Talk:Current source density analysis

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page seems exceedingly obscure. Am I missing something? Raidfibre

If I could understand the explanation on this page, then I doubt I would have ended up here. It would be helpful if someone could "dumb it down" a bit for us laymen. Jerryjjr (talk) 08:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is a horrible article. The problem is it was obviously written by a neurologist or medical student who has never taken an electromagnetics course and is trying to define the concepts using what he learned in electrophysiology courses. His vague analogies, drawings of eyeballs and "visible" and "invisible" boxes show that he never bothered to actually look up the physics. Current sources and sinks are concepts which are precisely defined in electromagnetics, and any 2nd year physics or electrical engineering student could straighten this article out (after he got done laughing at it). When I get time, if nobody else has I will take a crack at it. --Chetvorno^TALK 23:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced article

I suggest changing the categories to neurobiology, replacing the "electromagnetism" at the top with neurobiology, changing the title to Current sources and sinks (neurobiology) then removing the see also onks as not relevant. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will look for a better title in neurobiology books, if not I will change it to that. One could also make a current/sink article for hydrodynamics, electrodynamics, complex analysis and thermodynamics, what do you think about that? --ReyHahn (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making a seperate more physics based article would be a good idea. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I just asked WT:Neuroscience and WT:Biology. Hopefully somebody will come up with a better name. I will leave try to work on a stub for the source-sink idea later.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]