EDIT

Currentyl can't test because preference can not be stored. See also #7849

the check for the existence of the preference is needed to check whether the page was opened or not, because the preference framework run the performOK() method on all pages also if they are not changed before. BUt I added the creation of a new preference object if there was no in db before if the page is opened.

TermEditor term types DnaMarker, DeterminationModifier, KindOfUnit can also be disabled (maybe we can implement this by letting the terms know if they are relevant only for specimen).

In preferences we could disable the Taxonomic-TypeDeignations(Specimen) part.

In name details view for all names of rank species and below we could remove the type designations section

In Facts View we could remove all Features that need specimen support, or at least remove support for IndividualsAssociation Fact type. I think we should not remove support for Specimen/Observation/MaterialsExamined freetext support as this could be too restrict.
Features should be restricted via other functionalities.

Also it is not yet possible to select "allow override" if specimen are switched off in DB preferences.

In lokal preferences the "Specimens and FieldUnits" page is now always empty, even if showSpecimen = true. What was there before.

Bulk Editor-"ShowFieldUnits in Specimen Editor (list) should be disabled.
However, we need move this to an other page for anyway. (We should have a page for each bulk editor where we can define specific bulk editor behaviour. If specimens are switched of, the complete page and menu entry should be invisible.

@Katja: Can you take a look at my last commit please taxeditor|06ae687fc2061c691d70c87b1da7e8b41b903385

@all: Why is this ticket still open? What is left to do?

Patrick Plitzner wrote:

@Katja: Can you take a look at my last commit please taxeditor|06ae687fc2061c691d70c87b1da7e8b41b903385

looks correct.

@all: Why is this ticket still open? What is left to do?

Patrick Plitzner wrote:

@all: Why is this ticket still open? What is left to do?

Isn't this quite obvious. See comments #9 - #17

Andreas Müller wrote:

Patrick Plitzner wrote:

@all: Why is this ticket still open? What is left to do?

Isn't this quite obvious. See comments #9 - #17

I see. Sorry, the question was rather "Why is this on Release 5.4?"

Because some major issues were implemented in 5.4. However, I think we should split the ticket for all remaining issues, rename this so that it describes what was done and close it then.