It seems like in my lifetime the use of fundamentalist has developed a negative connotation; it is used to describe the fringe. I like your use of the term evangelical orthodoxy. I was raised in an evangelical home and went to an evangelical private school; most of my family are evangelical Christians. None of my family would identify themselves as fundamentalist.
Some of my family are pentecostal; to me the defining attribute of pentecostal is more lively contemporary church services and the speaking in tongues. I was raised holiness which is like pentecostal without the lively services or the speaking in tongues; in particular I was raised in the Nazarene Church.
It seems like the evangelical orthodoxy has converged around the idea of 'born again', rapture, stict moral codes including conservative sexual codes, pro-life, and prohibition of alcohol consumption. Open questions which separate denominations include worship style, method of sanctification, the frequency and meaning of 'back-sliding', speaking in tongues. Other open questions are acceptance of evolution and global warming, level of focus on Isreal and focus on end times.
Interesting questions to me is the overlap and differentiation compared to mainline protestants and to Roman Catholics. There are definitely conservative Roman Catholics who share many views with evangelicals. There are some documented cases of speaking in tongues appearing in the mainline protestent denominations and many of the mainline denominations have breakaway versions which have become evangelical; consider for example the different Lutheran branches. My childhood church, the Nazarenes are actually a break away from the Methodist.
Are we getting to a point where protestant is to broad a category and we need to differentiate evangelical and mainline?