# Talk:KDLT-TV

The slogan is no longer "Working for You"; it is now "It's about time. It's about KDLT." I have no clue what it is that is both about time and also about KDLT. News, maybe? But, the ads for shows have "It's about <Show name>" in them. So it is apparently also about each of the shows. --Bp0 04:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to the list of former employees in articles. Including this type of material in articles does not abide by current consensus and its inclusion is strongly discouraged in our policies and guidelines. The rationales are as follows:

WP:NOT tells us, Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information."  As that section describes, just because something is true, doesn't necessarily mean the info belongs in Wikipedia.
As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced.
WP:Source list tells us that lists included within articles (including people's names) are subject to the same need for references as any other information in the article.
Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.
If you look at articles about companies in general, you will not find mention of previous employees, except in those cases where the employee was particularly notable.  Even then, the information is not presented just as a list of names, but is incorporated into the text itself (for example, when a company's article talks about the policies a previous CEO had, or when they mention the discovery/invention of a former engineer/researcher). If a preexisting article is already in the encyclopedia for the person you want to add to a list, it's generally regarded as sufficient to support their inclusion in list material in another article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on KDLT-TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130829004251/http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf to http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Should explanation of the legal structure of the 1998 addition of channel 46 be in a footnote or the body? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Explanation
I disagree with HangingCurve on whether a subject should be broached as a footnote or in the article (See diff). HangingCurve believes the structure of the switchover should be discussed in the body. I believe it is so technical that it should be consigned to a footnote.
My concerns:

There is already at some level discussion of this in the body: On March 6, 1997, FCC granted Red River a construction permit to replace this translator with a new full-power station licensed to Sioux Falls on channel 46. ... On September 23, 1998, Red River activated the new channel 46 and moved the KDLT-TV call sign there. At the same time, channel 5 changed its call letters to KDLV-TV. In December, KDLV moved to a new tower in Plankinton, closer to Mitchell and increasing its coverage to the west. This was necessary because the FCC did not allow Red River to simply move channel 5's tower to Sioux Falls; channel 46 was the lowest UHF allocation available in Sioux Falls at the time.
Citing the call sign histories does not fully verify the information on construction permits and dates.
The switch was so technical that it was not mentioned at this level in the sourcing available ([1]).
I believe the structure I have proposed is more verifiable and avoids burdening a key paragraph with even more jargon and confusion. For viewers, following a license is a lot to ask. This is already mentioned in more intelligible language in the body. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I thought discussing it in the body be more accurate since KDLV is legally the same license as KDLT's original facility. I am okay, though, with noting in the graph about the activation of its new facility that KDLT and KDLV swapped calls. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 02:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
@HangingCurve Even though 46 was parked as KDLV, it never broadcast as such. Is On September 23, 1998, Red River activated the new channel 46 and moved the KDLT-TV call sign there. At the same time, channel 5 changed its call letters to KDLV-TV. (the current text) fair? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
How about this? The new channel 46 was activated on September 23, 1998. It took the KDLT-TV callsign from channel 5, which changed its call letters to KDLV-TV. Due to the way the changeover was structured legally, KDLT's current facility on channel 46 is reckoned as a new license dating from 1998, while KDLV operates under KDLV's original license on channel 5.(with refs from the FCC database included).HangingCurveSwing for the fence 00:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
@HangingCurve I don't like two things. The call sign history references would fail a source check to a GA reviewer who does not know the field. And the phrase of "reckoning" just feels wrong. I appreciate that there's been movement in my direction, but I already have the words "new full-power station" there in a way that should imply the license. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Don’t see how it would flunk a GA test, given it’s a reference to the call sign change. Willing to take the “reckoning” part out, though.
How about this? The new channel 46 was activated on September 23, 1998. It took the KDLT-TV callsign from channel 5, which changed its call letters to KDLV-TV. Due to the way the changeover was structured legally, KDLT's current facility on channel 46 operates under a new license dating from 1998, while KDLV operates under KDLV's original license on channel 5. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 13:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
@HangingCurve I've tried something a little different and hopefully a little more concise in the article. Take a look. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Seems to work. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 23:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)