Talk:KDLT-TV

KDLT-TV has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 8, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Television: Stations Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Low-importance).

South Dakota Mid‑importance

	South Dakota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of South Dakota 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.South DakotaWikipedia:WikiProject South DakotaTemplate:WikiProject South DakotaSouth Dakota
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

New slogan

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)[reply]

Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material

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)[reply]

External links modified

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)[reply]

Footnote or prose text?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 02:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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).HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 00:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 13:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Seems to work. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 23:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Passed. Olliefant (she/her) 05:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:KDLT-TV/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 17:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 23:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ill do this Olliefant (she/her) 23:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant Heads up: I won't have a computer on me from June 10–19, so if you don't have this review wrapped up by then, it may have to sit. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 00:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll hope to get it done today or tomorrow. Olliefant (she/her) 01:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: done Olliefant (she/her) 05:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant That should be everything. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 01:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The second half of note a appears unsourced
- Intended. This is the "infobox Cliffs notes" version of a section of the article. This station has a bit of a license oddity in there, but the start date for all intents and purposes belongs with the original license. See also below.
What does “semi-satellite” mean?
- Linked.
Link big three
"former affiliations" and "Call sign meaning" appear unsourced in the infobox, there is no mention of "CW+" or "MeTV" outside of the infobox and I could find any mentions of "Dakotaland V" anywhere either.
- MOS:INFOBOXCITE References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious. This content is in the body with citations. Network affiliation, for instance, is discussed in the history section. I've added a bit more specificity in body on the call sign side and dropped the KDLV call sign meaning.

History

Link South Dakota on first mention (its technically mentioned first in the lead but linking that mention would be a MOS:GEOLINK violation
"The deal would create a duopoly" did it?
"After one of the longest approval processes in FCC history" how long specifically?
"(reportedly delayed by challenges to the new FCC rules)" a. which rules and b. this could probably be outside parenthesis
- I've reworded this to downplay the speculatory part of this and address your issues.
Link to "Low-power broadcasting" upon mention of low power stations
- Linked but in a different way
Dakota News Now logo needs alt text
Last paragraph is a single sentence long, could it be merged or broken up?
- It's actually two sentences. Topically, it belongs as its own paragraph.

Technical information

Looks good

References

Spot checks turn up nothing
Ref 44 should spell Fox as "Fox" and not "FOX"
Linking is inconsistant, for example Refs 19 and 23 both link "The Argus Leader" while ref 24 doesn't
- Fixed. There are now inconsistencies in name, but that is because the masthead changed from Sioux Falls Argus-Leader to Argus-Leader and then Argus Leader (no space).
Some inconsistency with newspaper.com sources as to wether publishing location is included, for example 27 lists Sioux Falls as the location while 28 doesn't.
- That is because of some bugs in PressPass over time. I've gone ahead and listed it if "Sioux Falls" was not in the masthead.
Why is "TV News Check" reliable?
- See Talk:KLKN/GA1 for my answer.

General

Thoughout the article there is some invisible notes the feature days, any reason why they are there?
- PressPass feature. (For when articles talk about days of the week and you're left a bit bewildered.)

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.