I've just started learning a little Afrikaans, which is a lot of fun (like Dutch but easier!) and reminds me Yinglish in an alternate universe, for some reason. (Maybe all West Germanic languages do that when they lose their conjugations and declensions.)
Anyway, the reason I brought this up is because you seem to have added some Afrikaans in Arabic script, and I have no idea why. Sure, a lot of languages have been written in other scripts, but most of them not often enough to merit adding entries in it. I had never seen this phenomenon before, and I don't think we should have entries for it. What do you think?
If it's attestable, then it can be included, right? CFI doesn't say anything about scripts.
My implication is that it's not attestable. Afrikaans needs three uses. But I'd rather just have a policy, just like our policy of keeping Yiddish terms in their Hebrew script forms only, even though Yiddish is written in Latin as well. As WT:AYI says, Latin script can be used to attest to the existence of a word, but the entry should always be in the Hebrew script.
The difference is that Afrikaans was at one point legitimately written in Arabic script: w:Arabic Afrikaans. From Wiktionary's point of view it's a dead language, really, so it kind of qualifies for LDL because there is so little of it. But it's definitely more than just "oh let's write it in Arabic for the fun of it". The Afrikaans Wiktionary itself also includes it in its entries.
Thanks for the link. Might still be easier to call it a separate L2, because a Serbo-Croatian-esque solution will look stupid here, giving way too much precedence to a basically extinct sublect.
That's why there were separate categories for it, but you deleted them. I would compare it more to Old Church Slavonic in Glagolitic. It was never as common as Cyrillic (except in Croatia) and most textbooks on OCS consider only the Cyrillic variety. But we still consider them one language.