Once again, an "infographic" at InformationIsBeautiful.net contributes very little beyond the underlying prose it's based on (in this case a Google spreadsheet, which is actually easier to read).
Unfortunately, InformationIsBeautiful.net basically exists to be an advertisement for the author's book, The Visual Miscellaneum. Which is a very pretty book--I own it--but not really full of informative infographics. There's some original content in the blog, but far too much of it is reposts of graphics from the book.
For a better (or at least more varied) selection of infographics I like:
I love how the death star article is on there. Though I don't know that this qualifies as an infographic: the only info on it is title + num_edits. The relative sizes aren't informative, their locations aren't informative (horizontal or vertical, I'm sure the Jesus article is still highly edited).
One of these I remember quite well--Angels and Airwaves "is" a band vs. "are" a band. Wikipedia's summary:
More than 40 reverts in one hour by two editors. The point of contention? Whether "Angels & Airwaves" is a band or "Angels & Airwaves" are a band. (British English requires "are," as the band comprises multiple people, while American English requires "is", as the band is a singular entity.) ALL-CAPS edit summaries laced with profanity and death threats liberally employed by one side. Stopped only after admin intervention, but resumed again two minutes after the 3RR block expired. Both get blocked for seven days, and one of them gets his block extended to eight days after stating he doesn't care as long as the other side gets a block of same length. The other side keeps his seven-day block.
I was the admin in that case. It was my proudest moment in all of Wikipedia adminship.
I think mentioning the British/American disparity does a disservice to demonstrating how truly ridiculous the argument was, because it distracts from what the "are" user was actually arguing, which is that "are" is correct because the subject is is named by a phrase comprising two things join by a conjunction, "and".
Reading the actual "discussion" is both hilarious and depressingly frustrating. The Alex 101 user had to have been trolling, 'cause, I mean, come on.
"Angels and Airwaves" is a syntactically encapsulated name in American English. Americans still say "Black and Decker is a company" or "Emerson Lake & Palmer is a band"--and those are non-metaphorical uses of "and" to name the members or founders of the group!
"Angels and Airwaves" is a syntactically encapsulated name in American English.
Why are you explaining this to me?
Like I already said, the argument didn't even have anything to do with British versus American conventions. That aspect wasn't even brought up until later by another user.
Suppose the band wasn't called "Angels and Airwaves", but "Airwave Angels", and that it wasn't really a band in the literal/literary sense of the word―suppose it was a one-man production through-and-through. The user who raised the argument would have still argued for the change on the same basis, which was that it should be "are" because "Angels" is plural, regardless of the actual number of members and with no notion of British and American style differences.
Bringing up the differences between British and American English legitimizes the issue slightly, but it was completely unrelated. Suggesting that it somehow has something to do with it detracts from how truly ridiculous the argument actually was.
I still don't understand what you're saying, though. It is a matter of British vs. American English, and the major problem to me, at the time, seemed to be that the two sides didn't understand that fact, they just tried to stubbornly apply their own cultural norms against each other. The point you mention is a common British rationalization for the British convention, but that point was probably only argued because that person didn't realize the convention is different from country to country.
By Wikipedia conventions, incidentally, "Angels and Airwaves is a band" is correct because it's an American band and articles on American subjects are written under American conventions, whereas "Emerson Lake & Palmer are a band" is correct because they are a British band. That didn't save that guy from being blocked for a week, though (or maybe 8 days, I can't remember whose block I extended.)
It is correct to say that there is a difference between British English and American English with regard to using "is" or "are" with collective nouns. It is also correct to say that those kinds of disputes happen fairly regularly on Wikipedia. It is incorrect to say, however, that this particular argument was an instance of that kind of dispute. I'll quote from the user himself, since my own explanations seem to be inadequate here:
The reason why "are" is right is because the word Angels is plural (as in more than one angel) and Airwaves (as in more than one airwave) is plural. Without the "s" it makes it singular (proper noun). Again, leave it like this: "Angels and Airwaves are", not "Angels and Airwaves is". --Alex 101
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAngels_%26_...)
Here's another example: suppose you have a dog named Airwaves. Alex 101 would argue that since you named your dog Airwaves ("as in more than one airwave"), when you speak about certain characteristics of your dog, you should say "Airwaves are an obedient puppy.", rather than "Airwaves is an obedient puppy.". You can see that this has nothing to do with differences between British English and American English; they're both in agreement here. By all means you should say "Airwaves is an obedient puppy.".
The argument about British versus American English might be petty, but at least there's some kind of substance to it. What Alex 101 was arguing on the other hand, is just crazy.
For sure, later in the discussion there was some mention of regional differences in style, but it was neither the impetus for the argument, nor did it constitute the bulk (or perhaps that should be the loudest?) part of the dispute.
