Talk:Джигарханян

@Benwing2 Feminine surnames like this one, ending in consonants are, unlike the masculine counterparts, indeclinable. Is there a way to mark it with the template? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Atitarev Well, under Клинтон and some other entries, the masculine and feminine forms are formatted under separate headers and sections. You could also write something like the following, with two headers under one section:

Джигарханя́н • (Džigarxanján) m anim (genitive Джигарханя́на, nominative plural Джигарханя́ны, genitive plural Джигарханя́нов)
Джигарханя́н • (Džigarxanján) f anim (indeclinable)

Potentially the template could be modified to support something like this more directly but I'm not sure what the layout should be. If you have suggestions let me know and I may be able to implement it. Benwing2 (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Benwing2 I am not sure myself. Let's get back to it later. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Atitarev OK. Benwing2 (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Atitarev, {{name translit}} should be used in the definition line, not the etymology. See its documentation. --Vahag (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: I am cool with that but that's also the etymology, the etymology section is probably made redundant with a more detailed definition. It seems adding {{bor}} on surnames would be flooding the "borrowed from" category. Please take a look at e.g. Шеварднадзе. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Ideally, IMO, the two templates I used on two definition lines should be combined into one. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the second definition so as not to flood Category:Russian surnames which I think should be kept for surnames of Russians. But Westerners on this website do not agree with my definition of nationality. Vahag (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: I see what you mean. I don't fully agree with e.g. "* surnames" (as in this entry) but "* surnames from *" makes more sense to add for very commonly used surnames. E.g. Kardashian is probably perceived more as an English surname (but borrowed from Armenian). It would be educational and make both camps happy, IMO again.

Note that the 2nd definition has a surname, Jigarkhanyan or Dzhigarkhanyan, from Armenian not Russian surname ... from, which may be more appropriate (?) in some other cases but not in this one.

I think we should revisit surnames as nothing seems perfect. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Atitarev, I completely agree. I have the same concern. You can remove the redundant etymology section. Vahag (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)