seems like a meta tag to me. Can we burn it?

From its cruddy wiki entry:

The four basic operations for a data management system: Create, Read, Update, Delete

It is used on just 14 questions despite existing for just over four years now. It doesn't seem to add anything to the question. And based on my understanding of the English language and the tag's wiki, it seems it's not even appropriately used in all 14 cases.

Can we just burn it?


2 Answers 2


It is most definitely not a meta tag, since it describes the purpose of the code. I don't see any reason to eliminate the tag, despite its infrequent use.

For example, Angularjs CRUD views, controllers, navigation seems like a reasonable use of the tag. (There may be more.)

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Is this an appropriate use of the tag? And if the tag is that useful, why do other questions feel the need to describe exactly what CRUD is when they've also tagged the question that way? Twelve of the fourteen CRUD questions have CRUD in the title. \$\endgroup\$
    – nhgrif
    Commented Jun 27, 2015 at 16:19
  • \$\begingroup\$ The first example is marginal, since it deals with just the UI aspect of the CRUD system. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jun 27, 2015 at 16:25
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ CRUD is as much a computing concept as unit-testing, concurrency, or data-structures. If your code has CRUD as a major feature of it's purpose, then tag it with crud, it makes sense. \$\endgroup\$
    – rolfl
    Commented Jun 27, 2015 at 19:39

Burn baby, burn!

Yes, I agree. It's a useless tag. Burn.

Looking at the questions... there are other tags that would be more relevant there - like here is much more relevant than . here it's used along with and therefore redundant. Not to mention most of these questions have "CRUD" somewhere in the title already.

  • \$\begingroup\$ The fact that it appears in the title is a bad argument for not having the tag. tic-tac-toe questions also tend to have "Tic Tac Toe" in the title, but I think we all agree that we shouldn't remove that tag. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jun 27, 2015 at 18:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ Eh, I was just making an attempt at a counter-point. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jun 27, 2015 at 19:02

You must log in to answer this question.

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