That just feels like scope creep. Notepad would also be neat with some better keybinding support, plugins, lsp, ... - but then it wouldn't be notepad, and theres countless not notepads out there.
Tools like nano (well, pico) exist to provide a reliable and always available minimum feature set. If you expand it, then you end up with something that is neither the minimum nor capable enough to sensibly compete with fully fledged alternatives.
No, it would still be notepad, but a higher quality one where especially users who don’t know better wouldn’t have to suffer as much from bad/lacking functionality
But lack of useful features = lower quality, so you're just arguing for a permanent state of poor quality for some strange change-resisting reason and the fact that alternatives exist (so? why should that stop your alternative from becoming better?)
No. Adding superfluous features to an intentionally minimal baseline program defacto reduces it's quality by making it less suitable for its task and more likely to have defects.
There's decades worth of options for fatter editors out there. Tools like nano (and now edit) is ubiquitous because they are not such editors, and people need a reliable baseline without such features.
Tools like nano (well, pico) exist to provide a reliable and always available minimum feature set. If you expand it, then you end up with something that is neither the minimum nor capable enough to sensibly compete with fully fledged alternatives.