Bug 11844: (follow-up) Fix terminology: biblio should be bibliographic record
This is about the note displaying after an additional field that is linked to a MARC field. Signed-off-by: Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer@bsz-bw.de> Signed-off-by: Michaela Sieber <michaela.sieber@kit.edu> Signed-off-by: Martin Renvoize <martin.renvoize@ptfs-europe.com> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
108cebeea1
commit
6d81cc6f99
1 changed files with 2 additions and 2 deletions
|
@ -59,9 +59,9 @@
|
|||
[% END %]
|
||||
|
||||
[% IF field.marcfield && field.marcfield_mode == 'get' %]
|
||||
This value will be filled with the [% field.marcfield | html %] subfield of the selected biblio.
|
||||
This value will be filled with the [% field.marcfield | html %] subfield of the selected bibliographic record.
|
||||
[% ELSIF field.marcfield && field.marcfield_mode == 'set' %]
|
||||
This value will be saved to the [% field.marcfield | html %] subfield of the selected biblio.
|
||||
This value will be saved to the [% field.marcfield | html %] subfield of the selected bibliographic record.
|
||||
[% END %]
|
||||
</li>
|
||||
[% END %]
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue