Category talk:Wood engravings

Please don't merge category:Wood engravings with category:Woodcuts because there is a clear difference between both of them. Pelikana 13:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to expand on this comment- please don't put images in this category unless you are certain that they were cut on the end grain of the wood. Woodcuts are cut on the side grain of the wood. A big clue is the difference in amount of tonality and detail. The hardness of the end grain allows much finer lines to be cut, and thus greater tonality in the finished print. Wood engraving was not developed until the beginning of the 19th century, so no prints before that time can be considered "wood engravings". Anything published in a newspaper in the 19th century will be a wood engraving, not a woodcut.

• 
  This is a woodcut. Note the large, simplified shapes and lack of gray.
• 
  This is a wood engraving. Note the detail and large tonal range.

Thank you, Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Hi, Thanks a lot for your clear explanation. How about the Category:Wood engraving ? ; we have Category:Wood engraving-"s" , in the Category:Wood engraving ...

Can we merge, and make a category-redirect from one with no"s" ? --Tokorokoko (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

We should define both! Engraving is the ACT of creation. Engravings are the result. The French would say Graver et Gravure ou Gravures, which is easier to understand. I met the same issue recently (Drawing versus Drawings).

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Too crowded

1,226 files! Should at least be merged by decades (when exact year is not known). Note that I do not pretend to be able to verify that the engravings are really wood engravings!

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)