type of item

intercog

It seems that most of the options regarding type of item is a list that does not represent as well as it could contemporary realities. I can't understand why "website" is not an option to reference - yet "computer program" & "blog post" are. It seems that the thinking involved in compiling the list of options has defaulted to a granular approach. But sometimes, a website represents a resource aggregation just as a book does. Please add this item

Gracile

There's a webpage item, read this: http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/11977/item-type-bug/

[You can also read the very first post here (§4): http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/15636/1/changes-to-fields-and-item-types-for-zotero-31-/ ]

intercog

hmmm, I've reviewed those comments & still think there is a big difference between a webpage (the "granular" default) & a website

adamsmith

that has come up before. I understand the difference, but is it relevant bibliographically? How - apart from the name - is the webpage item type insufficient for citing websites (and storing all the relevant information about them).

intercog

well, what's relevant is contextual. There's a definite bias in the list of item types as it is. I want to reference a website that contains a number of reports & fact sheets -- so it is a resource aggregation in the same way that some books are. The anomaly for me is seeing that blogpost, computer program, email, forum post, etc all are listed as valid items (as "granular" items, moreover -- but there is nothing for website. And having said that, I don't even see "webpage" as an item type, despite the older discussion suggesting there is. I'd also like to see "policy" as an item type

adamsmith

we're not getting anywhere this way.
Re-read the introductory post here:
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/15636/1/changes-to-fields-and-item-types-for-zotero-31-/
to understand the basic philosophy of item types. See some of the productive discussion in that thread for examples of what's helpful - what fields are needed, what's required for correct citation.

For the webpage item type see Gracile's other link. It exists.

Existing item types aren't necessarily an argument - I think if we were to do things over, e.g. e-mail and blogpost might well disappear (but can't for legacy reasons).

intercog

OK, I can appreciate some of that but I'm not convinced. That doesn't mean I don't think Zotero is not an excellent tool, because it is. But in terms of "organising" items my default thinking (which has its own bias) is that being able to quickly distinguish between a report, document, & website is useful. I don't just use Zotero for citation, & if I did, it would be rare that the item types would be mentioned anyway. But for now, I will use the workaround that Gracile has pointed me to. Thanks

dstillman

being able to quickly distinguish between a report, document, & website is useful

And you can do all those things now, because those are all existing types.

I don't just use Zotero for citation, & if I did, it would be rare that the item types would be mentioned anyway.

It's not that the item types are "mentioned" in the style output—it's that the item types affect how the item data is styled, according to the rules of the style manual.

That said, I've always agreed that there's organizational value in item types as well, and there may be more flexibility here in the future. For now, though, it has to be balanced with the additional complexity it causes for style authors/maintainers. If you feel there's still a compelling case for a particular item type, you can suggest it, but I'd say there's very little chance of adding a "website" type when there's already a "webpage".

But for now, I will use the workaround that Gracile has pointed me to.

It's not really a workaround. The point is that, if you're creating a webpage item manually instead of using Create New Item from Current Page, there's a good chance you're doing it wrong and wasting your own time. (There might be some rare situations where that's not the case, but generally it is.) That's why it's not in the New Item list by default, as explained in that thread.