https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=24125 --- Comment #1 from Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl> --- (In reply to Nick Clemens from comment #0)

To recreate: 1 - Find a record with an author linked to an authority 2 - Get that authority number 3 - Browse to tools->batch record deletion 4 - Select authorities and enter that authority id 5 - Delete the authority 6 - View the record, the 100 field has been cleared

Is that really a bug or actually what you should expect? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=24125 Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-c | |ommunity.org --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org> --- We are restricting the deletion on the detail of the authority record, so it would make sense to not allow the deletion using the batch tools. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=24125 --- Comment #5 from Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer@bsz-bw.de> --- Hm, radio button? If there are linked bibliographic records - Delete only the linking field ($9, UNIMARC?) - Delete the whole entry - Don't delete authority record -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=24125 David Cook <dcook@prosentient.com.au> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dcook@prosentient.com.au -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=24125 Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Deleting an authority |Batch delete should not |clears the record heading |remove authorities that are | |still in use -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=24125 --- Comment #7 from Phil Ringnalda <phil@chetcolibrary.org> --- Probably just need two choices for the radio button, unlink and delete, since we already have the don't delete option as a "Clear used authorities" link. FWIW, I use this feature precisely for what it currently does, delete an unwanted authority record and delete the bib fields using it, all the time. Having it removed rather than just put behind a radio button choice, so that I would have to decide each time between manually editing a bunch of bib records, or writing a targetted MARC modification template to delete any 100/600/700/800 or 110/610/710/810, etc., with a particular authid, would be a frustrating step backward. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=24125 --- Comment #8 from Esther Melander <esther.melander@bywatersolutions.com> --- I like having an option to unlink versus delete. Does the unlink here retain the authority record in the system? If so, won't the authority in the bibliographic record eventually relink if AutoLinkBiblios, CatalogModuleRelink, and LinkerRelink are enabled? If I wanted to batch delete authorities that are in use, the system should unlink and then delete, while retaining the authority in the bibliographic record. That retention step is perhaps the part that should be optional. I can see cases where the authority in the bibliographic record is retained and cases where it is not. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=24125 Miranda Nero <mnero@oslri.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mnero@oslri.net -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=24125 Brendan Lawlor <blawlor@clamsnet.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |blawlor@clamsnet.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=24125 Andreas Roussos <a.roussos@dataly.gr> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |a.roussos@dataly.gr -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=24125 Bernard <bernard.scaife@openfifth.co.uk> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bernard.scaife@openfifth.co | |.uk --- Comment #10 from Bernard <bernard.scaife@openfifth.co.uk> --- Here is a use case for allowing links only to be removed and the biblio field to be retained. I migrated a file of authority records and ran link_bibs.... We then found the file was incorrect and generated a new one. I ran batch delete authorities for that authority type, loaded my new file and ran link_bibs... It was unable to link because the biblio fields had gone! As this was part of the original biblio record metadata, it caused a bit of a headache. So I vote for at least an option to retain those fields but remove the link. Bernard -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.