Comment 5 for bug 1902120

My opinion stands that "Any Part" is misleading. "All/Any Parts" only appears on the Place Hold screen when there is at least one item without a part on the record. If every item on the record has a part, then that option won't even appear.

Here are some examples that can exist in our system. I don't feel like this are uncommon for others.

There is a record for a 6 volume set of books. 3 libraires part out each volume separately. 2 libraries circulate the set as a whole and therefore do not have part labels. If a patron places a "Any Part" hold, they will receive the full 6 volume set at pickup, which could be confusing to the patron who just wanted a "random" volume of the set to complete their paper.

There is another record for Season 1 of a TV show. A small handful of libraries part out the discs. DISCS 1-3, DISCS 5-7. Most libraries circulate it as the full season. The patron does not want to watch the the second half of the season first, so they don't risk placing an "Any Part" hold. Instead they place a hold on DISCS 1-3 and limit themselves to the number of available copies. They also have to place a second hold to get the remaining discs.

There is a record for the combo DVD/Blu-Ray pack for a movie. 99 libraries catalog the item as a combo pack with no part. 1 library separates the discs into parts: DVD, Blu-Ray. The majority of patrons in this example do not have a blu-ray player, so they place a hold on "DVD" on the chance that "Any Part" brings back a blu-ray. Patrons now have to wait longer for an item that is actually sitting on the shelf at 99 libraires.

There are definitely cases in our catalog where an item is not cataloged properly and a library forgets to add a part. In those cases, yes, a title-level hold is a grab bag for the patron, and "any part" may fill it. Those are cataloging mistakes, though, and I don't think it makes sense for the label to cater to them.

Could "Complete Set" or something like that be a better alternative?