Talk:Überrest

@Jberkel, there seems to be a technical sense missing here. Could you add it? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge:  Done – Jberkel 08:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! And could you please translate the quotes as well? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Done, please change as needed. I think the label should rather be "history", but this is currently aliased to "historical" (oversight?) Jberkel 09:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The definition looks good, although I'll copy my comment from Appendix talk:Terms considered difficult or impossible to translate into English regarding the translatability of it into English. - -sche (discuss) 16:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Überrest (w:de:Überrest) --Z 12:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

  Überreste are distinguished in historiography from traditional Quellen (sources [of information]), and regarded as being unlikely to give an intentionally misrepresentative picture. But the word is not specific to, say, peripheral documents: one subtype of Überreste is menschliche Überreste, "human remains", meaning the same thing as in English. Hence, I think "remains", the word most historiographic references gloss this with, covers it (or sometimes "remnants" or "vestiges" would sound more natural). - -sche (discuss) 22:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

However, I do see that a number of historiographical resources alternatively do use "leftovers", including one which is referring specifically to Droysen's use of it. I guess both terms are used. - -sche (discuss) 18:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)