Dear all, there's a part of the Koha set-up i found always creates a lot of confusion with new libraries: the possibility of having the item type taken into account for circulation rules at the item or at the bibliographic level (the item-level_itypes system preference). Things are to a certain extent made worse by the French translation for item type, which translates back to "document type". That translation does make sense to some extent though, because if you decide to use "bibliographic level item types" then "item types" sounds like the wrong name. In a lot of libraries you do want to have a list of document types here, but not always. There are 2 features behind this : identifying item types (search and display), and defining circulation rules. Koha allows you to separate both, and a common scenario is to have the system preference at item level, and a different piece of information at the bibliographic level. This is because at the bibliographic level, you can say for instance that this record is of the "novel" type, and indeed all items attached to it will be novels, and it has a couple items, one of which is a physical copy, another one is an ebook, and a third one is a physical copy as well, but linked to different circulation rules for some reason. So usually the type at the bibliographic level makes a lot of sense for searching, and the one at the item level much less. Unfortunately in that case, the one at the item-level will be the one used for searching, identifying, etc. I am curious to know whether the current wording and situation is confusing for other users as well. My proposal would be to add a "record type", that would look very much just as "item type" does. The system preference could be reworded but the feature remain the same. It would just clarify things, and we could get rid of the "document type" terminology, which currently, in French, ends up being very confusing since most of the time it defines circulation rules and is not linked to what librarians would see under the "document type" taxonomy. My guess is that in English, there's a similar ambiguity with "item type" possibly ending at the bibliographic level. What is your experience on this? Does this seem like a good idea to clear things up? Best, -- Gaetan Boisson Chef de projet bibliothécaire BibLibre +33(0)6 52 42 51 29 108 rue Breteuil 13006 Marseille gaetan.boisson@biblibre.com