I agree that "well-known" languages shouldn't be wikified, but I don't see either
- who decides which languages qualify as "well-known," or
- why any language names should be wikified.
Having some names wikified and others not, just makes lists of languages (translations, e.g.) look really ugly and unprofessional. Besides, if anyone really wants to know what a language is like, they'll just look it up, won't they? We don't need to provide links like Hebrew and Scottish Gaelic on every single Wiktionary page. (PS: It's "Scottish Gaelic," according to Wikipedia.)
Is there a talk page where discussion of the above-mentioned "policy" would be appropriate? --Quuxplusone 01:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I recall seeing this discussion in the tea room (but perhaps my memory is incorrect; it could just as easily have been the beer parlour.) The distinction, IIRC, is not "well known" but rather if the language name itself is the same as the name of the people who speak it. Yiddish vs. Hebrew or French vs. French. I'm sure someone will correct me on the precise subtlety or the rule... --Connel MacKenzie 04:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)