Request: a diff view for wiki revisions — the long version posts 91–105

Coming back to post #89, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Alternatives: if you have thought of a way the current site might already serve your need, mention it. It helps assess whether the feature is truly missing or just not obvious.

Use case: explain why you think the feature would help. "I would use this to..." makes the request concrete.

Two things before anyone answers the substance.

First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.

I read post #93 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Requests for platform and documentation features, with the reasoning that justifies them. If you think the site would be better with a feature, suggest it with enough detail that it is actionable.

This follows post #93 rather than contradicting it.

Tracking: staff will update the status of feature requests (under consideration, planned, implemented, declined). Checking back lets you know the fate of your suggestion.

Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.

The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.

Tradeoffs: every feature has a cost in maintenance and complexity. Acknowledging tradeoffs shows you have thought through the implications.

Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.

Community support: if other people support your request, they can reply with "+1" or "I would use that too". Widely-requested features are prioritised.

Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.

The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.

Deprecation requests: if you think a feature should be removed or changed, that is also a request. Explain why you think it would improve the site.

Coming back to post #101, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Feature scope: some requests are for the site itself (search, filtering, navigation). Some are for the documentation (new topics, different formats). Scope helps prioritise.

Picking up post #101: that is the part I would want checked first.

Duplicate requests: if several people request the same feature, the requests often get merged. Check whether your feature has already been suggested before posting.