Talk:Mark Rober

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mark Rober article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation. United States Low‑importance United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Internet culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention California Low‑importance California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. YouTube Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics 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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject YouTube To-do: edit history watch purge A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : see list. Assess : Apply the assessment scale on Unknown-importance YouTube articles + Unassessed YouTube articles Cleanup : See cleanup listing Maintain : This WikiProject Stubs : Category:Stub-Class YouTube articles Other : Substitute {{WikiProject YouTube/Invite Members}} on user talk pages Check out edit requests on Talk:List of YouTubers Disability Mark Rober is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Autism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture 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. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Crunchlabs LLC

Crunchlabs should be listed as its full company name, Crunchlabs LLC (as can be seen on their site and company files), under its section on this page.

I added this, but @CNMall41 reverted it, stating "we go by common names" and "Maybe the company would want their full name in Wikipedia but that is not how it works.". This is incorrect. WP:COMMONNAME is for article titles, hence it's under WP:TITLE. Additionally, it has nothing to do with "what the company wants", it's MOS:FIRSTCORP. If this were an article for Crunchlabs, it would have the full company name as the first thing, so it should have it as the first thing under its section. Crunchlabs as the section title, and for subsequent mentions, sure, but the first mention under the section should follow MOS:FIRSTCORP. Strugglehouse (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You state that COMMONNAME is incorrect as it deals with page titles, yet you cite FIRSTCORP which deals with pages where the name is the main focus of the topic. If the former doesn't apply here then neither would the latter. Like you said, "if this were an article for CrunchLabs...." I am of the mind that CrunchLabs likely does qualify for its own page at this point. Feel free to create and link to it. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually reverted the addition of the space selfie yesterday as unsourced but just found this while putting together a refidea list at Talk:CrunchLabs. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've created the article. Strugglehouse (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are slightly different. COMMONNAME is very specifically for article titles, whereas FIRSTCORP, while there are mentions of the lead section of an article, is still part of the general MOS, so I think it could be considered in regard to article sections too.

I guess if it had its own article, it could just be a link and have the full company name on that article, but otherwise I think it should still have its full name here. Strugglehouse (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kids Choice Awards

Mark Rober was nominated twice for "Favorite Male Creator" for the 2024 and 2025 KCA, but lost twice to MeBeast. Can you add that? 2601:243:1A00:5420:4CD1:8C64:ADCF:C87D (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a source for the nominations, they can be added to the awards table. Primefac (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of CrunchLabs into Mark Rober

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In its current state, I don't believe the CrunchLabs article has enough information about said company to merit a standalone article. I think it would fit better in the Mark Rober article. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 18:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Just because something is a stub doesn't mean it isn't notable. See this for refideas and this thread above. If you feel it doesn't meet notability guidelines, then would recommend AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@1isall

Yes. There isn't enough content for a standalone article. It should be merged into Mark Robers article. Vasudevmadhu67 (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you are new to Wikipedia, but hoping you can point to the guideline that says we merge pages if there is not enough content on a page. I haven't been able to find it in my searches. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Can", not necessarily "must", but if an article is too small to be an article, WP:ATD says a merge can be implemented. Just answering the question above, no real opinion on the merge proposal itself. Primefac (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Primefac's comment: short text and context are both reasons for a merge; it's not necessarily a question of notability. Klbrain (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why I proposed this merge in the first place. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 22:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CrunchLabs may be 'notable' but there isn't enough info on the page. If you can add a significant chunk of content maybe no. BrumWikipedian (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. this should be merged unless someone makes a huge edit. MrReaderandeditor123 (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; these do not seem like they could share the same article Support merge, I now agree it's too short. Stricken on 19:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC). FaviFake (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on? WP:MERGEREASON says that short text ("consisting of perhaps only one or two sentences") is a valid reason (not required) to merge. This is more than a few sentence. Would have been better for OP to take the page to AfD as MERGEREASON would not apply here. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How so? The company is owned by the person. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 01:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The company is a company and the person is a person. seems like a good distinction to me. FaviFake (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Oppose: Notability and no original research used matter more here. It seems as if the article is notable at the moment. However, I'm not 100% on if it passes GNG or not. ^Wiinter_U 23:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 157.201.96.100 (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: This discussion was closed by the nominator and reopened. For future reference, the following was the nominator's closing statement, which he may wish to remove from my comment:

STALE: Discussion has become dormant, and I think the CrunchLabs article could plausibly be expanded far enough to become standalone. No need for merging anymore. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk)

FaviFake (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merging -- see where the entity article goes. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

The discussion above was initially closed but it was reopened during this discussion. Add new comments above. FaviFake (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I boldly performed the merger since the discussion was closed as stale, but was reverted. My reasoning was that the majority of participants !voted for a merger. So I guess we'll continue to discuss this? Pinging CNMall41 per WP:BRD. FaviFake (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] I am not sure if you read the close closely enough. You did the merge to support your !vote despite the nominator withdrawing and saying ("discussion has become dormant, and I think the CrunchLabs article could plausibly be expanded far enough to become standalone. No need for merging anymore.". (my emphasis) You want to re-open because you disagree?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] the nominator withdrawing The nominator is an editor just like us. They don't have WP:SUPERVOTE powers in consensus-based discussions. Also, per WP:DA, involved editors are not permitted to close non-unanimous discussions: (emphasis in original) During discussion, a rough consensus may emerge to proceed with the merge. Any user, including the user who first proposed the merge, may close the discussion and move forward with the merge if enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed and there has been no discussion or if there is almost unanimous consensus to merge. Closing of merge discussions differs from closing of requested move discussions in that closings of uncontroversial merge discussions by involved users are allowed. Their comment doesn't strike me as an oppose, but also not as a support. A discussion shouldn't be closed without a clear assessment of consensus, which however i'm not seeing here. Yes, of course I performed the merger for the reason explained in my !vote. Any reason why you reverted it? FaviFake (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] From WP:SUPERVOTE (essay): ; Withdrawal supervote: The original proposer may feel like the winds of the discussion have blown one way or the other, and feel like they should withdraw their ideas to let another action run its course. But it is not acceptable for proposers to withdraw for the purpose of getting a non-status-quo result or if somebody still dissents to the status quo, as it denies the result of a basis in the consensus of other involved editors. FaviFake (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] By the way, I'm the nominator, as you all know, and I go by he/him, not they/them. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 18:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Thanks. I always use they/them when referring to people whose preferred pronouns I don't know. I will attempt to remember yours in the future. FaviFake (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Did you know you can use the {{pronoun}} template? Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 18:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Yes. FaviFake (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Yes, of course I performed the merger for the reason explained in my !vote. Any reason why you reverted it? Yes, per WP:BRD. If you have an issue with the withdraw, you can always discuss as opposed to imposing your vote. Feel free to re-open and request closure should you choose. I still feel he had the right to withdraw.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] He may have had the right to withdraw, but not to close the discussion. @1isall, would you reopen the discussion since you were involved and the consensus wasn't unanimous? If you have an issue with the withdraw, you can always discuss The discussion was closed. FaviFake (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Well, am I required to? Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 19:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] You are clearly involved, and the consensus was clearly unanimous. Please see Wikipedia:Merging § Step 4: Determine consensus and close the merge discussion: (emphasis in original) During discussion, a rough consensus may emerge to proceed with the merge. Any user, including the user who first proposed the merge, may close the discussion and move forward with the merge if enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed and there has been no discussion or if there is almost unanimous consensus to merge. Closing of merge discussions differs from closing of requested move discussions in that closings of uncontroversial merge discussions by involved users are allowed. Admin tools are not needed unless page protection prohibits editing. In more unclear, controversial cases, the determination that a consensus to merge has or has not been achieved should be made by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merge proposal or the discussion. The discussion can be posted at WP:Proposed mergers to get some help. If necessary, a request that an administrator, who is not involved, close the discussion can be made at the Requests for Closure noticeboard. If a consensus is formed against the merge shortly after it was performed, it can easily be reversed. I intend to take this to WP:AN if the discussion is not reopened. FaviFake (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Reopened. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 19:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Thanks. FaviFake (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] He may have had the right to withdraw, but not to close the discussion. We will need to agree to disagree about that one as well. Per WP:MERGECLOSE, I do not see this as being unclear since you were the only dissenting vote (note that you even originally opposed). One dissent vote does not make it unclear or controversial. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] I do not see this as being unclear I never said it was unclear. I said it was not unanimous. See § c-FaviFake-20251029190800-1isall-20251029190300 FaviFake (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] I intend to take this to WP:AN if the discussion is not reopened. May I suggest stepping back for a moment? No need to threaten AN because you disagree with the nom closing the discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] I am not threatening anyone. The standard procedure for closure reviews of mergers is to go to AN. I was stating my intention to follow the closure review process. FaviFake (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Says "almost unanimous" which it was. Regardless, I will make the request for closure. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] More than half the partceipants support a merger and the discussion was closed as "maintain status quo". How is that almost unanimous? FaviFake (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anduril/Military industrial complex collaborations

Probably not enough reliable sources on this, but in the video "Vortex Cannon vs Drone," he meets with the founder of Anduril, Palmer Lucky, and promotes their unmanned combat aerial vehicle. How could this best be incorporated into the article?

Sources:

1. Mark Rober (April 20, 2024). Vortex Cannon vs Drone.
2. "YouTuber and ex NASA engineer Mark Rober wanted to learn more about the threat of small drones and how to defeat them..." Linkedin. Anduril Industries.
3. "A Response to Mark Rober's Apologia for Anduril and the Military-Industrial Complex in "Vortex Cannon vs Drone"". The Luddite. April 2024.

pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 21:55, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]