Hi. We recommend enabling Flow on 2 standard pages as the first step (a feedback page for Flow itself, and a sandbox page). If that seems reasonable, I suggest doing that for a week, before enabling the beta feature - this will give you time to check translations, and to test it out without adding noise to your personal talkpages. I believe at Cswiki those would be:

• Diskuse_k_Wikipedii:Flow
• Diskuse_k_Wikipedii:Flow/Pískoviště

Is that accurate?
Please confirm that plan and the page-names, and we can do that immediately. Then in a week, I would post a question at Diskuse_k_Wikipedii:Flow, to ask for confirmation that there is still consensus to enable the beta feature.
Suggestions/corrections to those details, are welcome. :-)

In T119351#1826677, @Quiddity wrote:

Hi. We recommend enabling Flow on 2 standard pages as the first step (a feedback page for Flow itself, and a sandbox page). If that seems reasonable, I suggest doing that for a week, before enabling the beta feature - this will give you time to check translations, and to test it out without adding noise to your personal talkpages. I believe at Cswiki those would be:

• Diskuse_k_Wikipedii:Flow
• Diskuse_k_Wikipedii:Flow/Pískoviště

Is that accurate?
Please confirm that plan and the page-names, and we can do that immediately. Then in a week, I would post a question at Diskuse_k_Wikipedii:Flow, to ask for confirmation that there is still consensus to enable the beta feature.
Suggestions/corrections to those details, are welcome. :-)

We had discussed this possibility before we created this task here (as you can see in discussion in the task's desc) and we agree, but could you give us more than a week before you ask for confirmation there? I think it's better to have more time to test it and get some additional feedback. Page names are correct.

In T119351#1827555, @Dvorapa wrote:

but could you give us more than a week before you ask for confirmation there? I think it's better to have more time to test it and get some additional feedback. Page names are correct.

Of course. I'll ask in 2-3 weeks, if I don't hear from you before that.
I've enabled flow at:

• https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskuse_k_Wikipedii:Flow
• https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskuse_k_Wikipedii:Flow/Pískoviště

There's a very short version of the Flow product's description, at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Flow/Description which you might want to translate at [[cs:Wikipedie:Flow]]. (I do not recommend translating the entire large main page, at this moment, because there will hopefully be some significant changes to the main [[mw:Flow]] documentation in the next few months.)
Thanks again. :-)

In T119351#1829920, @Quiddity wrote:

In T119351#1827555, @Dvorapa wrote:

but could you give us more than a week before you ask for confirmation there? I think it's better to have more time to test it and get some additional feedback. Page names are correct.

Of course. I'll ask in 2-3 weeks, if I don't hear from you before that.
I've enabled flow at:

• https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskuse_k_Wikipedii:Flow
• https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskuse_k_Wikipedii:Flow/Pískoviště

There's a very short version of the Flow product's description, at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Flow/Description which you might want to translate at [[cs:Wikipedie:Flow]]. (I do not recommend translating the entire large main page, at this moment, because there will hopefully be some significant changes to the main [[mw:Flow]] documentation in the next few months.)
Thanks again. :-)

Thank you for activating and sharing a link, I quickly translated some parts of this description so far. We'll see, how it'll be shaping up.

Would it be possible to set $wgFlowContentFormat to "wikitext", to be able to test Flow in the way, that is compatible with non-Flow discussants?

@Teslaton: $wgFlowContentFormat is only configurable for environments that don't have Parsoid (like Flow test infrastructure) vs. those that do (it's faster to store as HTML and not having to parse it every time). It has nothing to do with compatibility for wikitext pages.
$wgFlowContentFormat only defines how each individual post is stored: wikitext or html. But the posts are all still stored independently, in a certain hierarchy: there is no way to view (or edit) them as 1 large wikitext page.

Thanks for the explanation, Matthias. But then - is there any sane way for Flow-enabled and non Flow-enabled users to discuss/collaborate on the same talk page? If there's no such way, I don't really understand the purpose of proposed Flow opt-in/opt-out games. NonFlow-ers won't be able to discuss on talk pages, created by Flow-ers (while Flow-ers will still be able to discuss on classic wiki talk pages), which is quite asymmetric outcome and it will, de facto, force all to use Flow...

Opting in will only convert your own talk page to Flow. Regardless of their own preferences, everyone visiting your talk page will see the Flow board in interact with it as such. Everyone visiting the talk page of someone who didn't opt in will just see the wikitext talk page.

NonFlow-ers will be able to discuss on Flow-ers talk pages, but they'll use Flow. Flow'ers will be able to discuss on nonFlow-ers talk pages, but they'll use wikitext.

OK, that makes sense (and is kind of symmetrical, in its own way), but to be true, somehow I've hoped, that Flow is implemented in a way, backward compatible with wikitext content format, so that common things, like diffs over multiple revisions, diffs from watchlist/RC, markup operations over single or multiple comments (copying, moving, merging, quoting/reusing on wikimarkup level) and particularly, the ability of posting comments using both approaches will be preserved. Sadly, that seems not to be the case.

@Quiddity We already vote for a consensus here. We made some testing and experiments and we've found too many issues (and some of them too major unfortunately), therefore our attitude to Flow looks like to be more negative than positive. I may terminate the voting around friday.

@Quiddity Finally we end up with 3 agreed, 7 disagreed (see more). You could close this task.

@Quiddity Thank you. We listed some problems in sections "Problémy", "Stížnost" and "Flow - co s ním?" here and some others here, here and here. I wanted to add tasks on Phabricator later.