Talk:notorious

well-known: widely known (archaic)
Accoring to Microsoft® Encarta® 2009,

2. Well-known: widely known (archaic) --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Too many definitions
the entry has far too many definitions at the moment, and generally seems very disorganized. The common definition ("generally or widely known for something negative") is near the bottom, with no indication that it is in fact the common definition. Also, a change in connotation (which is now mentioned in the usage note) should not justify an entirely different definition. In my opinion, there should not be more than a single non-obsolete definiiton.

If you're pulling senses straight from the OED, please don't do this... the OED is "notorious"-ly split-happy, and at some point it's just perverse. You can think for yourself! Ioaxxere (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I do (and did in this case), and carefully considered whether there were different shades of meaning, which I feel there are. — Sgconlaw (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that the sense split is weird, but I agree with the below post that it's best to separate the positive & negative connotations in some way; a change in connotation is a perfect push for a separate definition as the meaning/usage changed, and the separation practice is done quite commonly, not only here but in other dictionaries as well. See:, , , , , , etc. Even more colloquial ones like , , or . I'd say the negative definition here deserves at the very least a subsense. AG202 (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's exactly comparable. The words you listed changed so much that their meaning has become opposite, clearly needing a separate sense. On the other hand, "known for a bad thing" and "known for a neutral thing" are not opposites, and form a spectrum of meaning that I don't think needs to be split up. Ioaxxere (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

"Senses with a positive connotation":
I think splitting it like this is kinda dumb. Here's how I would split it:

Sense 1.1+1.2 Other senses. Three citations, for all senses. (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sense 2.1


 * Am busy now; will look at this again in a few hours’ time. — Sgconlaw (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I had another look at the entry. I think the first two positive or neutral senses can be merged, and have done so. However, I think the two obsolete positive or neutral senses should remain separate. Something which is "widely known" or "well-known" is not necessarily "clear, evident, obvious"—the theory of relativity may be well-known but I doubt it is clear or obvious to many people. Nor is something "widely known" the same as something which is "knowable"—the latter suggests that the thing is not yet known but can be made known.
 * As for the negative senses, I suggest leaving the two senses separate. It seems that the referent is different—sense 2.1 relates to persons or entities, while sense 2.2 relates to things. It seems slightly odd to say that a person is blatant or flagrant. I've supplemented the definitions to clarify this.
 * By the way, the OED had even more senses than the 13 February 2023 version of the entry. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant using those specific words. You did what I was thinking, not what I was saying. Three citations, for all senses. (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "of an act, situation, etc.: blameworthy in an obvious and offensive way; blatant, flagrant" Where did you get this? If this sense really exists in the present day then it's highly nonstandard. Ioaxxere (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * from the OED; the most recent quotation there dates to 1990. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess you're referring to "of a reprehensible action, fact, etc.: noted or well known for its egregiousness; flagrant." which is not exactly equivalent. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I always rephrase rather than copy wholesale, which isn't to be recommended for various reasons. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean that the definitions aren't equivalent, since the original mentions "noted or well known" which isn't a synonym of "obvious". Ioaxxere (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What is this book/magazine/Usenet post? Three citations, for all senses. (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what are you referring to? — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The 1990s quote that the OED lists for a sense for "noxious". The one that Ioaxx said was archaic. Three citations, for all senses. (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Erm, there is no sense meaning “noxious”. But the 1990 quotation I referred to is from a book called Apocalypse Culture: “Consider the notorious abduction and murder of Captain William Morgan”. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I wanted. Thanks! Three citations, for all senses. (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)