Alexg has got it right, in my view. However, since OP says he is waiting for someone to provide a generalized answer, here's mine.
It is hardly ever wrong to omit the article. "The Mall" is the name on the signs, so must be used: "Strand" (the formal name) is both awkward and confusing, so 'the Strand' is usual: most English towns have a few similar names.
Otherwise, there are many names that have developed from descriptions; 'London Road' is the classic example. Most towns in the Home Counties have a road that leads towards London, and refer to it as 'the London road'. Often, when street names were being given, it was named "London Road". In such a case, locals will often call it 'the London Road', while outsiders including the Post Office call it 'London Road'; I wouldn't say either was right or wrong. (Road is, in practice, the only term to which this applies: "the High Street" is usual, but so is "Church Lane is the high street in that village.")
Similar rules apply to stations, airports, roundabouts, etc. Bournemouth has a roundabout with a Frizzell office block, which everyone calls "the Frizzell roundabout". The council put up a sign saying "Frizzell Roundabout", so you can call it either. As far as I can see, all names with articles follow this rule: you can call what used to be Eastleigh Airport (the airport for Southampton) either "Southampton Airport" or "the Southampton airport". "The Southampton Airport" is not correct, but is an understandable mistake; if enough people use it, the name will change.
One last purely national point; in theory, you could refer to a railway terminus named 'Thingtown Central' as either "Central Station" or "the Central"; maybe this happens in the US. Britain has too many places like Exeter, where Exeter Central is a suburban halt, and the central station is Exeter St David's. (The explanation is historical.) So "the Central Station" would be highly ambiguous, and is never used.
Most of the names you give are derived from proper place names, or clan names, or such, so using "human" as a comparison is not accurate.
For instance, Vulcan and Minbari are named for their planets. We would capitalize Terran likewise (or Earthling or Martian).
Also Krell, Nox, and Timelord are groups of peoples (my apologies for not using a panxenic term, but "beings" was too confusing). We would likewise capitalize Irish, Passamaquoddy, Vandals, etc. (And naturally, Timelords are Gallifreyan, just as Mongols are Terran.) Or if you consider them more like ethnicities, you would still capitalize them, like you do with Jewish, Native American, Latina, etc.
Also, in response to Vulcans born off-world as still being Vulcans, I'd make the argument that Asians born in America (for instance) are still often called Asian, or Asian-American.
And finally, I think and I know I may well be dunned for it, that Cylon was a "brand" name for the original cybernetic organisms. And we would likewise capitalize Sunbeam, Keurig, General Electric, etc.
So then by example, human is not capitalized because it is not a proper noun, and not derived from a proper noun. Vulcans, Minbari, and Timelords are humanoid beings. There are also reptilian beings, silicon beings, and energy beings, but we don't capitalize any of those types of beings (human, humanoid, reptilian, silicon, energy, etc).
It is a good question, though. Here is a discussion that you may find interesting.
Best Answer
Yes, this is common usage.