I, too, wish to have my talk page Flow-enabled. Both on mw.org and enwiki.

I see that there's no big opposition, so I decided to be bold and created https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Flow/Volunteers_to_test .

This idea comes up every now and then in ca.wikipedia.org (last time, these days).

I added what I see as the requirements for this to the description.

Explicitly tell possible adopters they may miss some automated messages until the bot-writers adopt Flow

Just curious, what messages are these? I get an email notification every time someone/something edits my user Talk page, and that would be the expectation with a Flow user Talk page.

Also, considering that the task defined here referers to opt-in testers, I think we can relax all the requirements in order to start sooner than later. With the feedback based on the real use by these opt-in testers, you will be able to evaluate better what needs to be prioritized. As per the communication blockers, they seem pretty simple for our very competent community liaisons. :)

Some of us want to support Flow with our own feet. Please allow us to help you promoting this little sweet feature from our user talk pages.

In T90383#1112451, @Qgil wrote:

Explicitly tell possible adopters they may miss some automated messages until the bot-writers adopt Flow

Just curious, what messages are these?

Anything sent by MassMessage?
https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-extensions-MassMessage/blob/f8d8c93f01bbde52891f45e66078142af90b41a6/includes/job/MassMessageJob.php#L172-L180

SuggestBot?

Please also consider that this turns everyone wishing to contact you into guinea pigs too, not just yourself. That is bound to cause some uneasiness, especially on certain wikis that are uneasy by default. (I have no strong feelings about this feature request myself.)

@He7d3r, MassMessage posts to Flow boards just fine (despite T86812, which is only a minor inconvenience). The other bots are indeed a concern. But if most bots are posting new sections, would there be any way to engineer it such that a request to post to a new section on a talk page is interpreted as posting a new thread on a Flow board?

EDIT: I now see that my above idea was rejected in T59989. Well, carry on, then.

In T90383#1113016, @Harej wrote:

@He7d3r, MassMessage posts to Flow boards just fine (despite T86812, which is only a minor inconvenience).

Oh, great! Thanks for confirming.

The other bots are indeed a concern. But if most bots are posting new sections, would there be any way to engineer it such that a request to post to a new section on a talk page is interpreted as posting a new thread on a Flow board?

EDIT: I now see that my above idea was rejected in T59989. Well, carry on, then.

That.

In T90383#1113156, @He7d3r wrote:

In T90383#1113016, @Harej wrote:

The other bots are indeed a concern. But if most bots are posting new sections, would there be any way to engineer it such that a request to post to a new section on a talk page is interpreted as posting a new thread on a Flow board?

EDIT: I now see that my above idea was rejected in T59989. Well, carry on, then.

That.

Getting an example of a bot-upgrade (diffs that we can point to), and the clearest (shortest) possible documentation for ease-of-upgrade, is T92470: Provide examples and documentation for adding flow-support to bot-owners, and once that is done I'll start posting links and requests to bot-wranglers, at all wikis that currently have Flow.

Please enable flow in Gujarati Wikipedia for my talk page [User talk:KartikMistry|talk]]

Thanks!