Who Decided That We’re Called ‘Lubbockites’?

Is the suffix -ites a grammar thing?

I have used the term "Lubbockian" (pronounced Lub-boke-ee-an) before and received some amused looks. It seems the preferred term is "Lubbockites," and it got me wondering...why?

The good thing about Lubbockites over Lubbockians is that the town's name does not have to be obliterated in order for it to be used. The actual suffix -ite means "a native or inhabitant of," so it's 100 percent grammatically correct. Apparently, -ite is always correct, but if it's always correct, would someone be a "Tahoka-ite" or a "Tahokite"? (Once again destroying the town's name while denoting the person's origin.)

Let's take this down a tunnel of confusion and ask the question, why does this appear to change when it comes to states? We are not "Texites" or "Arizonaites," we're Texans and Arizonians.

Are you ready for a third option? Yes, there is a third option. Apparently, we could also be "Lubbockers." From what I can tell, -ite, -ian, and -er are all "demonyms" which denote where you're from. I've read multiple articles on this and I still can't make heads or tails of why one is used and why another isn't.

It seems to me that there are probably a lot of other things to consider here, but I think we're going to need someone to step in with a guest article to completely explain this. I'm ready to be shown the light.

If you have a high command of grammar and the English language and would like to explain this, please know that you'd not only be enlightening Lubbock folk, but folks everywhere. Hit me up if you can explain this better.