Talk:go long

Could someone add an usage example for the first sense? Is is transitive? --Barytonesis (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Not transitive. Equinox ◑ 22:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Trying to find a way to add long-termism, long-term, in the long run to the entry, but it'll wait --Barytonesis (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

RFD discussion: June 2020–May 2021

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

go long

"To buy a financial product with the intention of holding it for sufficient time for it to increase in value and thus to be sold for a profit."

This is NISoP. go ("To come to (a certain condition or state)") + long ("(finance) Possessing or owning stocks, bonds, commodities or other financial instruments with the aim of benefiting of the expected rise in their value. ")

The other, football sense might be NISoP, too. DCDuring (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

In case it is kept, I'm not sure that the present definition is ideal. It is easy to read "long" as equating to "sufficient time", i.e. "going long" entails holding shares for a "long" time fsvo "long". AFAIK, "long" does not mean this, but merely means that your holding is positive, as opposed to negative in the case of going short. Mihia (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the definition to address this point (and btw also removed the link to take the long view which seems to betray the same misconception that "going long" necessarily means that you intend hold the shares for a long time). Also added go short. Vote Keep for go long, partly on the basis that I think we should have go short for the "not have enough" sense, and this entails mentioning the finance sense, and then we should not have that without "go long" as well. Mihia (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mihia: Regarding take the long view, does the hypothetical antonym take the short view exist? If yes, does it - or maybe short view (see Lexico) - merit an entry? PUC – 17:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess it does exist, though my instinct is that take a short view would be more common, and in fact Ngrams bears this out. Putting these at long view and short view would mean we wouldn't need to worry about the article. In any case, "long view" can be used in the same sense without the verb "take". The only issue might be, as we had somewhere else, that "take" can have so many meanings, but in this case I think it is not hard to see what "take a/the long/short view" must mean if one knows "long/short view". By the way, I see you added "with of" to "go short", but in fact an explicit "of" is not mandatory. E.g. you can say "My parents were very poor, and we often went short". You might say that there is an implied "of", i.e. "went short of the sorts of things that you can imagine, such as food, clothes, etc.". Mihia (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 16:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

{{look}}

• Keep. How is someone to know that you can go long on gold, but you can't go optimistic on it? We have other entries that could equally be argued as SoP with this sense of go (or a closely related one). e.g. go crazy. And I think they're totally appropriate. Again, how could someone know that you can go crazy, but you can't go sad? It's not a function of any grammatical rule - it's lexical information. Colin M (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks like this was already decided and kept. DAVilla 01:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)