Talk:Kanban (development)/Archives/2017

Kanban Board Example
The Kanban board example on the page is very hard to read and understand because it uses a table format. I created and shared a simple replacement here:



Andycarmichaeluk (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that's a pdf. If it were in svg format, that would be the best. Alternately, a png would be the next best option. Agree that the table is a bit hard to read. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's the png. Couldn't get an svg from the version of PowerPoint I was using. Andycarmichaeluk (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's great. Feel free to add it to the article and remove the table. Don't add it as a thumbnail though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Put it in as "Basic" format. Doesn't display a caption which might be useful (e.g. "Example kanban board for product development") and it does look a bit like a thumbnail. Any way I hope you think it's an improvement. Andycarmichaeluk (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

"Overview" section - complete revamp needed
Instead of providing a succinct impartial overview about the topic and its general development, the section has evolved into an indiscriminate list of authors and publications with short snippets of information. Such list-y sections are discouraged, information should be presented as detailed prose in topical context. Instead of a "author X says this" and "author Y says that" list, the topic should be described in 2-3 compact paragraphs outlining only the most significant facts and developments - secondary or tangential publications should be omitted (not every publication with "Kanban" in its title needs mentioning). Another point: apparently there are 2 (or more?) opposing schools of thought on Kanban and its basic principles. These differing views should be distinguished as clearly as possible, with a fair and balanced description of all relevant opinions (Wikipedia is no platform to lobby for either of them). As I am not an expert, and to avoid edit-warring, I just note these concerns here - the article and the "Overview" section in particular need more work from topic experts. GermanJoe (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I have taken that suggestion and ran with it. Restructured the ever-growing list of authors and dates into relevant distinct topics and distributed throughout the rest of the article. Davidjcmorris  Talk  20:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Kanban (development)
Mr. Moroe A D Monroe III, first I do agree a conversation is needed to make the Kanban page more useful to the general public. The page showing now, is not a good reference to people, it lacks current developments, and it is in my view deficient even in basic concept. Let's talk about how we can improve it, I first was going to undo your changes, but that leads nowhere. A conversation is better. What do you suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeLeanVoice (talk • contribs) 13:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * First, thanks for following WP:BRD and reaching out to get consensus rather than just repeatedly reinstating edits.
 * As stated, I'm worried about the tone being introduced. If we allow the article to sound like an ad promoting Kanban development, it will lose credibility with our readers.  See WP:PROMO.
 * The type of sources used affects this. primary sources -- ones written by those closely involved with the subject -- should generally only be used to make article statements in their voice, such as "according to [primary source name], [their statement]".  To avoid that, we need to use secondary sources.
 * Also as stated, one edit with many different changes is hard to discuss effectively. Making a separate discussion sections for each specific issue -- the statement or paragraph that needs to be updated, along with why and how -- will help ensure progress on improving the article.  One discussion at a time is a big help, also.  Thanks.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  15:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Fellow editors, and especially Mr. Moroe A D Monroe III there are many aspects of this page that are either out of date, or incomplete. The main thing IMHO is that Kanban is no longer just owned by David Anderson, there are many approaches to the method such as Scrumban, Personal Kanban, the Kanban Ace framework just to name a few. How about a section entitled "Current Implementations" or "Kanban Versions"?OrangeLeanVoice (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the Overview section since it seemed and sounded like an ad, instead we should have a Kanban Implementations, a Timeline or a Kanban Evolution section, which is still lacking from this article. I will not write that one until some agreement is reached, however restoring the previous entry was wrong, and is a disservice to the Wikipedia readers.OrangeLeanVoice (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I will start improving the article based on the solid example provided by the Scrum entry, it is a good guideline since it includes history, adaptations, criticism, and much more. I will do it step by step to get feedback from the other fellow editors.OrangeLeanVoice (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Point of order: it's not good to make changes to the article during a discussion that involves those changes. Per WP:BRD, wait for consensus to form first.  I've restored the Overview section due to this.
 * We haven't established all the individual issues beyond "up-to-date", which is too vague to usefully discuss.
 * On just "Kanban versions", can you start a separate discussion section on that, identifying the versions? --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  17:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)