Liudolfing or should it be Liudolfinger?

Question

We have bunches of Liudolfing profiles, including Heinrich I. The family name in the literature is Liudolfinger (including in the English at least newer literature, see for instance Charles Cawley). Given our naming conventions (Use theirs not ours ...) should this be addressed?

Comments

The offical first person of this dynasty was Liudolf (+11 March 866); so the dynasty was called Liudolfinger.

If you use the name as first name or as surname it would be Liudolf. Liudolfinger is only the name of the dynasty.

After Otto I. (936–973) was crowned in 962 emperor of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nations the Liudolfinger were called Ottonen.

Answer 1

Depends doesn't it?  If Liudolfing is a place name (von Liudolfing) then is Liudolfinger simply the adjectival form?  Have you seen Liudolfingerin for the feminine?

Comments

Liudolfing is not based on a placename, but on an ancestor's name, Liudolf.

Answer 2

LiudolfingER is basically German. Some writers in English use German terminology for German topics, but I would be cautious about seeing MEDLANDS as typical. I would suggest looking around at more secondary publications before deciding.

Comments

The Liudolfinger were a German family and by WikiTree convention we are supposed to use the native language for names and places. Nowhere in the German literature is Liudolfing for the family ever used. In that sense it is in my opinion irrelevant if English secondary literature calls the family Liudolfing and I mentioned Charles Cawley only as an easily accessible example, not because I think he is the ultimate authority (I have my own peeves with some of his conclusions).

---

Yes, but I was not considering which nationality this individual had, just answering the remarks made so far without thinking too hard. (Some of these dynasties were of course quite international.)