Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

The tag is about compilation, like C++ or LESS includes.

The EF extension method that controls pre-loading or lazy-loading tables/objects is called .Include(). I just retagged a question because it used the tag on a question about this method.

Then I checked, and there are 30 other EF questions that abuse the tag the same way.

The .Include() method is important in EF, but this use of tagging, while cute, IMO is tag abuse.

  1. Is it tag abuse?
  2. If not, can my edit be rolled-back?
  3. Should the tag mention this 'cute' usage, to avoid retagging noise like this?

Here is the revision I would prefer to rollback (yzorg, today, 1/29):

Here are the other 30 uses of the tag on questions:

share|improve this question

closed as off-topic by CRABOLO, Martijn Pieters, Troyen, James, MichaelT Dec 14 '14 at 4:17

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This question pertains only to a specific site in the Stack Exchange Network. Questions on Meta Stack Exchange should pertain to our network or software that drives it as a whole, within the guidelines defined in the help center. You should ask this question on the meta site where your concern originated." – CRABOLO, Martijn Pieters, Troyen, James, Community
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

What about that usage is "cute". "wrong" seems like a much more appropriate term. – Servy Jan 29 '13 at 20:16
I changed the phrase '30 abuses' to '30 uses', since there doesn't seem to be a consensus whether this is abuse or not. If it is abuse the consensus is the number of uses is too low to be worth creating a dedicated tag, which is the best fix. – yzorg Jan 29 '13 at 21:11
Actually, I don't think anyone but you thinks that this is abuse. Everyone that has addressed that seems to feel that this is an innocent mistake and not intentional abuse. I would say that there is consensus on that point. – Servy Jan 29 '13 at 21:21
The tag lazy-loading seems much more appropriate than include for questions about the EF .Include() method. – yzorg Jan 29 '13 at 21:39
@Servy Got it. Thanks. – yzorg Jan 29 '13 at 21:40
@Servy I initially used 'cute' instead of 'wrong' as a hedge to animuson's reading of the tag - he isn't sure include is even wrong in this case. – yzorg Jan 29 '13 at 21:52
up vote 3 down vote accepted
  1. It's not really abuse. Abuse would imply that it's malicious; that they're trying to cause problems. This is simply an inadvertent mistake. Looking at the percentage of questions that have their tags edited, mistakes such as this (using tag that sounds similar, but is in fact on an unrelated topic) is not abuse, it's just a common mistake that is easily fixed (by all means, fix it). In this particular case you can look a the tag wiki to see the definition of that tag. It is not relevant to that EF question. This is precisely what tag wikis are there for; to help people determine which meaning of a particular word/phrase the tag applies to.

  2. You do not need to roll back the edit.

  3. I don't see a need to; this doesn't appear to be a significant enough problem to warrant such behavior. 30 incorrect questions out of over 3000 is less than a 1% failure rate. If it was something like 5-10% I'd be more concerned.

The next question that you didn't ask is whether we should create a new tag that does represent this usage of Include with respect to EF. Personally, I don't see the need for such a tag as it shouldn't represent a lot of questions, nor does it seem to be particularly valuable information to get out of a tag. If you feel it would make a good tag, feel free to make it or propose having it made.

share|improve this answer

It's not abuse, just a misunderstanding. People type words with spaces:

ef include

as though that was a single tag. What they end up with is:

If there was an (should volume warrant it) they might see that while they were typing, but then again, they might not. Characterizing this behaviour as either "cute" or "abuse" is really unhelpful. It suggests the poster knows exactly how the tag system works, and its design, and is deliberately using it contrary to design, just to achieve something the system didn't want them to achieve. I don't believe that's the case at all. The tagging system confuses some people, and as good caretakers, we should fix the results of that confusion when we spot it.

share|improve this answer
I think the other answers make the same assumptions I did about the use of the include being intentionally cute. I don't see how asking this question on meta can be deemed 'really unhelpful', but I could see how leaving such feedback as a comment to the question could be. :) Yes, now I'm being intentionally cute, or trying to. – yzorg Jan 29 '13 at 21:09
your question isn't really unhelpful. But the parts of it that use "abuse" instead of "mistake" create an emotional tone that doesn't help solve the problem, which is mistagged questions – Kate Gregory Jan 29 '13 at 21:25

The tag is about compilation, like C++ or LESS includes.

Where did you come up with that? Include is a very common function used in just about every programming language. Here's the tag wiki excerpt for it:

A provision that many programming languages provide to allow code (functions, classes, objects) in one file to be used in many others.

share|improve this answer
So you think it is appropriate use of the include when the question is about an ORM method call? – yzorg Jan 29 '13 at 21:01
All the uses in the wiki excerpt you quote seem to be code constructs, not database constructs. It didn't seem appropriate for use with a specific ORM method call just because the name of the method matched the name of the tag. The tag lazy-loading seems much more appropriate. – yzorg Jan 29 '13 at 21:37
I personally have no idea. I'm not familiar with EF. I was simply pointing out that your evaluation of the tag's use was completely inaccurate. – animuson Jan 29 '13 at 21:40

I don't know it's a misuse of tags but if it is, then there are other cases:

  1. .Include() it's a LINQ feature, and LINQ != Entity Framework, so there other questions. (Example)
  2. There is also a :include method in Rails ActiveRecord and corresponding questions (Example). Sadly, some Rails questions in are indeed about file inclusion (using Ruby require).

And I didn't an extensive search so there might be other things.

share|improve this answer
I wanted to add the 'include' tag to your question but I don't have enough rep! – Toby Allen Jan 29 '13 at 20:14

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .