Talk:God Gave Rock and Roll to You

Untitled
This shouldn't be merged; rather this article should be "beefed up". The original song is God Gave Rock 'n Roll To You, although it should maybe be mentioned that "This song was covered by KISS (band) as God Gave Rock 'N' Roll To You II". It's also been covered by a few other artists. To have it subsumed into an article about a band doing a cover version (albeit a perfectly acceptable one) is, I think, rather sad. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, for what it's worth.Strumphs 20:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. The original is the subject of the article, even if less famous. We should merge the Kiss cover version here rather than the other way around. Could just be WP:BOLD... for other songs that have been covered, such as Spirit in the Sky and Unchained Melody, all the cover versions are listed on the one page.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In those cases (Unchained Melody, et al.) cover versions belong as a mention on the main song page. However, this song was given a new title (albeit a small difference...) and the lyrics and structure were significantly altered. -- Thisis0 (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with the majority of the correspondents above, as to 'originality' and the question of merging. On this subject, according to the song's original (1973) song title is correctly depicted as "God Gave Rock and Roll To You". Sorry to be pedantic but, if references to other research is used you will not easily (as I discovered) find the current wikipedia article.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"lyrics taken from Psalm 57 of the King James Bible"
Are you all on drugs? About the only word in common is "god". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.34.140 (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that God Gave Rock 'N' Roll to You II be merged into God Gave Rock 'N' Roll to You. I think that the content in the Foo article can easily be explained in the context of God Gave Rock 'N' Roll to You, and the God Gave Rock 'N' Roll to You article is of a reasonable size that the merging of God Gave Rock 'N' Roll to You II will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. In the past covers of a song have always been merged. The above also shows a general consensus for the merger.184.13.141.64 (talk) --184.13.141.64 (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It makes no sense. Both meet WP:GNG and have different histories. Oppose. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It is the same thing as "Dazed and Confused" where the Zeppelin version is the song in melody with differing lyrics.--184.13.141.64 (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, absolutely. 100% Merge. It's ridiculous not to. They are the same song. Merge, merge, merge! reinthal (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Merge. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I expanded the other other article. No need to merge. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense argument. They are the same song. These articles must be merged. 123.2.117.167 (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then they get merged to God Gave Rock 'N' Roll to You not the other way around. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course that's what I mean. Merge the KISS entry into the Argent entry, i.e. the article on the song's cover into the article on the original. I thought that was understood. 123.2.117.167 (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I missed that. This discussion is about merging the other content into here. Thanks for clarifying. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that I actually look at the templates and first discussion, I have seen that I have been reading it backward. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I believe we have enough support to merge the KISS article into the Argent article, yes? If so, let's do it. reinthal (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Protected
Page protected for a few days to stop edit warring. Please discuss the issues here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks..
 * My first problem is the use of WP:PEACOCK terms. "covered many times" It was covered four times. Compare to Here Comes the Sun, Brown Eyed Girl, All Along the Watchtower and "Twist and Shout. The original wording was better. This is clearly not an improvement.
 * I'm not sure if my second objection is another PEACOCK term is or just a lie: "most famously by Petra". That's not in any way supported as the Kiss cover is the only one that charted and is probably more famous that the combined Petra covers. Of course, it could that the entire phrase "by Petra in both 1977 and 1984, and by Kiss in 1991" is what is most famously, but in that case, it's imprecise and the original wording was better. When that's the first thing you see, it's a problem worthy of reverting.
 * Then there's the violation of MOS:LAYOUT in creation of short sections.
 * Finally, there's the removal of the date formatting which was correctly applied by me, but could also easily be reapplied with a script.
 * I'd like to hear the rationale of the anon. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is about a song. The song was written by a member of Argent. It was first recorded by Argent. All other versions of the song are covers. It doesn’t matter if those covers are by more famous bands. The information on the KISS version of the page is 75% of this page, which is as it should be as this is the best known version of the song. However, it is still a cover & it should come under a section about cover versions of the song. If it doesn’t, then that 75% of the page will overwhelm the page and to the casual peruser the page will not prominently visually or structurally signal the fact that is an Argent song. There are many people who think that this song is a KISS song including two people I know who are KISS fan club members and are otherwise well informed. Surely we need to give due credit to the band that actually wrote the song? A fact that is not widely known enough? We can help fix that by giving Argent a proper credit by helpful visual and structural signalling on this page - Argent’s song is not "a version", it is the original, and the true writing credit belongs to them. reinthal (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The information about the Kiss version is referenced, and was all that was here when the merge was requested.
 * The article makes it clear who the originator of the song is: "by the British band Argent". First sentence. And the first paragraph in the versions section. It is, by definition, a version: the first version.
 * You also did not address your addition of the problems: PEACOCK and LAYOUT. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As for LAYOUT, I indicated on the Help desk page that I was happy to remove a section heading, i.e. when I said "He may have a point about the added headings and I am willing to acknowledge that". Happy to have the sub-headings "Petra version" and "Other cover versions" deleted. As for PEACOCKING, I meant "most famously by Petra and KISS" – just delete the dates (i.e. "in both 1977 and 1984" and "in 1991") and it will read precisely that way. Happy to have it read "most famously by KISS and Petra" or even just "most famously by KISS". As for ORIGINATOR, no, the page doesn't visually and structurally signal in a strong enough way that it is originally an Argent song. Thus the need for a "Covers" section. reinthal (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So what's left then? The "famously" term could be replaced by "the most recognizable versions" or "the most well known".
 * Also, the date formats. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What's left? All the other changes. Dates? What dates? reinthal (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The headings are not happening, but the reorganization of the paragraphs should be fine. Please check the reverts for the date issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "The headings are not happening" - are you sure that you wanted to say that? That is a clear indication that you believe yourself to be the owner of this page, something that you denied when you said on Help desk that others “accuse others of problems that don't exist”. I already said that I was happy to remove the two subheadings "Petra version" and "Other cover versions". However, all covers should come under a new section “Covers”. I will be raising this now with administrators. reinthal (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you read MOS:LAYOUT? Particularly MOS:BODY? Particularly the parts that read, "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading."? That was the main reason for reverting. So that, not your implication that I am showing WP:OWN on the article, is my remaining concern. It's right there in my first response. If you don't understand that, then maybe you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia or not assuming good faith in other editors who are trying to keep you from being blocked for using an alternate account that isn't registered. So when I write that the headings are not happening, I mean that and only that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have created Talk:God Gave Rock and Roll to You/sandbox to show what I'm proposing. It removes the PEACOCK and reduces the sections, even more than the original version, but leaves your reordering of content and much of the wording you had. Feel free to edit that rather than having an edit war in main space. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have already said that I'm happy that those two subheadings can be left out, so that covers MOS:BODY. Don't worry - I have been editing Wikipedia for at least 15 years and the last time I counted, probably 5 years ago now, I had edited over 10K pages. It's you who kept reverting the changes, not me - I think it's largely the reverters who are responsible for Wikipedia stagnating. All this could have been avoided if you took out the two headings and worked with me on the rest. Except you reverted. Perhaps reflect on what would work best to stop Wikipedia pages from stagnating. And I don't have an "alternate account" - I just use the IP almost all the time as I know that many people are hesitant to even begin to edit Wikipedia because it's intimidating to them largely because it's become a club - IP editing is the opposite of this. It's terrible reflection on this bold project that most people don't contribute. Pages stagnate away for years untouched when there are 100s of millions of people reading those pages each day. reinthal (talk) 06:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)