Talk:Resource

Economics Mid‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment High‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ecology Mid‑importance

	Ecology portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rewording necessary under "Types of values attatched to resources"

This section seems very unspecific and somewhat opinionated (for lack of a better word). I think the section is important to the article but it needs extensive rewording to be of a fact-based, encylopedic quality. Noz92 (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

This page is a good start to cover the facts which are applicable to resources in general. Therefore the confusing (types and developments) should go. Inwind (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been moved from "Resource (types and developments)" to Resource as the result of a move proposal listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Dekimasu よ! 07:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Reserve vs resource. Importance

In Norwegian, both in economy and ecology, we distinguishes between “ressurs” (resource) and “reserve” (reserve) for non-renewable resources.

“Ressurs” (resource) is the total resources of the actual item – actual plus potential resources in terms of the article.

“Reserve” (reserve) is the known part of the resource that at the given moment also is economically exploitable. This means of course that the mount of reserves not are fixed, as abiotic resources are, reserves varies with prospecting, extraction and production costs and prices of the product.

For non-renewable resources (fossil fuels, minerals e.g.) on often use the R/P-rate (reserve by production per period) which gives the number of periods the reserve will last, prices, production costs and resources fixed.

Does one not have the same terminology in English, or should this article be amended with the definitions above?

I mean that the importance of the term in ecology is "mid" (or may be "high"). For environmental and economical issues, I mean it is very important and should be rated high. That it is rated "mid" in economy, maybe reflects that economists seems to forget that, basically, the economy is dependent of natural resources? But it may ned more depth first, may be?

Carl S. Bj (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resource use

It can be mentioned that 20% of the world's population consumes 80% of its resources ref= http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/other/DTIx0601xPA/docs/en/Module2%20-%20Session1.ppt

Ok

Shake skyway (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good

Shake skyway (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

basic definition of resource

disagree with the initial basic definition "A resource is any physical or virtual entity of limited availability that needs to be consumed to obtain a benefit from it."

surely resources can provide benefit without (the resource) being consumed
the definition of 'consumption' is in contradiction with later paragraph of same article where value of resources is discussed (eg. beauty of natural resources) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.29.7.87 (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree too. Seems more parsimonious to say that a resource is just something available for use, something that can be used to some benefit. That agrees better with, say, Webster, and with resources like tools or land area or RAM. Certainly some resources like time do get used up, but this is not criterial. Jar354 (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add reference to Planetary boundaries?

Add reference to Planetary boundaries. 99.181.159.67 (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word spicy

The opening paragraph, reads "A resource is a spicy or supply". I'm not a native speaker but I'm not aware of any meaning of the word spicy, that fits here. Is this an error? Dictionary.com doesn't give any meaning either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.16.186 (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the term "source" was replaced with "spicy" in vandalism that was reverted. Please place new discussion at the end and sign your comments. TheProfessor (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Potential Resources

These are the resources which we do not have sufficient knowledge at present.these resources may be used in future. 49.37.69.197 (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]