Why?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Consistency, clarity, and ease of use by both readers and editors. This is a longstanding policy with considerable weight of consensus behind it. Powers ^T 20:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
          • But it violates WP:COMMONNAME and WP:COMMONSENSE. And it's only the word "through" in question.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
            • WP:COMMONNAME only dictates the actually name of the article not the formatting of the name. 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢  21:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
              • Why shouldn't it be both?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
                • Because formatting of the name doesn't generally affect the way the name is read; changing the spelling can make a reader question whether she has ended up at the right article, but changing capitalization does not. Standardizing formatting makes things easier to find and easier to link. Powers ^T 22:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
                  • Leaving a letter uncapitalized will not prevent people from finding this page any more easily, considering it is a song that is known by that other capitalization and our search function is not capitalization dependent.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
                    • Look, if you want to debate the reasons behind this well-established guideline, please do so at WT:MOSTM or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. The applicability of that guideline to this case is quite clear. Powers ^T 00:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
                      • WikiProject albums' ALBUMCAPS style guide seems to say that the WikiProject/style guide for the non-English language should be given governage over the capitalization. And as WP:JAPAN and WP:MOS-JA don't say anything that words with a certain minimum number of letters should be capitalized, WP:MOSMUSIC should not be the item automatically followed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
                        • Not exactly; since the title is English, not Japanese, we use English capitalization rules. Powers ^T 02:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
                          • So tell me why W-B-X ~W-Boiled Extreme~ is also in English, but is subject to the rules and regulations of WP:MOS-JA first and foremost?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
                            • I don't know that it is, actually. That MOS seems to apply mainly to Romanization of Japanese names, not to English names of Japanese things. Powers ^T 03:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
                              • Well, on that page apparently WP:ABBR forbids it from having hyphens in between the W, B, and X of the first part and WP:MOS-JA forbids it from having tildes in the article title. Why should either matter if it's clearly parsed in English?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

                  Capitalization is part of spelling: Polish is a different word than polish. --A. di M. (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per manual of style. Powers ^T 20:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Clearly violates Wikipedia guideline on formatting. The artist or record company is perfectly entitled to use whatever ridiculous capitalisation they want: and we have the right to keep to our own style, which should apply across the board. Skinsmoke (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • How is a single lower case T "ridiculous capitalisation"?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Like I stated on Talk:Journey Through the Decade#Requested move, WP:COMMONNAME does not dictate the formatting of an article's name, just what to call the name. So please stopping to misuse that policy. 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢  08:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Why are you linking to this same section? I do not even refer to WP:COMMONNAME in that comment so I do not know why you are bringing it up (also it does in fact cover stylizations, which is why certain biographies are at certain stylized titles).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
        • WP:COMMONNAME does NOT apply to stylization or formatting. And my previous comment was meant to go in Talk:Pay Money to My Pain#Move. 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢  22:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
          • According to the various users who primarily work with the manual of style, COMMONNAME most certainly does apply to this situation.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
            • Actually, Gu1dry, WP:COMMONNAME applies to whatever Wikipedians decide to apply it to, precisely in situations such as this one. An overly legalistic and technical reading of our guidelines is not appropriate. We're flexible, and we decide things by consensus on a case-by-case basis. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
              • Because that makes perfect sense; let's have policies but not completely follow them, unless it fits our wants/needs. Whatever... 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢  02:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
                • There is an inherent difference between a policy (WP:AT) and a guideline (WP:MOS). Policies are the rules. Guidelines are suggestions. However, both can be left behind if they hinder the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
                  • Gu1dry, you might be surprised just how much sense it makes. In my years here, I've learned a lot, and it's pretty awesome, what works. If you think I've got any "wants/needs" regarding capitalization of article titles, then you are sorely mistaken. I've closed moves in every direction, without a blip of emotion. I've seen the "rules" in this project grow from basically nothing to a hulking bureaucracy, and we do our best when we ignore that bureaucracy completely. Try it; you might like it. Actually doing things for reasons, that we consider in context: it's real cool. Our policies are descriptive, not prescriptive, and it works. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I'd like to address a couple of points made in this discussion.

  Firstly, making the 'T' at the beginning of "Through" lower-case is no more "ridiculous" than a rule that treats prepositions with more than five letters differently from other prepositions. That's as arbitrary as can be. That doesn't mean I'm against it; I just disagree that what we're doing is inherently more sensible than what someone else is doing.

  Secondly: "Consistency, clarity, and ease of use by both readers and editors." Whether or not this particular 'T' is capitalized has no effect on the "clarity" of the article, nor on "ease of use by readers and editors". Redirects exist. "Consistency" alone is a very weak argument.

  Thirdly: "If you want to debate the reasons behind this well-established guideline, please do so at WT:MOSTM or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums". This is absolutely the wrong approach. We do not work from the top down, but from the bottom up. Here, and in the specific context of other articles, is precisely where these decisions are made, and the guideline reflects that descriptively. It does not command decisions prescriptively. "If you want to make an exception, go change the rule first," is never a valid argument on Wikipedia. Each time we apply a rule, we are to consider whether the rule actually serves the encyclopedia, in that particular case.

  The more of these cases I see, the more inclined I am to the view that we should either follow reliable sources regarding capitalization, or else format everything, including k.d. lang and bell hooks, according to a house style. The latter is very unlikely to happen, so I think that leaves us with reliable sources. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support unless someone's got some significant sources that capitalize it as we currently capitalize it. We can apply guidelines to help solve problems, but in this case (if the sources really are unanimous) there doesn't seem to be a problem to solve.--Kotniski (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Journey Through the Decade → Journey through the Decade – It should not be Wikipedia's job to change how this particular name is formatted, particularly when "Journey through the Decade" is the only way the song has ever been formatted in any sort of press (WP:MOS-TM states "editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones)"). The musician's English language website does not alter the name of the song for his English-speaking audience. The flash nature of his website prevents direct linking, but entries naming this song are featured in May 2009 ("The theme song for the movie version...") and in January 2009 ("Journey through the Decade will be released...") on his News page.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy close; no new argument presented. Wikipedia has its own house style when it comes to capitalization. Powers ^T 11:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter if no new argument has been presented. The last debate closed as no consensus, not "do not move". Wikipedia should not enforce its own house style on matters such as this. Considering it has been nearly a year since the last debate, it should not matter if I make a new one based on the same reasoning: nowhere other than Wikipedia capitalizes the T in "through", and per WP:MOS-TM, the current form of the title is against general policy and wide ranging practice.—Ryulong (竜龙) 18:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Bzzt. Last discussion was "no consensus" and almost a year ago. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. It's one thing to follow a convention when no clear answer can be discerned from usage in reliable sources, but here the sources are practically unanimous. Let's just follow them, as we do for countless other titles, like k.d. lang, bell hooks, and will.i.am. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Personal names have long enjoyed an exception to our manual of style; titles of artistic works, not so much. Powers ^T 19:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    • It should be an aspect of the artistic work to have its name formatted in whatever way the artist intended. And it's only a change of one letter, which should not have been forcibly moved and the move made impossible to undo. If we are to follow the wider manuals of style, WP:MOS-TM says Wikipedia shouldn't make up stylizations unless they actually are in use. There is no publication that capitalizes the T in "through" other than Wikipedia, so we are actively violating one guideline while violating another. And as GTBacchus stated in the previous discussion, single article discussions of whether or not this particular page should be an exception to any of the other policies is what is done; not attempting to modify the guideline in order to get a style change accepted universally.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Any time the MOS dictates anything that is contrary to obvious predominant usage in sources, it should be ignored, and, ideally, fixed. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Why? It's important for any publication to have a consistent internal style. Powers ^T 01:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Not when it goes against the common sense of using the most accurate title for a page. In this situation, we have "Journey through the Decade" as the most common styling as seen in all reliable sources. The style guide you are applying is for other cases where it is ambiguous as to how to properly format the title.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
          • I don't think you'll find much site-wide consensus for that view. In general, we prefer a consistent style when it comes to capitalization. Powers ^T 13:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
            • That's the point of finding a single consensus for this page, regardless of the consensus elsewhere.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep as is per MOS:CT. There are professional style guides that say the same thing. The rule is basically what isn't capitalized, not what is. It's a stylization choice by the artist/label and Wikipedia follows its own guideline. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • If you read the previous debate, the purpose of this is to ignore things such as MOS:CT. Citing a guideline when the guideline is being sought to be ignored is counterintuitive.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Too bad. That's just a way to sway things your way. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
      • That's the point. We are seeking to make a separate consensus here, which may or may not affect consensus as a whole.—Ryulong (竜龙) 18:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 04 August 2013

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. -- tariqabjotu 15:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Journey Through the Decade → Journey through the Decade – This song's title is universally formatted as "Journey through the Decade" with a lower case "T" on "through": Billboard-Japan.com, artist's website, Oricon charting news, Natalie.mu, iTunes. MOS:CT currently states that "Through" should be capitalized, but because this is not an English song it should not be subject to those rules. French songs like Tu aurais dû me dire (Oser parler d'amour), Romanian songs like Dragostea din tei, Estonian songs like Et uus saaks alguse (I could continue to pick songs from Eurovision articles after this) are all formatted per the capitalization style as used within their native country. I don't see any reason why this song should be an exception, other than the fact that it is from Japan and the title is originally written in English text. —Ryulong (琉竜) 18:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC) --Relisted. B2C 23:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose The title is in English so WP:MOSCT applies. The Manual of Style does not state that the composition has to be in English, it states "In the English titles of compositions..." Aspects (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per MOS:CT. It's an English title, so our English capitalization guidelines are what's relevant, as Aspects has said. Some English style guides (such as the Chicago Manual) call for prepositions of any length to be lowercase in titles, so the uses with lowercase through are following an acceptable style; it's simply not the Wikipedia style. Deor (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Why though? Why make such a change when it's referenced in the other versions of the songs as being a lower case word (the "J.t.D." ones)?—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Because the MOS says to capitalize prepositions of more than four letters in titles. That's also the advice in other style manuals (Words into Type is one); and the point here, as with all such codifications of style, is to ideally achieve consistency within a work or series of publications (which Wikipedia notionally is). If everyone who writes for the New York Times or The New Yorker, say, is allowed to follow his or her own preferences on style matters, the reader is likely to be continually perplexed by inexplicable variations and perhaps get the impression that the publication is edited in a slipshod manner or perhaps entirely devoid of editorial control. Whether that concern is applicable to Wikipedia is a question that may well be pondered; but as long as there are style guidelines here, I see no particular reason not to follow them. Deor (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:CT. Can you hear me now? --BDD (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  It's getting in my way.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:CT. "If A is rendered as B then it should be C is not a reason to ignore all rules. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  I don't think I said that. I think I said "It's always written as 'Journey through the Decade' so we should have it as 'Journey through the Decade' and not 'Journey Through the Decade'".—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  Response, Your argument is that it is a Japanese song (A), that is rendered in English (B), therefore "Though" should be in lower case (C). I think I have that right. FWIW I think all namespace titles should be rendered in uppercase by default, but that's not policy... Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you for clearing that up.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. The MOS on capitalization of prepositions, discriminating at five letters, should be considered no more than an arbitrary guideline. A starting point. The importance of the prepositions is what matters. This correlates with word length, but only loosely. Maybe a better MOSCT guideline would count the number of syllables in the preposition? In this title, "through" is not important. Capitalizing it confers inappropriate emphasis. Also the the styling of the title on the product cover should carry some weight, where we on the unimportant edge of a guideline that is counting letters in prepositions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a guideline, but it's not quite "arbitrary". It follows the most common guidance in English usage and grammar guides. like some of these. Overriding the standard guidance for a probably-not-notable song title that doesn't even appear in any English-language sources seems like a bad idea. Dicklyon (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The cover art shown on the article is a source. I think that following, to the letter, weird little rules, resulting in different capitalization in the title alongside an image of the product with a different capitalization looks unprofessional. It looks like the result of unthinking adherence to too-simple rules by low level production staff. It is similar to how ridiculous we looked with "Star Trek into Darkness". While the law may provide consistency, predictability and an efficient environment, sometimes the law is an ass. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If we tried to mimic all the wild and varying styles on album covers, movie posters, and product packaging in general, we would have nothing but chaos. Instead, we have MOS:CT and MOS:TM. Not law; perhaps ass, but it's what we have. Dicklyon (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Generally agreed. But, "Chaos" for using source capitalization for prepositions is an exaggeration. "Journey through the Decade", like "Star Trek Into Darkness" is not wild. The guideline needs refinement, and so "oppose per the guideline" is a pretty poor rationale. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"Journey through the Decade" is the stylization universally used within Japan to refer to this song, except for a recent album where the song is listed as "JOURNEY THROUGH THE DECADE" in promotional materials, but its listing on the iTunes store retains the original style. There is no ambiguity as with what happened with Star Trek as to what the meaning is. The song's alternate versions also show this intended capitalization, as they are formatted as "J.t.D" and not "J.T.D."—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral I personally think it looks fairly ridiculous to capitalise "through" but not "the". They are both incidental words (prepositions and articles) not proper parts of the title. However, given that it's in the manual of style there's not much that can be done about it here. Personally I'd like to see it changed in the manual of style, but from comments above it doesn't sound like that would gain much traction either so sounds like a case of "move along now, nothing more to be seen here".  — Amakuru (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

  So you think the move is good but you're not supporting it because you feel its like pissing in the wind?—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

  I do think the move is good, but I can't support it because it's counter to current policy. And I'm not making an attempt to change current policy because I think that would be pissing in the wind, as you put it. If someone else wants to make moves to change the policy then I would be happy to add my support vote to that.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

  But WP:IAR exists so you can be allowed to support things that are counter to current policy.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have proposed a change to the guideline here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#RfC:_Prepositions_in_composition_titles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - per CD cover and more importantly Chicago Manual Of Style, I cannot understand why anyone thinks Shouty Newswire MOS is appropriate for an encyclopedia. If this is what MOS:CT says then MOS:CT is wrong. There is no reason to capitalize a preposition in a song title, especially a Japanese song, and the fact that the song starts Miageru hoshi sorezore no rekishi ga kagayaite.. indicates that it is is not an English song. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move request closed after relisting again

What the heck is going on? Did someone forget to move the posting on WP:RM and it's still in the "needs imminent closure" section?—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

In order for a move request to be relisted, the {{relisting}} template has to be before the move requestor's signature, as the bot-generated RM page looks at the first timestamp to determine the listing time for the request. As Born2cycle (talk · contribs) added the template after your signature, it was never relisted and remained in the Backlog section. I could reverse the closure, but I see EdJohnston (talk · contribs) also closed the request a couple days ago with the same conclusion. So, I don't see a reason to do that. We already have two people come to the same decision and the move request was never actually relisted. -- tariqabjotu 20:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

So this is Born2cycle's fault for screwing up the relisting? EdJohnston was also notified of the relisting and he reverted himself to allow the discussion to continue. And since then, consensus was swaying in the other direction. What should be done now? Because requesting a move again will just be seen as disruptive, as BDD alludes to in his linking to WP:IDHT. The RM was meant to be relisted. Why deny that due to a formatting technicality?—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He reverted himself after he was basically brow-beaten into doing so. I'm not as easily swayed, considering I'm now the second person to close this matter. If you think the move was done improperly, there's move review. A better avenue, though, is to try to get MOS:CT changed. Or just drop the matter (although I imagine that's not the route you're going to take). -- tariqabjotu 20:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I had never relisted before and got it wrong by inserting the template in the wrong place. Discussion is still ongoing, as we speak. This is not a resolved issue, and relatively few have weighed in. There should be no hurry in closing this. If not for my technical error, it would have been relisted properly and no longer in the backlog. Please revert your close and relist. It's either that or have another RM discussion about this, soon, which seems ridiculous. --B2C 21:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I've already stated my position on this; I'm not reverting the closure. -- tariqabjotu 21:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you think it's better to open another RM on this? --B2C 22:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The discussion was obviously ongoing, and it did not have a "result". "Not moved" is a trivial statement of fact. As there is some interest now, it should continue now. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The comment you responded to in your first comment here listed three ways forward. Hint: None of them were relisting this RM.

Also, B2C, let me add that you had no business handling this move request. You obviously support this move, and weren't happy that, at the time you attempted to relist the request, that consensus was against moving. Even though you didn't comment here, your notification at WT:AT is a tell-tale sign that you disagreed with how the discussion was turning out. On that note, it would be great if you stopped selectively bringing move requests to the attention of editors on that talk page; by definition, all move requests are article title issues and the editors who frequent that page do not have a special role in deciding RM outcomes. -- tariqabjotu 23:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

So just like that we have to start this shit all over again?—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to not. It went a week and got no support. Let it be. Dicklyon (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

And on day 7 it got supported. I will not let it be. There is no reason for us to have changed the way the title of this song is written just because of some arbitrary number put in place by a manual of style we cribbed. I've gone to WP:MR.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Journey Through the Decade. 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/20140305015635/http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/chart/w140228.html to http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/chart/w140228.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 10:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)