Talk:Faroe Islands

For future reference the Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Faroe Islands/CIA World Factbook 2002 import. -- (WT-en) Huttite 03:13, 28 Mar 2005 (EST)

Are all of the linked islands inhabited? If not, they probably don't count as destinations needing their own article. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

...welllllllllll, not entirely. If it's a place that you could camp or sleep over, I think an uninhabited island might be a destination. --(WT-en) Evan 11:08, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, I did say "probably". My point was that just being a place on the map doesn't make something a destination; you need to be able to write a usable article about it. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 16:47, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I see your point. All of the Islands are inhabited except the very small Island Lítla Dímum - Sheep only occupy it. You wouldn’t be able to stay there - it’s simply too small. So I’ll remove it from the article. You can write articles about every other island, even the small ones - these tend to be very popular with tourists, especially Mikines. It’s only inhabited by about 15 people, but gets 8000 visitors per year. (WT-en) Soppho 16:46, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Actually, you can write about Lítla Dímum. Apparently tourist trips are organized where poeple ascent the island. Not for people with vertigo.(WT-en) Soppho 10:44, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

That's fine. I just didn't want to see dozens of articles with little or no useful travel information in each of them, just because they're separate islands. Along the same lines, I'm wondering whether each village needs its own article, or whether an island with a few villages (such as Sandoy, for example) might be covered in a single article. Alternatively, could the islands be covered in groups (such as by political constituency, which also seems to make some geographic sense)? Whenever I see a long list of items, it looks like an opportunity to divide them into regions instead, to better organize the information. So these lists of about twenty islands and villages make me wonder about this. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 23:26, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I have been thinking about dividing them into groups - I just haven’t made my mind up how to divide them yet... Perhaps the northern islands in one group, the central islands in one, the socalled "outer" islands in another and finaly the southern islands in one group. No, I don’t think every single village needs it’s own article; I’ve only mentioned a few with tourist attractions, - and I definitely do think it would be a good idea to cover an Island such as Sandaoy in one single article, it would in all likelihood make a more interesting and informative article, than a very short one.--(WT-en) Soppho 10:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

If anyone plans on adding more cities, i'd propose a region breakdown, maybe something rougly taken from this

• Sandoy - Sandoy, Skúvoy & Stora Dímun
• Suduroy - Suduroy & Litla Dímun
• Nordoyggjar - Kalsoy, Kunoy, Bordoy, Svinoy & Fugloy

These three could maybe be grouped as as "Mainland" since they are connected by road.

• Vagár - Vagár & Myknes
• Stremoy/Central - Kultur, Hestur, Nolsoy, Stremoy
• Eysturoy

"Another place is Cleopatra right in the town center which has a restaurant on the lower floor, with the main bar on the next floor up. The entrance to the bar is up some green felt stairs. This is not a "ok" place to be seen at in the Faroes."

Not an ok place?? Is there something i've misunderstood? It seems weird to me that Cleopatra (which is a decent place) is given such bad publicity, while Deep and Rex (who have the same owner btw) are given such a high recommendation? This reaks of immoral advertising. I suggest whoever wrote that should be banned from this wiki! 130.225.165.42 19:07, 30 August 2010 (EDT)Mortan

Agree (and deleted), --(WT-en) ClausHansen 17:01, 12 September 2010 (EDT)

This is a tourist guide. I just wanted to guide people away from a dirty place like Cleopatra. I can´t see why it is in a travel guide? Not because I am advertising, but because Cleopatra is one of the worst places in town (it is embarrassing to be seen at Cleopatra, if you are not 16 and stoned). Its just a plane simple fact. The "Resturant" below always gives people food poisoning. I can say other things but I can´t officially source them, so I wont. Its pointless to "bann" me since I am only telling the truth. If a tourist comes to Tórshavn no one is going to say anything different, except the few druggies and musicians who hang out there. So, why don´t you start writing something on the actual article if you know so much? (WT-en) Merchury 13:01, 22 December 2010 (EST)

I very much enjoyed reading the wikivoyage article. The best bit was at the end in the 'Respect' section and I would certainly be mindful of my manners. Apart from that, Happy Midsummer! The reason I checked out the Faroes was becuse there it is a full 20 hours daylight at this time of year which I think is great. More like 18 here in mid-East Scotland. But sunnier - oops!

86.138.3.86 16:36, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

This is some of the background to this edit I just made:

• http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000343
• http://genetica.ufcspa.edu.br/artigos/artigos%20genetica%20de%20populacoes/Migracao%20e%20deriva%20genetica.pdf -- Alice^✉ 22:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussing the ancestry of the islanders, Alice changed Scottish to Irish/Scots, then I changed it to Celtic. The current Scots & Irish population have much Viking blood as well, so using Celtic, as the papers referenced and even Alice's title above do, seems clearer.

I also think this is too much detail for a travel guide, we should leave details to WP, and just say "The islanders have a mixed ancestry, mainly Norse and Celtic." here. Other opinions on that? Pashley (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think your change is a better replacement for Irish/Scots (which replaced "Scottish", which was itself a recent replacement for "Irish") as long as the Picts don't cry foul (grin).

I think that the difference between the maternal and paternal DNA analyses is an intriguing tidbit that is appropriate for our Faroe Islands travel guide. Especially as there are very few destination articles (possibly Iceland?) where one could not write "The inhabitants have a mixed ancestry" and until and unless we are allowed to use a precision in-line text link to the directly relevant WP article (I see that argument for WP text links being deadlocked indefinitely and never achieving a consensus for change). -- Alice^✉ 23:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree it is intriguing; I now wonder if you would see similar differences in other areas with a long history of raiding, various horse tribes raiding China, the great pirate fleets of Borneo & Mindanao, etc. They all carried off women wholesale, I think. Is that what produces such differences? Pashley (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Presumably. I seem to recall that Genghis Khan is reputed to have the most number of descendants of any identified historical figure. -- Alice^✉ 01:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to divide Streymoy into two districts. Shall we merge Northern Streymoy and Southern Streymoy to Streymoy? /Yvwv (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Support. If we don't count metro Tórshavn Streymoy has a population of something like 3,000 people. I don't see how this warrants two articles when it can be covered in one, and even less why it would warrant two region articles. MartinJacobson (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

We currently have 30 articles, 25 of which are outlines, covering this area with 50,000 inhabitants. Many of these articles describe tiny hamlets, like Hov, population 127, and Porkeri, population 362... Tórshavn is the only place with more than 5,000 inhabitants. While these articles often do satisfy the sleep test I can't see how the current division is usable to a traveler. I would suggest that we merge all cities except Tórshavn into their parent regions and reorganize these region articles to city articles. This would leave us with ~7 usable articles rather than 25 skeletons. MartinJacobson (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Support - this would make the guides more useful for travellers. Ground Zero (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Support - maybe a couple of towns could stay as such but most regions/islands could be city articles.--Traveler100 (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Support the Falkland Islands has this issue too. A population of less than 4000 with 9 articles (most articles are regions/islands but there are a few tiny settlements other than the capital classified as cities). Gizza ^(roam) 06:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@MartinJacobson: As there has been no objection for two months, I think you can go ahead and reorganize these articles as you propose. Ground Zero (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Done MartinJacobson (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I reverted a link to Hiking in the Nordic countries, as I am not sure the advice in the article is relevant to the Faroe Islands. At least there should be a sentence or two here that point out differences (the lack of right to access is already stated), and at least a sentence or a few in the lead of the article, more if needed. As of now, it says: "For Faeroe Islands, Greenland and Svalbard, see their main articles."

I now also started a discussion at Hiking in the Nordic countries#Faroe Islands.

–LPfi (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Did you intend to link to Talk:Hiking in the Nordic countries#Faroe Islands instead? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

But back to the main point, I can understand sending readers to the respective articles for Greenland and Svalbard, but the Faroes? I've never been there, surely the conditions will be somewhat like Norway's. Unfortunately, internet coverage of the Faroes are quite low, and the same goes with our coverage here too (and we only have one guide article from the Faores; Klaksvík), but the geography of the Faroe Islands is very similar to Western Norway's – weather, climate, the landscape and elevation too. I did find this on the official tourism website, so maybe the Faroes should really be included in Hiking in the Nordic countries with a separate Hiking destinations in the Faroe Islands article as a supplement. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@SHB2000: I'm OK with covering the Faroe Islands there, given that somebody does what is needed (see the talk section I tried to link and you linked). I am not OK with linking it (without comment) when the article refers back to here from the lead: "For Faeroe Islands, Greenland and Svalbard, see their main articles."

I really don't know what is similar or different here. What I have seen on photos from the Faroe Islands, the landscape is very different from the landscape I know of in Norway: open grassland and steep hillsides and cliffs. Of the twelve landscape photos in Understand and Destinations, none is on a landscape type I have seen on photos from the Faroe islands. On the other hand, eight are or could be from Finland, seven from Norway, nine from Sweden. Neither a quick look at the textual content gives me any "this could be the Faroes" vibes. Weather is probably "Northern Atlantic islands and coasts", which agrees with some of Iceland and Norway, but anything else I would like to see confirmed (and extended) before recommending reading it for hiking in the Faroes.

–LPfi (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

User:2A02:AA1:1614:91E5:2848:812D:594:2456 added a paragraph on religion:

"Religion is an integral part of the Faroese society with more than 95% of the inhabitants adhering to Christianity and about 77% of the inhabitants being members of the Church of the Faroe Islands, an independent Lutheran state church."

Is the "integral part" statement true, or just a private extrapolation of the numbers? In the 1990s we had some 95% of Finns member of the Lutheran Church, while an overwhelming majority showed up in church only for Christmas, baptism, confirmation, marriage and funeral. I would like some discussion here (or in the article) if the statement is to stay (it seems there is a large percentage of members of revival movements, but that in itself doesn't make the religion "an integral part of society" in the sense I would understand that phrase).

–LPfi (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I removed the bullet. As I don't know the religion's role, I cannot tweak it, just stating numbers is pointless (what's there to respect about that?) and if the numbers were over-interpreted, the bullet was misleading. –LPfi (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The tunnel opened on Dec 21, 2023, and Faroe Islands#Sub-sea tunnel fares needs an update. Where can one go to find the tolls? I couldn't find any information on it. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

To clarify, this is the website I couldn't find anything on about Sandoyartunnilin tolls. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

It could also be out of date as the website still has this:

Sandoyartunnilin, will open late 2023, links Streymoy and Sandoy. The tunnel is 10,8 [sic] km long.

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Alright, I'm flying to Tórshavn next week. Anything on Faroe Islands that need a listing update, a picture or boots-on-the-ground verification? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wow, what an opportunity. Our sister site has some requested photographs if you are available to take any. (Note that I'm not a member of the community there and I'm not soliciting editing by proxy.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:59, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Heh, I think it wouldn't be controversial to request to take a picture of a village or power plant. I've bookmarked several places and at least two locations are along the way to/from the airport so I have at least two chances to take pictures. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:06, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I notice that Faroe Islands#Towns and villages says "the roofs are often turf-covered", next to a picture showing no turf-covered roofs. Perhaps you could easily determine whether "often" is still the right word? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Roofs are about 70-80% turf-covered when I see them in villages, but this number drops in bigger towns and only a few houses in the capital have turf roofs. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:12, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

@OhanaUnited, The dog2, SHB2000: Usable status requires that:

"[the article has] links to the country's major cities and other destinations (usable status or better), a valid regional structure, and a Get in section describing all of the typical ways to get there. Information about the country's currency, language, cuisine, and culture is included. The most prominent attractions are identified and their general position within the country is indicated."

The "cities" section (here "Settlements") includes many redirects, Other destinations even entries with no link. If these settlements and other destinations are article-worthy, articles for them needs to be created before this article can be labelled usable (country articles are hard to get to high status). Settlements that are not article-worthy should probably rather be mentioned in their Regions entry (and of course described there – but should these regions instead be "rural areas"?). Other destinations should be linked to where they are described.

Get in is probably OK.

Faroe Islands#Money should probably link to Denmark#Money, or else we need to explain the relation to the euro here – and make sure it remains updated.

Talk is OK.

There is some information on the cuisine, so the criterion is fulfilled. However, I find the description odd; it probably needs tweaking. Listings belong in the city and rural area articles.

There is little information on culture. That is a serious flaw, and I think additions are needed for usable status.

I assume the major attractions are identified and I see that their general locations are indicated.

So, the article needs some checking, tweaking and expanding before it is of usable status. We should also consider whether the regions should be regions, given there are few article-worthy settlements – actually, at least some are rural areas. Should they still be listed as regions?

–LPfi (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Unfortnately, I'm not very familiar with attractions of the Faroe Islands, so I can't help with drawing he boundaries. But we could certainly describe the administrative divisions in the main article without going into too much detail. The dog2 (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Administrative divisions are seldom relevant. What I mean is that we don't need a Regions section if we have no regions, and regions are needed only if there are sub-articles. Streymoy is our only region article. Perhaps the section is still the best solution, but for status purposes, it is confusing.

I note that Sandoyar isn't yet usable. It should be fixed to get the country article to usable (now no Eat and no Sleep).

–LPfi (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Any reason we don't just treat the rural area articles (all of which were formerly regions) as region articles for the purposes of determining article status? //shb (t | c | m) 00:12, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Not really. That would be the "valid region structure". I think the Faroese are exceptionally enough for doing that, but I think it needs to be noted (in the same way that some other exceptions are allowed after discussion).

The Settlements section is the bigger problem, with Fuglafjørður one example that needs to be handled. It has no description in the rural area Towns and villages section, information on it is scattered around, and nowhere is it told how you can enjoy this "main cultural attraction" unless you happen to time your visit with the festival. It seems to deserve its listing on the country page, but it needs a usable-worth description on the lowest-level page.

–LPfi (talk) 08:29, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I was attending Wikimania and didn't have the energy to respond until now. As someone who did travel to Faroe Islands and responsible for most of the recent edits, I would say that I haven't finished updating some of the pages (especially the ones further away from the capital, Torshavn, or those remote islands). Faroe Islands uses islands to create administrative divisions but they are so small (10% the size of Iceland) that you don't feel dramatic difference between them because each is very well connected by numerous underwater tunnels.

I agree that settlements are a mess. Many of them are like Kirkjubøur. They just big enough and far enough to have a page with how to get in by driving and by bus, a few attractions but no restaurants, bars or hotels. There might be a restaurant next town over but that town doesn't have attractions of its own. Specifically for Fuglafjørður, I don't know who chose the listed towns and what the selection criteria was. But I think it can use some light trimming to remove entries that is simply a harbour and some mountain scenery in a village. For money, I added a blurb about Euro and Amex not being accepted, and they stopped offering currency exchange on the island. And for Sandoyar, I added some contents. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:46, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply