Talk:Contronym

Enjoin can be a command to do something or a command not to do something^[1]. In the Talk:Auto-antonym § Removing words from the list section above, it was argued that these couldn't be opposites since they are both commands. I find this line of reasoning to be deeply flawed. It is analogous to saying that "yes" is not the opposite of "no" because they are both answers to a question. The fact that the two meanings of enjoin are opposites can easily be seen in its use. For example, if someone were to "enjoin" you to do X, with the intent that you don't do X, and then they find out that you had gone ahead and done X, they would rightly think that you had done the opposite of what they had asked. Further supporting this line of reasoning, enjoin is included in multiple lists of auto-antonyms from reliable sources^[2][3], including one which is in the external links of this very page. While the inclusion of "enjoin" in these lists bolsters the case for its inclusion on the examples list of this page, I maintain that a consideration of the dictionary definition and the use of common sense is sufficient to see that "enjoin" is indeed an auto-antonym. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelonelyneutrino (talk • contribs)

Some sources restrict the meaning "forbid" to legal terminology that isn't used in ordinary English. For example, , , . In a technical sense, the meanings are opposite, but in terms of general usage, the meaning refers to telling someone authoritatively something about an action (as in "do that" or "stop doing that"). I can "order" someone to do something or stop doing something, but that doesn't make "order" an auto-antonym. Regardless of the nuances of meaning, however, my argument against including this word is that the article is not a list article; the number of examples is quite sufficient, and there is no need to add a word where there is some disagreement about whether it is an auto-antonym. The article isn't improved by adding a questionable word, and it isn't made worse by not including the word. With a little time I could come up with a few words that are possibly auto-antonyms, but I don't try to add them to the article because they are not clear-cut auto-antonyms and the article doesn't need additional examples. Sundayclose (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Neither of the sources listed by Thelonelyneutrino is particularly reliable. The jburkardt page is just someone's personal web page, and the lingerandlook.com page includes a number of entries that, while they have different meanings, are not antonyms. "Pit" for example. A seed and a hole are not opposites. Sure, you can call them a "solid seed" and an "open pit" to try and make the case, but it's really a stretch. As Sundayclose says, this isn't a list article and we don't need more examples. If it's not a clear-cut auto-antonym it should not be added.

An IP added "ravel" about a year ago. That was a great example. It was added without a source so I added a reliable source (one of the Oxford dictionaries) that lists the contrary definitions "entangle" and "disentangle", and goes so far as to define "ravel" as "unravel". It does not get any better than that. Meters (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Since no distinction was made in Proto Indo-European between borrowing and lending, this is a very common feature in many Indo European languages. This example is written too much as if it were a quirk of German and Polish, but the cognate contranym can be found in Spanish (prestar) and likely many other languages. I think this is such a general and interesting example it should be reworded. Its not just that German and Polish can have these words traced back to a Latin contranym, indeed a lange portion of human languages can trace their words for borrow or lend to a P.I.E. contranym. Coldham10 (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Prestar is not a contranym. -- Error (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

"down" = "up" or "down".

"I'm feeling down. You down for a party?"
"I'm feeling down. You up for a party?"
and for that matter
"I'm feeling up! You down for a party?"
"I'm feeling up! You up for a party?"

Not really up on this article so you all's call if it fits. Herostratus (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

"repress" = "to not allow something, especially feelings, to be expressed:"^[1] or "reissue an album on vinyl or CD from the original master recording"^[2] David Scrimshaw (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not an auto-antonym. Meters (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

To me, "reissuing" is the reverse of "not allowing something to be expressed", so "repress" seems to fit the definition: "a word with multiple meanings (senses) of which one is the reverse of another." David Scrimshaw (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

They're not opposites. "Pressing" an album is not the opposite of "repressing" feelings. Someone can press and re-press an album. We cannot "press" feelings. Sundayclose (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Pressing or reissuing an album is the opposite of not allowing the album to be expressed. But I take your opinion to suggest that it would not be well-taken for me to suggest adding this to the official lists. David Scrimshaw (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

But the terms "pressing" and "repressing" are not opposites in a general sense; only in the extremely narrow context of albums. Additionally, a reliable source that these words are auto-antonyms is required. Also look closely if you open an edit window in the examples section: "THIS IS NOT A LIST ARTICLE. Provide a reliable source or get consensus for new entries. See WP:EXAMPLEFARM." There is a sufficient number of examples, so we don't need any that are questionable. The article is not improved by adding press-repress, nor is it damaged by not adding those words. So no, don't add it. Sundayclose (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay. David Scrimshaw (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

And thank you, Sundayclose, I appreciate your clear and thoughtful response. David Scrimshaw (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Do कल, کل, ospite, huésped, hôte and ar ball (which looks similar to French "tout à l'heure") really have opposite meanings ? "Host" and "guest" are different flavors of the same role: people who meet together. "کل" actually means "one day away from now". Apokrif (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The "huésped" example in Spanish is wrong: "huésped" **always** means "guest", it never means "host" ("anfitrión"). A better example on a tangentially related word is the verb "alquilar" ("to rent"): it means both "to pay for rent [as a guest]" and "to provide a property for rent [as a host]". As a native Spanish speaker, this confusion drives me crazy! The andf (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@The andf:  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sundayclose (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sundayclose what do you mean? Do you speak Spanish natively? Which of my two assertions look dubious to you, that "huésped" always means "guest" in Spanish or that "alquilar" ("to rent") has the two meanings that are the subject of this article? The andf (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@The andf: You've missed the point. Whether you or I is fluent in Spanish is irrelevant for the purposes of Wikipedia. Personal knowledge is not considered a reliable source. See WP:V: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. Any material ... must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." Read WP:RS for what is considered a reliable source, and read WP:OR for details about why your or my personal knowledge is not considered reliable. Hope this helps you understand. Sundayclose (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: As an old Wikipedia user and edit war veteran, I expected your reply. You can do your due diligence and see I'm right and that "alquilar" is a way better example. I don't care, I was just trying to be helpful. You can have your win if winning is what you care about (a mild suggestion: try being less rude in your comments. Your bold red "Not done" is unwarranted. Again: don't argue, just take the suggestion to become a better wiki editor). The andf (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@The andf: I am not here to win. I am trying to do what is best for Wikipedia. And please take careful note that the first message I gave you is a standard template that is endorsed by Wikipedia for use when someone makes a request for a change in an article that is not accompanied by a reliable source, as you did. See WP:ERREQ. It's perfectly OK that you made the request, but your hostile and argumentative tone after being told a simple Wikipedia policy are not acceptable. If anyone is being rude, it is you. So please watch your tone. I'm fluent in two languages, but if I make a suggestion here I would provide a reliable source, and I would not be offended if someone requested reliable source. It doesn't matter how long you or I have edited or how many edit wars we've been through, we all have to follow the rules. You don't have to like Wikipedia policies to edit here, but you do have to follow them. You don't have to like standard templates that editors are allowed to use, but any editor is allowed to use them. I wish you the best and hope you understand. Sundayclose (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: I find your tone hostile, like someone gatekeeping instead of genuinely trying to improve the article. Before you reply denying this, just look at the reaction your comment elicited -- if you're a goal-oriented person, you'll adjust accordingly. Now, as for sources: See RAE for "alquilar", see how meanings 1 and 2 are in contradiction (and this is common usage). RAE does mention "huésped" can be seen as the host, so technically the example is correct and I was wrong, but... this is not how the word is used in practice. There is a very technical usage that is current: "huésped" for the "host" organism of a parasite/virus, but in this specific sense there is no confusion or duality, since the parasite itself is not called a "huésped". Spanish Wikipedia agrees with me; since the introduction of the word "anfitrión", that's the word we Spanish-speakers use for "host". Now, I know what you're going to say: "Wikipedia is not itself a reliable source". I know! But it does hint that this may not be the best example, does it not? So if you truly care about improving the article, maybe you'll accept this warrants looking into? The andf (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@The andf: Feel free to look into anything. If you find a reliable source, it would be great if you gave it to us here. Now, I thank you for your comments; I'm finished discussing this with you. Have a good day. Sundayclose (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Please stop using the royal "we", you are not Wikipedia. This is precisely what I meant about your gatekeeping hostile tone. I provided a link to the RAE, which is a reliable source, and to Spanish Wikipedia, which is not but hints the issue warrants looking into. Now, if you care about the article, you may do something about this other than arguing with me. The andf (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

In English, at least in American English, the term, "constructive knowledge", is often used to refer to a situation where there's a reasonable presumption of knowledge, but there is actually a lack of knowledge in spite of the reasonableness of the presumption. It mainly shows up in law. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

If you're suggesting this as an addition to the article, please provide a reliable source that it's an auto-antonym. Sundayclose (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Does not appear to be an auto-antonym. "Constructive knowledge" is a phrase, not a word, and it does not have an opposite meaning. It means, in a legal sense, knowledge that one is presumed to have. The presumption may be incorrect, but that does not mean that "constructive knowledge" has any other meaning. Meters (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Meters: In a legal sense, the term is only used in situations where it's possible that the person doesn't actually have knowledge. General semantic construction of the English language would suggest that the phrase refers to actual knowledge that one or more people have attained through their own research. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This expression can mean 1. Something is worsening 2. Something is becoming increasingly easy, like how biking down a hill is easier than up it. They aren't exactly opposite meanings but close enough to merit being included on this page I think. Adam Friedland's Soiled White Pants (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not a list article and can't have an unlimited number of examples. The article doesn't need new examples, and if an item is added it needs a reliable source, AND the source needs to unequivocally identify the word as an auto-antonym with an explanation. Additionally, your example is a phrase, not a word. Read the first sentence in the article that defines auto-antonym. Sundayclose (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, and as with the previous thread, it's an expression, not a single word. Meters (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I added apology, bolt, bound and weather to the English examples section because they are auto-antonyms in common use that are not found in other articles, inside or outside of Wikepedia. The reason given for their removal was I did not, "Provide a reliable source". Each word was given a link to Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com cites as its sources in the entries for these four words:

• Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2022
• Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition
• The American Heritage® Idioms Dictionary (Copyright © 2002)
• The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition (Copyright © 2005)

Had these words been found in other sources they would not have been added to the examples and I would hope we could all agree that those dictionaries are reliable. I request the edit be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.159.125 (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

From the article:

The word escatología in Spanish means both "beliefs about the afterlife" (cognate with "eschatology") and "the study of feces, scatology"

But "beliefs about the afterlife" and "the study of feces" are not "opposite meanings", which the article states is a necessary condition for being auto-antonyms. So this is just a word with two completely unrelated (but not opposite) meanings. The andf (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove this example, since it's not an auto-antonym based on its own definitions of both the meaning of the term and what it claims is the dual meaning of "escatología" in Spanish The andf (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. That's a recent addition that should never have been added. This article has a problem with excessive, often poor, examples (which is why we have the edit notice "THIS IS NOT A LIST ARTICLE. Provide a reliable source or get consensus for new entries. See WP:EXAMPLEFARM") but that one is simply dual meanings. Meters (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

One of the references contrasts both meanings:

“Escatología” define lo más elevado y lo más pedestre, referido directamente a las heces.

"Escatología" defines the most elevated and the most earthly, referring directly to feces.

--Error (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

That's a Cordopolis interview with someone promoting his book (so the reliability is questionable), and a fuller quote is "... in the orthodox dictionary, many words have meanings that are almost antonymic. "Eschatology" defines the highest and the most pedestrian, referring directly to feces." (emphasis added). Meters (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I have had this article on my watchlist for a while, and the editing on it seems to consist almost entirely of people bickering about whether examples are notable, and trying to keep the list short, and trying to add relevant things, et cetera, et cetera. Why don't we just spin out a list and be done with it? jp×g 05:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

You have every right to try to create a list, but it will open a huge can of worms. Lists like that are crap magnets, with everyone adding their favorite idea of what they personally consider a word to be an auto-antonym, usually with no source or forethought. Unfortunately, that's the nature of the encyclopedia that anyone can edit (which some people interpret to mean they can edit any way they wish). A list will result in even more bickering. As an example of a similar article, look at List of common misconceptions and its talk page archives. For many years that article has been inundated with disputes about what is considered a common misconception. And it has been a constant battle that has been fought by just a handful of editors. Sundayclose (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Sundayclose. If you can justify a list article then go ahead and do it, but it certainly won't prevent the problem, it will just move most of it to another page. If such a list is created then I would suggest we remove the list in this article and just have a very few, absolutely solid examples in prose.

And calling the talk page discussions "bickering" is a rather negative view. The article's edit note explicitly says to get consensus for any new examples that do not have sources showing them to be auto-antonyms. Talk page discussion of proposed additions is exactly what should happen. Meters (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I linked the Wiktionary page at the top of the English examples list. Perhaps this will solve the problem. 67.173.98.7 (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

These two meanings (of the many listed) appear (to me) to be contradictory:

"pitch, v. (1968-) transitive. North American colloquial. To discard, throw away. Also with out.", and

"pitch, v. (1943-) transitive. To try to sell (merchandise) by persuasion, esp. by drawing attention to specific attractions, advantages, etc. Now usually figurative…"

both taken from OED. Fortunately, I read this Talk page first, particularly the discussion of List v. non-List, and am unsure of how to proceed. What do you think? Sudleyplace (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not a contronym. They are not opposite meanings. Meters (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

From Wiktionary:

1. A long period of time.
2. An extremely short period of time; moment.

Are these not directly opposite meanings? A citation might be needed to add to the article. I will add it to the article if another user agrees. -1ctinus📝🗨 17:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so: I think it's a direct extension of "[it's been a] minute", which is just a tongue-in-cheek use of the existing sense of "minute", not a different sense.
Also, as the comment says, this is not a list article, and I'm not sure what it adds to the article to add that example, especially without a citation. Remsense留 17:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

As you can see from the revision history for this page, I've been trying to add extenuate to the list of English examples (inspired by the Did You Know? paragraph in Merriam-Webster's recent Word of the Day). @Meters has been rejecting my edits because the meaning "is not yet fully established." I find it odd that fun-with-words.com (which appears to have gone into zombie mode in late 2019) has been deemed sufficient for demonstrating that other examples are fully established as contronyms, but takes issue with this arguably more credible Merriam-Webster reference. I was going to seek a third opinion, but saw that we should first have a thorough discussion here. Hopefully others can shed light on the extent to which contronyms must be established before being listed on this page, and what constitutes evidence of such establishment. In any case, one solution might be to tag emerging examples as such. Jrtuenge (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster does not show that this word is an established contronym. As I said on your talk page: Your source does not actually list both meanings as dictionary definitions. It gives the definition in one sense and then goes on to mention that that there is some use of in the alternate sense, but, as the cited source says "This meaning ... is not yet fully established". ...This not an exhaustive list, so we don't need more examples. Anything that is at all questionable simply should not be there. Meters (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

And what does www.fun-with-words.com have to do with your edit? You didn't cite that URL in your edit, and it does not mention "extenuate". If you object to that URL's use in other examples since it is a zombie site then by all means list them here for discussion, or remove those examples if you cannot justify their inclusion with other sources. Meters (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the Merriam-Webster entry didn't actually contain the opposing meaning. I checked in the OED and it is not there either; I think it's easier for everyone's sake if only contranyms with clearly established opposites are included (disclaimer, Jrtuenge requested my comment on my talk page). – Isochrone (talk) 03:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in. Unless I hear from additional users or encounter more supporting evidence, I'll table (ahem) my effort to add this word to the list of English examples. However, I do still argue that:

1. It is true that the opposing meaning doesn't appear in the definition (i.e., only in the adjacent Did You Know? discussion), but evidence provided in support of some other listed contronyms appears even less credible. The fun-with-words.com page in particular is great for the External links section (e.g., dates back to at least 2004) but doesn't bother to cite sources. Meanwhile, I see now that the mentalfloss.com article does cite Merriam-Webster definitions, but this is indirect, so should probably at most support direct citations.

2. While I agree that we shouldn't attempt to catalog every word that might be deemed a contronym (e.g., see the External link for LingerAndLook.com), and thus need to draw an objective line somewhere, I still think it would be useful to give examples of emerging contronyms (as documented by credible sources like Merriam-Webster) somewhere on the page. Jrtuenge (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

‘Factoid’ is an English contronym since it means ‘a false statement’ but also ‘a true statement’.

From the OED

1 “An item of information accepted or presented as a fact, although not (or not necessarily) true”

2 “A brief or trivial piece of information”

It would be good to include ‘factoid’ in the list of English examples for four reasons:

I) True and False are very clearly opposite in meaning, so the example is especially clear-cut and easy to understand.

II) Factoid is well used. According to google n-gram it is more used than obbligato and ravel, two examples that are included in the current list. Furthermore, factoid is trending upward in usage while ravel and obbligato are trending downward.

III) Factoid is interesting in itself because, in addition to being a contronym, any proposed definition is an example of itself.* The combination of these two properties mean that no matter how you define factoid, it evaluates to only one of the true definitions. That is, ‘Factoid means false or true,’ etc., are factoids in sense 2 only, but the definitions ‘Factoid means true,’ ‘Factoid means false,’ ‘Bread,’ etc. are factoids in sense 1 only.

IV) Factoid was coined in sense 1 in 1973, and has since acquired meaning 2. This recent development might make a useful point of discussion in the troubled ‘Linguistic Mechanisms’ section of this article.

(*not autological because the definition, not the word itself, is self descriptive) 67.173.98.7 (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't support inclusion of "factoid". It does not appear to be contronym. It has two different meanings, but they are not opposites. "A brief or trivial piece of information" is not the opposite of “An item of information accepted or presented as a fact, although not (or not necessarily) true” We have lots of solid examples.There is not one of them. Meters (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Here is an article discussing the complexities of the issue. Perhaps you will think differently after learning more. 67.173.98.7 (talk) 10:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The Factoid page begins, “A factoid is either a false statement presented as a fact, or a true but brief or trivial item of news or information.” Of course, it is bad practice to cite within the site. Nevertheless, it is worth considering. 67.173.98.7 (talk) 10:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

A wikipedia page is not a reliable source. You have already given us a dictionary reference which differs from that definition by saying that a factoid is "not necessarily" true. In any case I don't see it as a contronym, certainly not as a good example. Wait for consensus. Meters (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good.

Just to help anyone looking for a different source or a shorter definition, Merriam-Webster says:

“1: an invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print

2: a briefly stated and usually trivial fact” 67.173.98.7 (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Would it make sense to have a section for terms that are currently in the process of becoming contronyms? I'm seeing terms and phrases used in non-standard English that mean the opposite what the author appears to mean. I frequently see "comprise" for "compose" (or "be comprised" for "be composed"), and lately I have seen several instances of "apart of" meaning "a part of", which is the opposite of "apart from". Wiktionary lists both terms as errors in common use: <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/comprise> <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apart#Noun> 100.19.66.49 (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

A good example is the use of infer to mean imply. 2A02:A44E:E127:0:6CC4:164D:9518:F733 (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I've encountered this problem in spoken English, and don't know whether to consider it a form of structural contronym:

• "He had coffee after he had breakfast." ("after" could be replaced by "whereafter")
• "He had coffee; after, he had breakfast." ("after" could be replaced by "thereafter" or "afterwards")

It happens when people don't punctuate or pause appropriately - or when people misinterpret pauses. The two sentences have opposite meanings, even though the words are the same. 100.19.66.49 (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any need to add "structural" contronyms. It's easy to come up with cases where bad punctuation, bad grammar, or lack of context can lead to confusion. Meters (talk) 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

moreover, these two afters are two distinct lexical items. If I ask "What are you doing after?" then my prosody will either evoke a natural response, or a question "after what?" 2A02:A44E:E127:0:6CC4:164D:9518:F733 (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I added "garnish" and User:Meters removed it without stating a reason. Please state your reason. Yyyikes (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I asked you to discuss it on the talk page because it did not seem to be a particularly good example. As user:Remsense wrote when they also undid you, "this is not meant to be an exhaustive list". We don't need more examples, so we shouldn't add anything that is not a clear and obvious contronym. That's not the case here. There are different meanings, but not really opposite. You appear to be stretching the definitions to make them appear as opposites by defining the embellishment definition in terms of adding something to the top, and the legal definition as taking something off the top. Meters (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, "garnish" in the sense of adding is a culinary term, referring to putting herbs or decorations on top of a food item, while "garnish" in the sense of subtracting is a technicalistic legal term... AnonMoos (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't realize the list wasn't exhaustive, so it's fine. Garnish is exactly like dust in its development, however - it's a noun turned into two opposite verbs. (Garnishing wages is taking off the top - the tax is taken first.) Yyyikes (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Salvage can mean "to save" in most English dialects and "to kill" in Philippine English.

I'm pretty sure that this example can be useful. It follows two of the types listed in the article: it is dialect-based and ultimately the antonymic senses come from different etymologies. "Save" is the strongest opposite of "kill" according to here. Why was it removed? JekyllTheFabulous (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The article does not require yet more examples. It has enough, unless there's some aspect of the topic this one illustrates the others already there somehow don't. Remsense ‥ 论 04:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you. JekyllTheFabulous (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I think Philippine English somehow connected words such as slaughter and slay to salvage to arrive at this odd usage. 2A02:A44E:E127:0:6CC4:164D:9518:F733 (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I added "Blue" as an example of a contronym, but it was reverted. But isn't it a valid example? On the one side, blue indicates impurity or prurience, as in "blue movies." On the other side, blue is used to indicate purity or noblesse, as in "blue blood."

Why would this example not be considered valid? Alyosha47 (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Did you read the edit notice that showed up when you make your addition? It says: "This is not a list article. Provide a reliable source or get consensus for new entries. See WP:EXAMPLEFARM." We don't need more examples. To keep this from becoming an example farm we have decided not add more examples unless they have reliable sources explicitly discussing them as contronyms, or there is a consensus that the example is a good one that should be included. Meters (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

And that's why I left the edit summary per the edit notice: please either provide sources or get consensus for new additions when I undid you. Meters (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I think this article could use a section on pseudo-contronyms, words that merely appear to mean the opposite of what they do. Speakers get confused and use them incorrectly, so a descriptivist might consider them to be contronyms. I'm thinking of "inflammable" and "depress (the button)"; the latter means "press down (the button)", but many people may think it means "unpress" or "release". I don't think two examples are sufficient for a new section. What other suggestions do you have? 2600:4040:7FA3:B800:3C10:21B2:EEA8:5F29 (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that actually discuss these so-called "pseudo contronyms"? I have my doubts that we need a section on mistakes people make. Meters (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

There are loads of pages discussing "inflammable", but I haven't seen any referring to it as a "contronym" or "pseudo-contranym". Some technical standards recommend avoiding the term because people interpret it in one of two contradictory ways, so the term is effectively skunked. Even if this article does not refer to them as "pseudo-contronym", it is still worth noting that the class of such terms exists. 2600:4040:7FA3:B800:84FA:83B3:D90F:D7F6 (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Inquiry into terms or concepts you invented aren't what Wikipedia publishes. Remsense 🌈 论 20:16, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

This issue has popped up several times over the years. There is an inherent problem if the source is simply a definition of the word but does not identify the word as a contranym. Without a clear identification of the word as a contranym we get into the personal interpretation of whether the two definitions are opposites. If you look at the talk page and archives, you'll see several examples where an individual editor considers a word to have two opposite meanings, but there is no reliable source that does more than define the words by specifically identifying the word as a contranym, such as tomgirl, oversight, overlook, and most recently sanction. My point here isn't to question whether the words are contranyms but to raise the issue of whether a dictionary definition is sufficient. As has been discussed several times here, this is not a list article, and examples must be unequivocal. The only way to avoid individual editor interpretation of whether the word is a contranym is to have a source that specifically states that the word is a contranym; or, if it doesn't specifically state that it's a contranym, it makes it very clear that the word has two opposite meanings. Before I start removing examples I'd like other opinions. Sundayclose (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Sundayclose:

To avoid edit-warring, I am opening this discussion here, so we can first have the matter discussed on the talk page of this article, and possibly achieve consensus here, before considering any dispute resolution process.

Actually I have already responded (informally) and described part of the issue in my first reply to you on my user talk page, I don't know if you've read it yet or if you chose not to react. Nonetheless, this will serve as the designated post for the issue and I redirect you to reply here.

I would also like to ask for other editors' opinions if this aligns with Wikipedia's policies and appropriate for the Contronym article.

Separately, apropos to the issue, you have left a "last warning" message on my talk page, and threatened to have me blocked from editing in response to my edits made in good faith. I find this behavior dismissing and uncalled-for, but that's not the main discussion here.

goat = an athletic failure, someone who makes a mistake that loses a game. From "scapegoat". Charlie Brown was often the goat. GOAT = a very successful athlete. From Greatest Of All Time. I. R. Finch (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Not a great example. GOAT is an initialism, not a word. Removed. Meters (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree this is a bad example. As has been stated many times, this is not a list article with an endless number of examples. Each example must be an unequivocal and well sourced word (not an initialism). Sundayclose (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)