# Talk:Tvrđa

Here are my thoughts:

Intro: might indeed be expanded a bit. This is perhaps best done after the article is fully expanded.
Banknote section: my idea is to kill the section and add the 200 kuna image, using the text as a caption.
Tvrđa's dimensions: this question occurred to me too (knowing next to nothing about Tvrđa beforehand, I must admit). Could not find any sources (including Croatian ones) on that. Google Earth says 500 x 350 m IIRC, but I'm not sure if that's proper sourcing.
Needs a more thorough present-day description. That's something I could write.
Hopefully there's no rush - I work on quite a few other things on and off, so it will take at least a couple of weeks on my part. GregorB (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree regarding the intro (that can wait for now) and the banknote section. I'm not sure whether Google Earth is a good enough source for the size since it relies on us deciding where the boundaries are. Thanks for your offer of help with expanding the article too. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added 'Infobox military structure' into the article, since Tvrđa is a Military Structure. If 'Infobox' is not appropriate because of other issues, feel free to remove it from the article. Kebeta (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As I already noted on your talk page, I think it's a great idea. Some of the fields may be a little bit off at the moment (e.g. Ive Mažuran says construction began in 1693 and was finished in 1719 (also: what "finished" means is a matter of definition), but no problem, we'll deal with this later. GregorB (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
After the article is fully expanded with expanded 'Intro', the infobox with the map of Croatia will fit much better. Now the intro is to short. Informations like construction began/finished and other infos can easily be corrected. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the infobox, Kebeta. Generally I think it's a good idea, although I wonder if there's really space for both the plan and the location map inside the infobox. Perhaps the plan should be moved out? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
As I said above, when 'intro' get its needed expansion, things will look better. If not, we can remove something...Kebeta (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
True, the infobox is quite big, but Kebeta is making a good point: with an intro of proper size, the page will probably look better. Let's wait and see if that is the case - if not, we'll move it. GregorB (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Although Tvrđa is the most common name for this structure, there are others structures in Croatia bearing the same name. The most famous one is Osijek Tvrđa, but Slavonski Brod Tvrđa or Sisak Tvrđa will emerge as an article one day soon. It is like calling a small fort in Dalmatia as 'Gradina' - every third fort is called like that. There is no problem now, but probably name Tvrđa will be a disambiguation page in the future. Kebeta (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It occurred to me too as I was googling for sources: many "Tvrđa" hits come from the Tvrđa in Slavonski Brod - incidentally, another very interesting star fort in Croatia. However, that article already exists under the title of The Brod Fortress. Perhaps both titles should be reconsidered. GregorB (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah...I am not familiar what is the most common English name for the fortress it self, probably some 'German word'. But, we are talking about modern town district also, not only about the fortress. So, Tvrđa should definitely stay because of that, maybe Osijek Tvrđa to avoid possible problems. In the past, the most important was Karlovac Tvrđa, but that fortress lost some of its significance due to modern consrtuction on its site. Kebeta (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
All English language sources I've found use Tvrđa, although maybe there are sources I haven't found because I don't know the alternative name they use! Anyway, I think Tvrđa, Osijek would be the best solution. Tvrđa is obviously a fort, but it's also a district of the city. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely, the article covers (well, should cover - we'll get to that) both the fort and the city district, and WP:COMMONNAME applies at any rate. For the time being there is probably no need to change the title, but Tvrđa, Osijek (or Tvrđa (Osijek)) is an option, should the need arise. GregorB (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, most of new English language sources claim Tvrđa, but they all derived from a Croatian sources on English language (Tvrđa is a Croatian word, not English). The question remains what name was used in the past by Austrians and Ottomans, and than used in history books on English language. Nevertheless, the article should contain Tvrđa in the title, and your proposal (Tvrđa, Osijek) sounds good to me - if change is needed at all. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
BTW GregorB, you should change The Brod Fortress into Brod Fortress. Kebeta (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I've moved that article to Brod Fortress. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Larry, BTW, you have done a great job on Tvrđa article. Kebeta (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - I tried my best but my limited knowledge of Croatian was somewhat of a barrier. Hopefully with your and GregorB's help the article will make GA. It certainly seems to be making good progress. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
For the German-language name, look at the plan in the infobox: its original "caption" reads "Plan der Festung Essegg", i.e. it was simply "Fortress Osijek". German name should be mentioned too in the article, but I could not find a good source for that apart from the image itself. GregorB (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if it's worth adding Template:Castles in Croatia to the article? Some of the titles of articles listed on the template include  "fortress" rather than "castle", and perhaps we could actually rename the template "Castles and forts in Croatia"? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A good question. I've been involved with the List of castles in Croatia article, which also deals with both castles and forts, despite the name. I'll ask the other people involved. GregorB (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that is a good idea. The fortresses which are included in the List of castles in Croatia article, were a castles at some point in history (although that article is still a mess, but progress slowly in a good direction). Tvrđa was never "a private fortified residence". Kebeta (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure: there's Brod Fortress and Klis Fortress in that list, and I don't think these were ever castles. They could be removed, or the article might be renamed to List of castles and forts in Croatia. I'm not sure which is the better solution myself... GregorB (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Klis was a castle for sure (Mislav, Trpimir..), but I am not sure for Brod Fortress, probably wasn't a castle. Anyway I think that Cordless Larry was refering to the template, not to the article. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I was, but presumably the template and the article should feature the same castles (and possibly forts)? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but the template is transcluded in the list, and there is a general problem of distinguishing castles from forts. If renaming the template makes sense, then renaming the list makes sense too if it holds the same entries. GregorB (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
It is not a problem of distinguishing castles from forts when you know thear history well, which we - unfortunately don't know enough. Maybe to see what is the situation in other articles (list of castles in...Spain, Ehgland, France...), and than decide what to do...? Kebeta (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. As you've noted, List of castles in Croatia is still a bit on the messy side, so things will settle eventually. GregorB (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
That is a big problem in Croatia, the only author who writes about castles is prof. Ščitaroci from Arch. fax. in Zagreb, and he only writes about baroque and historicist manors of Northern Croatia. Kebeta (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a decent map of Tvrđa at openstreetmap.org. Two minor annoyances: 1) descriptions in Croatian, 2) no scale (which would solve the "how big is this place" problem). Are workarounds possible? If not, would you say it's worth including it in the article? GregorB (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks worth including to me. I've no idea about workarounds but since most of the text is street names, I don't really see it as being much of a problem that it's in Croatian. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there is a scale. Click 'Izvoz' in the upper menu, then 'format' and 'Mjerilo 1: ???'. Kebeta (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes, there is a scale - what I meant is that it's not visible in the output as a graphic scale, i.e. a line marked with a distance. And, although it's mostly institution and street names, it would be nice for English-speaking users not having to guess that "Sveučilište J.J. Strossmayer" is "J.J. Strossmayer University". Ideally there should be no text in the map, just markers, say 1-10, and a legend in the caption would describe them...
Oh well, let's start with what we got at the moment. I'll upload the map to Commons. GregorB (talk) 07:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Can't export, apparently their server is constantly overloaded. GregorB (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Finally succeeded. Added to the article, sizing and placement are provisional. GregorB (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Excellent - it looks good. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have made some changes. Apparently von Kaiserfeld was the first architect who made design of the fortress, but according to Vabuan's principles of military engineering. I guess those are general principles, thus Vabuan had nothing to do with the fortress? I also found the area of the fortress - 80 hectare. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The question of architect is something I wanted to discuss too. Many sources mention de Gosseau, but Ive Mažuran's article in Vijenac speaks of von Kaiserfeld, without any mention of de Gosseau. This is strange.
Mažuran mentions de Vauban's work as a general inspiration - the article text is perhaps not sufficiently clear on that. De Vauban was not directly involved.
The area figure you mentioned is presumably from Krajnik and Obad Šćitaroci. However, this figure obviously has to include fortifications outside of main defensive walls, and is therefore not too illustrative. Given the dimensions of the walled area displayed in e.g. Google Earth, it is significantly smaller, around 15 ha (which is still huge by any standards). Sadly, no source for that figure, although calling this fortress "huge" can be sourced to Mažuran. GregorB (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah...I agree with you about Vabuan, and tryed to clarify that in the article (look that part again in the article). As for von Kaiserfeld and de Gosseau, I think it was like this: von Kaiserfeld was first architects involved in 1691, and de Gosseau was involved from 1712. Since the first fortress was badly done, the second one on the same place was designed by de Gosseau. Still, we need to cite this, or whetever happened. Regarding the area, the fortification had several forts, one of which (the biggest) is Tvrđa (look at the layout). And the Tvrđa it self had ditches and trenches outside walls. But exact area remains very questionable. Kebeta (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
BTW, calling this fortress "huge" is not such good idea. Tvrđa wasn't classical fortress, rather 'city-fortress'. There are many other 'city-fortresses' bigger than Tvrđa. Lots of towns had something like that in that time: Vienna, Genoa, Karlovac, even Split...take a look here and here. It was more walled city than fortress. On the other side of Danube was a real fortress - much smaller and was used only by military. Kebeta (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You're quite correct: Tvrđa is "huge" compared to a traditional fortress. Otherwise, its size is not without precedent.
I agree that there are problems with "huge", even if it's sourced. It is vague, and MOS explicitly advises against "descriptions" such as this. I'd like to see some exact numbers. For example, how long were the walls (>1 km, surely), and what is the length of the surviving walls. Unfortunately, as I already mentioned, no such luck. But I'd say it would be OK to mention the 80 ha figure, it gives at least a rough idea of the scale.
Your edit on Vauban makes it much clearer. Role of the architects is also clearer now. Very good. GregorB (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Regarding above discussion about 'huge fortress', I added a sentence with citation:"Tvrđa was completed in the 18th century by Austrian Empire as the largest fortress on the border of the Ottoman Empire". Kebeta (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I added new template 'Osijek districts' and added 'Category:Districts of Osijek' instead 'Category:Osijek'. The article has a lots of information about the fortress, and less on the 'Tvrđa district' it self. What do you think, should we write more about disrtict now? Kebeta (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, in the "Present day" section. Will get to that. GregorB (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Introduction of the 20th century section is fine, I was planning to do that, but also to keep the Present day section. It looks a bit ugly at the moment, but there are sources available to expand both of them eventually - to what extent I cannot say, but if the current organization doesn't work out in the end we'll think of something else. GregorB (talk) 08:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Anyway, once the 20th century section and Present day section are done, it will look much better. Kebeta (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
How about making the present day section a level 2 rather than level 3 heading, so that it's distinct from the history section? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. Present day is not really a part of history. Done. GregorB (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

One of major references "Croatian Ministry of Culture Directorate for the Protection of Cultural Heritage (1 February 2005). "Historical-Town Planning Ensemble Tvrda (Fort) in Osijek". UNESCO. Retrieved 11 May 2010." is a Dead link now. I hope this is temporarily. Kebeta (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The whole Tentative Lists section of the UNESCO World Heritage site seems to be down. I remember this happening previously, and it was back up and running when I checked again the next day. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm using Google cache at the moment. If it doesn't come back, we'll use the Wayback Machine. GregorB (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Now it works. :-) Kebeta (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

We should try to expend the lead, since the article is fully expanded now (except for Present day). Since Cordless Larry is a native speaker of English, it would be for the best if he does this job. All new edits will probably be of minor importance for the article, and will not affect the lead? Kebeta (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, not necessarily: there's Tvrđa the city district, with 10,000 inhabitants - might still get a mention in the intro. Apart from that, I'd say WMF quote should be moved there (as suggested by GAR) because it gives a nice summary of what Tvrđa is and why it's notable.
We're almost there - I'll expand the present day and heritage status sections (sooner rather than later, I hope) and then we'll leave the dirty work to CordlessLarry... :-) GregorB (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I agree. I was just trying to speed up the process. Are we going to submit the article to the GOCE, or Larry can do this also? BTW, I turned couple of red links into blue ones, which leves only Mathias von Kaiserfeld as a red one. Kebeta (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Good. Red links are not a problem at the moment, except for those in the Districts of Osijek template, perhaps. GregorB (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll have a go at expanding it, and give the rest of the article a grammatical once-over at the same time. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've now expanded the introduction. Please feel free to leave comments or to tweak or further expand it. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
It is a nice start. Good job. Kebeta (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
A good job on the present day section likewise. It's a matter of days before we're finished. GregorB (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

18th and 19th century functions seems to be a bit disorganized. We have several para's above talking about 18th century and title section below, or am I missing something here? Kebeta (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That's "dirty work" I was referring to... :-) OK, I'm only half joking here: I agree, some sort of reordering or reorganization would help. This paragraph still describes the 18th century, but in a phase when major construction is already finished. As GAR duly notes, an opening sentence should (ideally) introduce/summarize the section. GregorB (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I reorganized history section. We have 'Design and construction' section which deals with the construction of the fort itself, with two subsections (layouts), one in 17th and other in 18th century - hope it's better now. I also reorganized images - feel free to revert this otherwise. Kebeta (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks very good to me. GregorB (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Done my bit: expanded the last two sections, did some reordering, added the WMF quote to the intro and trimmed some less important stuff from it, etc. The article appears to be all but ready for GAN #2. After GAN #1, I knew that it could be significantly improved, but the end result has exceeded my expectations.
What is left is:

One final copyedit for everything: spelling, grammar, style, flow, formatting, etc. (I guess CordlessLarry is the victim here :-) )
Possibly some minor content additions and tweaks.
Something else that I forgot?
After that, the GA nomination is in order. My suggestion is to contact the original reviewer, Tea with toast - I guess he might be interested in taking another look... GregorB (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I was just writing that below...:-) Kebeta (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

After today's edits (good job GregorB) which gave a final touch, I think that all questionable points are addressed, and the article should be renominated. Any further improvments are more than welcome, but we shouldn't wait with nomination for GA, because there should be a backlog anyway, and rewiev of the article will not be for several weeks. Kebeta (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right on this point. In fact, one of the reasons I mentioned Tea with toast above is precisely the time factor: he might be quicker in both starting and finishing the review than some random editor. GregorB (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
That would be great. He shold be called as soon as the article is renominated. BTW, the final result has exceeded my expectations also. I guess the first nomination helped a lot as guideline for the final result. Kebeta (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Good work guys. Once the issue I've tagged with the population statistics in the Present day section is fixed, I'll renominate. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 Done Kebeta (talk) 07:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
One other issue is that there is no date for the statistics. I think that the "today" wording will be picked up on in the GA review. I don't see a date in the source, but is there another way of finding out? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Could not find that information. I was hoping that the primary source for this figure is the 2001 census, but no luck, this information isn't available on www.dzs.hr because they release data for settlements, which Tvrđa is not. It is probably from the census, judging by the household figure which is a standard census item. However, "probably" is worthless for our purposes. Since the exact figure makes little sense without the exact date, one possible way to work around this is to simply say c. 10000 inhabitants, c. 3300 households.
However, there is one more problem with this piece of information: Tvrđa city district is obviously a much wider area than the one within the former walls. It would be interesting to see how many people actually live within the fort, but I couldn't find such data either.
One minor quibble: the intro sentence "From 1526, Tvrđa was...". Tvrđa didn't exist as such back then, so this is a bit confusing, and should be rewritten to say that Tvrđa and the medieval settlement share the same grounds, or something to that effect. GregorB (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Is this better? Kebeta (talk) 09:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes, it's just that I'm not sure whether Tvrđa was in the vicinity of the original settlement, or was built around it. Maybe this should be clarified too. GregorB (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I found that in second reference (unesco), but feel free to change it. BTW, I added para about Suleiman Bridge. The sources are very controversial on this, but this bridge might be the main reason for building a fort. Apparently, majority attacks on Vienna and the rest of the Habsburg Monarchy were conducted throughout this bridge, which was apparently firstly built by the Suleiman the Magnificent, not by the Suleiman II. Kebeta (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
"In the vicinity" checks out OK - in fact, "around" would probably also be at least partly true, since churches in Tvrđa were built on the remains of mosques. This is fine, and so is your expansion on Suleiman Bridge: it provides context and illustrates why Tvrđa was important strategically. GregorB (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Back to the date of the population statistics, this source, on the 2006 elections, has the same figures. Can someone who understands Croatian take a look? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed the figures are the same, and likewise no date is specifically indicated, apart from date of the election. However, electorate figures in Croatia are defined by legislation based on the last official census only, and that would be 2001 census (they are performed once in ten years). I added up all the population size figures specified by the source and came up with 114,013, a close match for 2001 census for Osijek (114,616). The difference may be attributed to rounded off results (Novi Grad?), gerrymandering or a combination of those, there's no way to tell - but the census would be used for electoral purposes only - making the year 2001 applicable to the population size figure.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
That's a nice find. I agree with Tomobe, it is reasonably clear that's 2001 census data. It is not e.g. 2006 election data, because that would be "registered voters", not "inhabitants", and certainly not "households". Sum of per-district data being lower than city total (114,013<114,616) makes perfect sense, it is very likely due to bad/missing street addresses in census data, resulting in 603 people who live in Osijek, but it is not known in which city district. GregorB (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
In that case, if someone would like to reword that sentence to attribute it to the census, adding new sources if necessary, I will go ahead and re-nominate the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Done, izbori.osijek.hr added as a ref. If this is fine, we're good to go. GregorB (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I've now re-nominated the article and informed Tea with toast. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Done with the Suleiman Bridge - the answer why Tvrđa was important strategically. Kebeta (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The order in the Present day section is a bit problematic... The sentence beginning with "After the fortress's military importance decreased..." is a natural introduction to this section, but is now in the middle of it. Reading the entire section, the flow is not right. GregorB (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That's my fault. I swapped the order of the paragraphs in that section because I thought it odd that a section on the present day started with a paragraph on the establishment of schools in the 1700s! Perhaps the whole section needs rewording. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
A valid point. Perhaps some of it should be moved to the history section. I'm counting on Kebeta to devise a solution... :-) GregorB (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Enough has been done. Let's see what the rewiev will tell us... :-) Kebeta (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I like your solution... :-) GregorB (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I note that Shokatz made some additions to this article after it gained GA status. I'm a bit concerned that some of these (e.g. the mention of von Beckers and the Lowlands (Dutch) fortresses point) are in the introduction but not the main body of the article, and are not obviously sourced. Let's not compromise the article's GA status. Old friends GregorB and Kebeta, and Shokatz, could you take a look at this? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Cordless Larry and Shokatz! I've reviewed briefly the changes made to the article since c. 2010, and I'm fairly pleased overall, it's a net improvement I'd say. I do agree, however, that unsourced info should not be added to GAs. I'm going to do a more thorough review (time permitting, not sure when), and see what could be done about it. GregorB (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks GregorB. I'll try to have a go too. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay then: there is support for Beckers in the Matica article, but I didn't find anything about the Dutch fortresses. I don't think Beckers is important for the intro, but could be mentioned in the body. Overall, I'd trim and rework the intro a bit, keeping only the most pertinent facts.
Apart from that, there are some places in the article body where the flow is not ideal, so I'd like to fix that too if possible.
For what it's worth, I enjoyed the teamwork we had on this article and still remember it fondly... GregorB (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Gregor. I agree that that material is better placed in the main article text rather than the introduction (and certainly not only in the intro). This source might be good for the lowlands fortresses point. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I've now moved this material from the introduction. The article still needs some work, including a thorough proofread. I'll try to help with that shortly. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
In the meantime, can someone check this claim about the date of the final gate being built? I've used an online source, but would like to see it confirmed by other sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Cordless Larry, I've found and added a supporting RS. I must say I don't like the www.cosy.sbg.ac.at source: it is a self-published source by an author who is not a historian. I'd consider removing it. (It is in English though, but I could not find a reliable English equivalent.)
I plan to do a couple of passes through the article, find some more sources and flesh out some bits of information, and possibly trim the intro, as already noted. GregorB (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, GregorB. I'll remove that source now that you've found a better alternative. I don't see any need for an English-language source to be cited just for the sake of it. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Tvrđa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130320153209/http://www.wmf.org/sites/default/files/wmf_publication/Watch_Catalog_1996.pdf to http://www.wmf.org/sites/default/files/wmf_publication/Watch_Catalog_1996.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gctvrdja.com/tvrda-engleski/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130703222905/http://www.hnb.hr/novcan/hnovcan.htm to http://www.hnb.hr/novcan/hnovcan.htm
Added archive https://archive.is/20120630190130/http://www.zamirzine.net/spip.php?article4333 to http://www.zamirzine.net/spip.php?article4333
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929143319/http://www.matis.hr/zbornici/2001/Text/Text5-2.htm to http://www.matis.hr/zbornici/2001/Text/Text5-2.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090713213915/http://www.pfos.hr/~eng/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=6 to http://www.pfos.hr/~eng/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=6
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516055202/http://www.mdc.hr/osijek/eng/povijest.html to http://www.mdc.hr/osijek/eng/povijest.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gctvrdja.com/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gctvrdja.com/karta/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)