"

 Since I won't be around to implement this - do with it as you will. 

I have written up, what I think would be a working compromiseand was going to post it on Mcshithead's talk page but since he has been such an asshole and will never collaborate with another view... trouble is he runs the place and is so afraid of me he is shitting his pants with every word I write...LOL, and you have had your pee-pee slapped because McGod is afraid of you too.

Anyway here goes.

 Compromise. I can understand almost all the views of most people's concerns, here. As a compromise, to most, I would like to offer a possible solution to address most of those concerns for this otherwise conundrum:
 Extend Andreasegde's Triangular Diplomacy II solution from 2011! Before  anybody freaks-out, please read the rest. This solution  would continue to promote the usage of pronoun references to band names, mid-sentence while still retaining the ability to occasionally use the band's name or individual member references, mid-sentence. Complaints about the usage of all pronouns making boring, repetitive, prose in the article would be addressed by  adding this addendum to the previous Triangular Diplomacy II solution, already observed by many.
 Mid-sentence usage of  both, ""The Beatles"" and ""the Beatles"" be permitted, occasionally with these caveats:
Provided an identifying phrase is used to indicate usage, 
 When referring to band members,  a lowercase ""t"" should be used ie. ""the Beatles"",
 when referring to the band, as a corporate whole,  an uppercase ""T"" should be used. ie. ""The Beatles"".

 Some Examples:
 ""The Beatles were a rock band of great accomplishment."" = capitalisation is always used at the beginning of a sentence, regardless.
 ""Paul became a Beatle"" = obvious individual (non-group) reference, no ""the"" or identifying phrase needed.
 ""Paul became one of the most popular members of The Beatles band"" = whole group reference with ""band"" identifier and also obvious context.
 ""Paul became one of most long-lived members of The Beatles band"" = group reference with ""band"" identifier and obvious context.
 ""George Martin became involved with The Beatles group later."" = ""group"" clarifies corporate group usage meaning.
 ""After the event the individual Beatles went separate  ways"" = ""individual"" clarifies individual member context.
 ""After the event the Beatles individuals went separate  ways"" = ""individuals"" clarifies.
 ""After the event The Beatles members went separate  ways"" = members clarifies the band/group. (a gotcha').
 If people have other extreme examples, perhaps we can see them in order to fine tune and clarify to satisfy almost all collaborative editors.
This solution could resolve most of the concerns stated in this medcom proceding. Future editing from newer editors may violate these seemingly complicated rules but would be easy to fix with addition of either simple words or cap correction and a references to some posted (MOS?) rules. The only arguments (I can see) that may arise would be whether the band or the individual members are being referred to. The simple fix, for these disputes, would be to return that particular sentence back to the Triangular Diplomacy solution. This would appear to be inline with hundreds of other musical articles already observing a similar de facto standard. Any violations would be easy to correct and violations would not look outside of most grammar usage anyway. I don't really see any other way to satify so many different concepts, here. Trademarks don't work and the MOS contradicts itself and grammar in many places.
If this solution is even remotely desired by the majority, and/or medcom team, here, this could be fine tuned by controlled input to medcom  mediators. Also implementation methods for clarifying to newcomers would need input on how to set up the MoS page, possibly. Beyond my knowledges. This MoS should apply to all musical articles, if we can make it work.
Have a nice life! If I am still here in a few hours Iwill drop back in harrass the crap out of you some more! ROFL!
99.251.125.65  "