There clearly isn't consensus on all the aliases listed here. So, what is the justification for requesting all of them?

There's enough support for Alias 2 on that bnwiki discussion. I don't see the necessity of implementing other ones.

In T382822#10424998, @Yahya wrote:

There clearly isn't consensus on all the aliases listed here. So, what is the justification for requesting all of them?

Initially, I also intended to achieve consensus on the aliases. However, I realized that consensus is not mandatory in this case, as this is primarily about improving usability for different user groups. For example, Avro users have a specific way of typing, while Bijoy or National users have different needs. Therefore, the software should evolve based on user feedback.

Secondly, all the listed proposals have received more than one support:

• The first proposal received two supports. I primarily applied Aftabuzzaman Bhai's suggestion here as he suggested to keep both.
• The second proposal gained support from over 10 contributors.
• The third and fourth proposals have 3–4 endorsements each.

Only Delwar Akram Bhai’s proposal did not receive support or feedback, which is why it wasn’t included in this request."

You sought community input, some members opposed certain aliases, and now you've concluded that community consensus isn't required? Does this mean you intended to bypass community agreement? I supported option two, which clearly indicates that I do not support the other options, and the same holds true for others. Regardless of what is stated elsewhere, no feature or configuration change should be implemented without community agreement.

In T382822#10425069, @Yahya wrote:

You sought community input, some members opposed certain aliases, and now you've concluded that community consensus isn't required? Does this mean you intended to bypass community agreement? I supported option two, which clearly indicates that I do not support the other options, and the same holds true for others. Regardless of what is stated elsewhere, no feature or configuration change should be implemented without community agreement.

WP:CONSENSUS or [WP:PRACTICAL] state: In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace.

The point of my second conversation was to know that, If there is any possibility of global interwiki links in Bengali, what would our next step be? However, a quick discussion on Meta-Wiki clarified that non-Latin interwiki links are unlikely. On the other hand, our first conversation gathered more support for the first option.

Anyway, if you believe this goes against WP:CONSENSUS, feel free to close it as invalid. I’m not willing to spend two hours arguing for something that offers just 20 minutes of convenience—I can easily switch keyboards if needed.

@DreamRimmer, I'm not entirely sure about the appropriateness of this "under discussion" flag/tag—whether it's right or wrong. While @Yahya initiated a WP:CONSENSUS discussion here, neither he nor anyone else has provided comments on-wiki, specifically on the Noticeboard. However, I did comment in this discussion, and no one opposed my input.

From reading the above comments, it seems that this needs more discussion, but you are free to move it back to the Backlog board.

If you look at https://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B6%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B7:NamespaceInfo you can see that these all have local names already.

However, the following don't:

• 126 MOS
• 710 TimedText
• 1728 Event

These probably should be aliased first?