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.
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.
