The names of languages which are expected to be well-known among English speakers are not to be wikified, while language names which may not be known to the average person or are potentially subject to confusion are to be wikified. Details and a list of affected languages are listed on Wiktionary:Translations/Wikification.
SupportDan Polansky (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Linking no language is one of the two most simple policies with close to no disadvantages: at worst, the person who does not know the language can select the name in Wiktionary, copy it to clipboard, and paste it to Wiktionary search field. Pasting the language name to Wikipedia could be more useful anyway. ---Dan Polansky (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
OpposeDAVilla 04:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I don't think it necessary to link nearly as many languages as we do. The top 40 rule was rather arbitrary from the beginning. Still, I'm not against linking some of the really obscure languages, and there still might be good reason for others, per EncycloPetey.
OpposeEncycloPetey (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC) There are some languages that are regularly confused by name (e.g., Scots vs. Scots Gaelic), and a link cannot but help disambiguate them. I wouldn't mind linking less, but think we ought to link some. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know. The title of that section is "Poll: language linking in translation sections", but then the options include "I want all language templates to be unlinked" and "I want all language templates to be linked". So that section was clearly set up under the assumption that one does imply the other, and most voters seem to have shared that assumption, in that only one voter (yourself) seems to have even noticed that the assumption was being made; everyone else seems to have either taken it for granted without thinking, or else must have considered the distinction and not minded. —RuakhTALK 01:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Either way, language names in translation sections have been unlinked. This link is an amusing mass-unlinking in water, for example. --Daniel 09:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
@Ruakh I totally agree, very well explained. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)