Talk:Castaic, California

Lead needs rewriting
It would be appreciated if somebody would take it upon himself or herself to refashion the WP:Lead. Thanks in advance, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Have re-written the lead and removed the tag. Mdukas (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Castaic, California. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/699nOulzi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fgeo%2Fwww%2Fgazetteer%2Ffiles%2FGaz_places_national.txt to http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Castaic, California. 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/20100123044247/http://www.lasd.org/stations/for1/scv/index.html to http://www.lasd.org/stations/for1/scv/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC) you should go check out this place!!!!! wonderful!! full of excitement and fun! תבודנמשףאחזיכ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.176.90 (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarification needed; error suspected
Thank you for all of the work that goes into regularly editing articles. Since I’m not a regular contributor and I don’t have an account, I thought I should simply suggest that someone who is a regular contributor may want to double check on the pronunciation section. At the present time, it seems to state that the people who are familiar with the historic two-syllable spellings of the city like to pronounce the name of the city with a three-syllable version, while the people who are familiar with only the new three-syllable spelling prefer to pronounce it with two syllables. Why would that be the case, unless it was mistyped? Intuitively, it seems that the people familiar with the two-syllable spelling would be the ones pronouncing it that way, while the others who are familiar with the three-syllable spelling would be the ones pronouncing it that way. Something is amiss here. It is like the time when a person was telling me something interesting about her grandfather but actually meant to tell me some interesting fact about her father. The original source that the statement comes from may have an error to begin with, so it may need to be assessed, as well. Thus, even if there’s a source that says the exact same thing, the source itself may be flawed. Errors can be carried forward to new sources in this manner. Thanks for checking on it. Respectfully, Anonymous person who appreciates the hard work of regular contributors 2600:1700:1111:3270:7033:FBA0:7CF6:F64 (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for writing. You can go to the source by clicking on the link and see if it is reported or paraphrased in this article correctly, or mistyped. I hope you do, and then come back here to let us know what you've found. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I finally came back to this page to see updates and found your reply. I went back to the article and clicked on the link and it takes me to a page with “article not found.” Thus, I can’t verify the source. Regardless, linguistically, it doesn’t make sense to say people familiar with A prefer to say B and people familiar with B prefer to say A, so based on logical language, it is suspicious that even if it says this in the original source (which is inaccessible to me), the original source must be incorrect. There’s not much left for me to do with this situation, but for anyone who cares enough about the article, please look into this. Thanks. 2600:1700:1111:3270:A4A5:2109:9AB8:449E (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)