Talk:Kanban board

Signification of "Kanban"
Kanban is japanesse and means just "board" or white board or "signalisation" (board for traffic). So your titel means board board ! --Cosy-ch (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I came here to make the same comment.  The phrase "kanban board" seems to be redundant, since only the word "kanban" is necessary.  Speaking of redundancy, this article should be merged into the Kanban article.  --Lance E Sloan (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Kanban has changed from a noun to a verb to describe a "process" - not unlike Kaizen. Good observation, and perhaps it needs to be included in the article formally in some way. Nodekeeper (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Although "Kanban" might translate to "board", "billboard", or "card" in Japanese, in English people are not necessarily know this. Also the "Kanban Board" is in reference to "Board" being listed in online systems as a tool inside PM software. Those same Boards can usually be used for SCRUM also. I would disagree that "Kanban Board" should be either renamed and also no merged. These are different concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:8700:93F8:191C:8903:73FC:FE06 (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Article merge proposal
I propose that Kanban_board be merged into Kanban. The content in the Kanban_board article can easily be explained in the context of Kanban, and the Kanban article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Kanban_board will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. --Lance E Sloan (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the page is useful in itself. If it is merged it is probably more relevant to Kanban (development) to which most of the examples relate, than the more manufacturing-focused Kanban Andycarmichaeluk (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe that the Kanban_board and Kanban pages remain separate. The Kanban page talks about the process from a generic sense. The Kanban_board page talks of an implementation of Kanban, but not the only one. Tommoseley (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem is that there are different "types" of kanban that have arisen other than for "lean manufacturing" e.g. general workflow that the primary kanban article does not yet include (and probably should be added). I am certain that kanban and kanban (development) really need to be separate articles perhaps with a separate introductory paragraph for development in the kanban article instead of having a redirect at the top. Additionally, the kanban article probably needs to have a bigger "origins" (or history? - especially how it it relates to Deming and the Deming circle).
 * So by time all that is added, the kanban article has become too large to include kanban board. So as it stands, it's probably a bad idea to merge the two at this time as it will eventually need to be undone later on. Kanban and kanban_board are "stub" quality articles. A lot of time and collaboration needs to be spent on this/these article(s), and a merge is just too simplistic of an option. Nodekeeper (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I furthermore contend the suggestion for a merge. Kanban board (The Project Management procedure) and Kanban (The Manufacturing trend) are totally different. Is it time for the merge to be redacted? ItsPugle (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, shall we consider it decided? Let's remove the banner suggesting the merge? 142.166.168.10 (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I second the idea to not merge it, a Kanban board section already exists in the Kanban article, but is far smaller and brief, to keep the overall article within reasonable size. However I will link that article to this page, which I think is quite useful to keep separate.OrangeLeanVoice (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I second the thought of not merging Kanban and the Kanban board. Kanban is a process that came about from manufacturing and is a general process that can be applied to any process to achieve efficiency. The Kanban board is very limited in its usage only in development. This will eliminate the ideal use of Kanban in places where it would be a good fit other than development — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.8.254 (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding open source tools?
Open source tools don't have Wikipedia pages. So, how to include them? --Sriram vodafone (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * If they are notable, please write an article about them first based on independent reliable sources. If they are not "notable", they are generally not included in such lists. This principle is applied to most topics, open source or not doesn't matter in this regard. GermanJoe (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)