Talk:Barolo

message: While not complete (nothing ever is on Wikipedia), as it stands this article seems reasonably thorough. I am concerned, however, about the lack of proper citations. There are a number of very specific data points included, as well as several items that reflect POV, but no citations or references are provided. I'm sure that some of the more serious Barolo fans could provide citations without giving it too much thought. If you have any supporting references, please cite them. Thanks! Gregmg 23:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a couple. The DOC regulations should be cited directly assuming they are online, but my Italian isnt really good enough to find them. Justinc 11:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: ok I will look for a source on this - all my books are a bit old to have the recent ones (though I would take 2004 out really, thats a bit extreme). Parker might have a reference, I dont have the Slow Food guide for Italy though, and I dont think thats online. Justinc 22:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion header

message: It has been suggested by Smokey Russell that this article be merged with Italian wine. I believe it's better to leave each varietal or appellation with its own distinct article. Someone interested in Barolo in particular may not be interested in the myriad of other varietals and types of wine from Italy. Whether or not there needs to be an article on Italian wines is another matter entirely. Well, that's my 2 cents... what do you think? Gregmg 21:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with having an Italian wine article that gives a high level overview. I'm not sure what is dictated by Wikipedia policy, guidelines and convention though. Can we go ahead and remove the merge header?  I think there are other ways to spur interest in improving the related articles. Gregmg 19:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dont merge it. Every DOC wine should have an article, and there can be an overview and regional overviews too. Especially as Barolo is one of the better ones... Justinc 09:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To merge or not to merge... 

message: I agree with maintaining the separation of varietals and/or appellations, however I did this as part of a personal campaign to generate interest in improving the whole of Italian Cuisine on wikipedia. There is an Italian wine section, and it alone is pretty paltry. When I have more time, I (and others) can start adding particular grapes and regions (including the info on Barolo) to the larger page, without violating the integrity of individual pages. As to the matter of the importance of the general "Italian Wine" category, is there any issue with having wine categories by country, also?  Thanks for your interest! 
Smokey Russell 16:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with having an Italian wine article that gives a high level overview. I'm not sure what is dictated by Wikipedia policy, guidelines and convention though. Can we go ahead and remove the merge header?  I think there are other ways to spur interest in improving the related articles. Gregmg 19:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dont merge it. Every DOC wine should have an article, and there can be an overview and regional overviews too. Especially as Barolo is one of the better ones... Justinc 09:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Leave this page As Is - BUT...

message: Removed from article as it was unsourced:
The greatest Barolo vintages include (with exceptional vintages in bold):
* 1868, 1879, 1887, 1894, 1898, 1905, 1907, 1912, 1917, 1919, 1922, 1927, 1929, 1931, 1934, 1947, 1958, 1961, 1964, 1970, 1971, 1978, 1982, 1985, 1989, 1990, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004 (expected as such from barrel tasting)  --[unsigned comment]
:: I think that this is the souce. --87.5.144.148 12:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vintages 

message: In the introduction it states that the wine must be subject to 5 years of again to be considered a riserva, but doesn't state whether this is barrel-aging, bottle-aging or some combination there-of.Beachbumltj 19:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  aging 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Barolo. 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/20150906110953/http://www.winereviewonline.com/Ed_McCarthy__on_O_Keefe_Barolo_Barbaresco.cfm to http://www.winereviewonline.com/Ed_McCarthy__on_O_Keefe_Barolo_Barbaresco.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080920204748/http://www.regione.piemonte.it:80/agri/osser_vitivin/vit_difficile/dwd/disciplinari/barolo.pdf to http://www.regione.piemonte.it/agri/osser_vitivin/vit_difficile/dwd/disciplinari/barolo.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: How do we disambiguate - should I call the new pages "Barolo DOCG Castiglione Falletto" etc to start with  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbenjamin (talk • contribs) 05:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'd like to add comune information but 'Castiglione Falletto' for example is a page already 

message: Throughout article commune is spelled with two m's. Wonder if the proper spelling would be comune, which is how it's spelled in the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comune. Greg Dahlen (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should commune be spelled comune?