Talk:fringe group

fringe group
To my eyes, it is just fringe + group? By the way, this entry is from 2004. If it gets deleted, I must be in line for some kind of prize for "oldest piece of crap found on Wiktionary". --Type56op9 (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not another SoP freak! Also used in the political sense - e.g. a fringe group in the Labour Party. Anyway, keep it. Donnanz (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the same sense. Donnanz, do you care about the rules at all, or is it all voting as far as you're concerned. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no law saying you have to vote this way or that. And there's no law saying I have to kowtow to your personal principles - I have my own, thanks very much. The political sense is not mentioned in the entry. Donnanz (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * None of that's relevant to what I said. I asked if you cared about rules or if you thought it was all voting. By rules I mean WT:CFI. Please answer the question. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're in danger of becoming too big for your boots. All very reminiscent of User:Mglovesfun. Donnanz (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So you're refusing to answer the question. Right. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. A fringe group in the political sense is one on the fringe of the movement.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: per Donnanz, and because I don't like that Renard's bullying him over his vote. Pur ple back pack 89  21:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I asked him to justify his comments. He has so far declined to do so. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, and formally disapprove of Purple voting for something not on its own merits, but based on his feelings about someone's behaviour. That's not how to build a credible dictionary. Equinox ◑ 22:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , I'd have voted keep even if Renard wasn't bullying Donnanz. And if you're "formally disapproving" of stuff, let me "formally disapprove" of Renard bullying keepists and insisting that CFI always be applied. Pur ple back pack 89   22:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you think we would have CFI at all if it was a purely optional thing. These are the rules we have determined (by many iterations of voting) in order to stop this becoming a totally random chaotic empty space in which people can post any damn thing they want. It's meant to be a dictionary. Equinox ◑ 22:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I disagree with a lot of what you just said, but let's focus on two areas: a) I interpret CFI differently than Renard (and when Renard says "enforce CFI", I'm pretty sure he really means "enforce his idea of CFI"), and b) I don't see it as a dichotomy where the only two options are CFI as currently written and random chaos. Pur ple back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  22:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are constantly attempting to enforce your own ideas, so you cannot criticise someone who tries to enforce their own idea of something that is actually Wiktionary policy. Equinox ◑ 03:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh come on Purple I wouldn't call it bullying. You're no less forceful than I am. Pot calling the kettle black anyone? Renard Migrant (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect bullies don't see themselves as bullies. Perhaps Migrant would like to spend some time in the sin bin along with Polansky. What Migrant needs to learn is that I am not going to respond to aggressive questioning. I oppose the rigid enforcement of CFI or whatever, and Migrant should respect that. After all, the dictionary should be a pleasurable hobby, not a battleground. Donnanz (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I find you extremely aggressive. Basically, bullying's wrong unless you're the one doing it, right? Renard Migrant (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The pot is indeed calling the kettle black. Donnanz (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What Migrant doesn't mention is that he has edited the entry in such a way it suggests that he actually approves of it. What is going on? Donnanz (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Putting the thing into WT:ELE format and improving poor-quality wording is good for giving a questionable entry a fair shot. There should be more of that, not less.
 * The definition both before and after RM's edit hardly fits any of the use of fringe group at COCA. Much of the use seems to be of fringe with respect to the overall "fabric" of opinion, behavior, etc. IOW, this seems to mean a group at the fringe ("edge") (of something). Other nouns used following fringe in this include element, candidate, festival, people, player (both sports and other), economy, science, idea, theater, movement, party, type, movementm phenomenon, publication, stuff, just to mention those occurring four or more times at COCA.
 * Delete. DCDuring TALK 00:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unreasoned answers don't deserve full (any?) weight. Why keep? DCDuring TALK 04:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What about the lemmings? My gut feeling tells me that some mayor dictionaries have it although i didnnt figure it out yet. It might also be a set term at least that's what wikipedia claims.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * At least the online version of Collins has it.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Merriam-Webster has fringe benefit but not fringe group. &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ <small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">Tala við mig 11:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I would have to say this is simply adjective + noun where the adjective and the noun have their usual meetings. Note that gets about 4800 hits, so group isn't the only noun that fringe can be used with. Ergo, delete  (and that's how you back up an argument with evidence, for those who refuse to do so). Renard Migrant (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I get 220000 hits for fringe group, so that more a argumernt pro set term set/keeping than for SOP/deletion.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hits where?
 * When I search COCA (which gives a reliable, replicable count, unlike Google) for red car I get 182 hits, for fringe group I get 44.
 * And so what? Mere frequency is not part of CFI. DCDuring TALK 06:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. It’s a valid term. —Stephen (Talk) 07:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for settling that for us. Just for form though, could you say why? DCDuring TALK 08:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete My usual test for this sort of entry is whether keeping this implies that we need many other entries for all its equally idiomatic synonyms. Since you can also have a "fringe movement", a "fringe party" or a "fringe organization", all of which are pretty much the same thing, it seems cleaner and easier to maintain if we keep the definition as an adjective at fringe. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Does anyone who wants to keep this have a shred of evidence to back it up? That's rhetorical of course, if there were evidence someone would've presented it by now. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * By evidence, do you mean citations? <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  22:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * By evidence, I strongly suspect that citations is not what Renard is looking for. The call for deletion here is because the term fringe group is patently sum-of-parts -- the combination of terms is in no way idiomatic, as others have also pointed out.  Evidence here would be evidence that fringe group is actually idiomatic, that it has some meaning beyond just fringe + group.
 * By contrast, the term red scare is an excellent example of an idiomatic multi-word term. That very idiomaticity is what makes this a single integral term, despite the fact that it is composed of multiple individual words.  One cannot arrive at the meaning of red scare just by combining red + scare.
 * fringe group, meanwhile, is wholly decomposible into its constituent words without any loss of idiom.
 * Delete. &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ <small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">Tala við mig 23:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Abstain. Seems to be fairly regular and predictable: fringe opinion, fringe theory, etc. I find only one lemming: Collins. See also, , . OTOH, shows "fringe group" to be much more common than the other terms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Data as of 2014-12-02
4 votes, only 1 with rationale provided (lemmings test).
 * Keep votes and rationales:
 * Donnanz -- unclear reason
 * Purplebackpack89 -- "per Donnanz", so unclear reason
 * Matthias Buchmeier -- lemmings, but with only Collins as an example
 * Stephen -- no reason given

8 votes, 6 with rationale provided (non-idiomatic SOP).
 * Delete votes and rationales:
 * Ungoliant -- no reason given
 * Prosfilaes -- non-idiomatic, sense already covered by constituent terms
 * Equinox -- apparently per CFI, presumably for SOP-ness
 * DCDuring -- non-idiomatic, sense already covered by constituent terms
 * Renard Migrant -- non-idiomatic, sense already covered by constituent terms
 * Smurrayinchester -- non-idiomatic, sense already covered by constituent terms
 * I.S.M.E.T.A. -- no reason given
 * Eiríkr Útlendi -- non-idiomatic, sense already covered by constituent terms


 * Abstain votes:
 * Dan Polansky

I would like to request that, in future, folks provide a reason for their votes. Otherwise, all we're doing is shouting at each other. &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ <small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">Tala við mig 10:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, Donnanz gave a reason... <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  18:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if you (or better yet, Donnanz) could restate that reason. I just re-read the above again, and I'm still not sure what Donnanz's rationale is for keeping.  &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ <small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">Tala við mig 18:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I generally consider a "delete" vote without further explanation as an endorsement of the nominator's rationale. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 21:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. And I generally see a "keep" vote without further explanation as an endorsement of previous keep arguments. However when there are no previous keep arguments, or if those arguments have all been debunked, then to my eyes an unexplained "keep" vote comes off as civil disobedience. I guess it's not much to ask to have every voter who doesn't have their own argument to at the very least mention which previous argument they are supporting. --WikiTiki89 21:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * My bad; to clarify, I voted on the basis of the NISOP argument. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 21:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)