Category talk:Individuals by location

Standardisation
Some of the categories in this category are written under the format of "residents of [place]" while others are "[place] residents", so I think we should establish which is the best method. I have no strong feelings on which, however I slightly veer towards "[place] residents" as it makes it more likely to come up when a user is searching for another category related to that location, providing an opportunity for education on some of the other available categories or category types. Danochy ☎  04:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. Searching for "Category:Residents of..." would produce loads of results, and none of them would be discernable without moving to the search page. There's also plenty of precedent for this format, especially where there's a parent category involved, like category:Coal Hill School. (And "Residents of..." would require pipe switching each time for alphabetical order...) 07:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would argue for the preservation of category:Residents of Gallifrey, though. "Gallifreyan" is a complex term when used to refer to individuals. I do also think "Residents of the Gamma Forests" works better grammatically than "Gamma Forests residents". If we set a standard, there may still be exceptions, but there would be justification for going against the grain. 07:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OK yeah, you've definitely justified the "[place] residents" format for me a bit more! I also agree with your point about exceptions - Gallifrey and locations which exclusively use the plural form seems a good place to start there.
 * Of the current categories I think the following should remain exceptions
 * Category:Individuals from the Clockworks
 * Category:Individuals from the Obverse
 * Category:Residents of Gallifrey
 * Category:Residents of the Gamma Forests
 * Category:Residents of the trap street
 * Furthermore, there are several categories which use "individuals" or "inhabitants" instead of "residents" which should be standardised too, in some cases. And perhaps we could also group these categories under a subcategory called Category:Individuals by residence or Category:Individuals by location of residence, as some of the categories on this page are a little different in scope, like Category:Individuals who have been inside Bianca's Cabaret, Category:Bowie Base One crew and Category:Travellers. Danochy ☎  02:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Category:Individuals by place of residence (or similar) would be fine by me, though it is almost all the subcategories. Though Bianca's Cabaret brings to mind some other categories, like Category:Individuals who have been inside the Doctor's TARDIS and Category:Individuals who have been to Maruthea, which interestingly enough belong to Category:Individuals by association? Something to discuss, for sure. 08:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Category:Individuals who have been inside the Doctor's TARDIS etc. were probably placed in Individuals by association as an oversight, since "having been to X place" doesn't say much about one's asssociations. Something like Category:Bowie Base One crew could be in both (more specifically place of residence), but I'd argue Category:Individuals who attended Coal Hill School shouldn't be added here, since the scope of that category is "individuals associated with the school" rather than "anyone who's been on the premises". That seems a sensible place to draw the line. Even if a category makes reference to a place, if "having been there" or "having lived there" is not the main factor, it belongs somewhere else, like Category:Individuals by association or Category:Individuals by employer. 08:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is actually some consistency in the use of "inhabitants" vs "residents", by the way. Though some may have missed this, "inhabitants" has been for planets, and "residents" has been for smaller places, like cities or villages. Then again, one of the oldest subcats here — Residents of Gallifrey — goes against that principle.
 * (In real world terms, the main difference between those terms would be that "residents" have homes, while "inhabitant" could mean anyone on the planet. Or that "residents" share a community with others in the category, while "inhabitants" might just have their general location in common with the others.) 08:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's a good point vis-à-vis inhabitants. I do like that distinction actually, it does sound more proper to refer to an inhabitant of a planet rather than a resident.
 * Also, in further support of the creation of Category:Individuals by place of residence, the category could also be placed in Category:Individuals by association. In addition to here, of course. A person's residence certainly does say something about their association, which, as you say, does not apply to all the subcategories in this category. So "place of residence" subcategory would serve as a nice way to store this set of subcategories which definitionally belong in both. Danochy ☎  05:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)