Talk:Current source density analysis

Medicine Low‑importance

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neuroscience Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
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]

Current source density analysis? (per https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7320-6_544-1) 87.94.110.173 (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Moving article.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I move the article. However I redirected Current sources and sinks to divergence theorem where it is used the most. I am preparing an article for Source and sink but if it looks too artificial I will let it go.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I came here after seeing the note at WT:NEURO, thanks. I'm really not convinced that this is a notable topic. The few cited sources are very old, and I don't remember ever seeing anything about this in the neuroscience literature. It would be worth checking if there is any more recent attention to the topic in sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input! I know absolutely nothing about this. I just tried to make into an article. I will try to handle the original target of this article but if this is relevant or not maybe needs input from a specialist from neuro, medicine or biology.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done a quick check of neuroscience-related sourcing on PubMed. It's a pretty obscure topic, but there does seem to be enough coverage to justify keeping this page. A lot of the literature seems to be about the retina, but not all. I'll try to add some stuff, when I get to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just completed a pretty big overhaul, with a lot more sources related to neuroscience. I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]