[x] A/B B/A

Has a decision been made yet whether Faces / Rod Stewart is the same band as Rod Stewart / Faces ? Because right now it looks kinda silly to me to have them both in the DB as two distinct bands.

IMHO they should all be in as incarnations of "Faces" but this site doesn't work like that ...

Personally I'd treat them as the same entity and alias the band name - check out my queue entries for 'To Have And To Hold' and 'Ghosts Of The Civil Dead' by various Nick Cave/Mick Harvey/Blixa Bargeld combinations.

Not sure there's ever been an official ruling though.

Your specific examples lead me to remember that we've had this conversation before. Something like: if the order of names in a collaboration varies, then use the first one and alias the others. But I can't immediately find where we had that conversation.

If we didn't formally make such a ruling, I'd suggest that we do.

Previous discussion here:
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5182

i think the Brian Eno / David Byrne albums might to be fixed, with the latter being made into a band and not a collab:

[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/brian-eno-david-byrne/my-life-in-the-bush-of-ghos...
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/brian-eno/everything-that-happens-will-happen-tod...

Just noticed there's already a live example of this sort of aliasing in the db (Buckethead & Viggo / Viggo & Buckethead):
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/buckethead-and-viggo/this-that-and-the-other

Not any more. That was a very old entry (one of my own) and I don't know that it's right anymore. I don't see any reasoning on why I did it that way, so I have removed it.

I'm posting this in several places:

[bandtoband.com] http://bandtoband.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5182
[bandtoband.com] http://bandtoband.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8355
[bandtoband.com] http://bandtoband.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8589

Band aliasing is supposed to be limited to just trivial name changes. We've never treated order changes as trivial. As in [www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6169 (the last post), B/A and A/B should go into the database as distinct entries. Why? Because they are distinct. A and B could have made sure to release all their albums as either A/B or B/A. But they didn't, and we should document that. Why would we try to force the two bands into one if they didn't bother to do it themselves?

Something else to mull over: at the moment we have a few situations when 'X's Y' has a separate entry to the very similarly named 'X And Y' or 'X And The Y' rather than being aliased.

e.g. 'John Mayall's Bluesbreakers' vs 'John Mayall And The Bluesbreakers'
or 'Barbara Thompson's Paraphernalia' vs 'Barbara Thompson & Paraphernalia'

Shouldn't these really be aliases of the same band? Or are we saying that the possessive apostrophe S isn't a 'trivial name change' from the 'And/&/With/whatever' connector?

I hear what you're saying, but we've always tried to keep the "trivial name change" category very narrow, so we've intentionally kept those types of examples as distinct entries.