# Question about Directory Recursion Operation
**URL:** https://community.mp3tag.de/t/question-about-directory-recursion-operation/1235
**Category:** General Discussion
**Created:** [August 19, 2004, 11:14am UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/question-about-directory-recursion-operation/1235 "2004-08-19T11:14:14Z")
**Posts on this page:** 3
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@unmake](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/unmake)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2004, 11:14am UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/question-about-directory-recursion-operation/1235/1 "2004-08-19T11:14:14Z")
I noticed today, that if I have an audio file in a directory alongside more directories with files, dragging the file onto mp3tag also loads up the nested audio files as well.
```
-root
|
+folder with songs
|
lonely.mp3
```
Would it make sense to override mp3tag's recursion option when dragging files, as opposed to folders, on the main window? For some reason the current behavior is not as I expected it to be (never ran into it before, either, since everything in my media library usually gets its own folder) - I guess I just assumed it would behave like mp3utility does, which will recurse only when a folder is dragged on it.
Also, I was reading up a bit on MP4/M4A tags, which have their own format, but mp3tag's homepage says:
"Mp3tag is a powerful and yet easy-to-use tool to edit ID3-tags, APE-tags and Vorbis Comments of audio files."
maybe it'd be appropriate to mention MP4/m4a/iTunes/whatever there as well? As is, one might get the impression that mp3tag supports tagging such files with ID3/APE/Vorbis tags.
cheers.
---
### Author:  [@dano](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/dano)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2004, 11:34am UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/question-about-directory-recursion-operation/1235/2 "2004-08-19T11:34:15Z")
You can disable recursion with CTRL+D or in the Options
---
### Author:  [@unmake](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/unmake)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2004, 1:44pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/question-about-directory-recursion-operation/1235/3 "2004-08-19T13:44:24Z")
I'm aware of that (after all, I had to enable it).. I guess I'm wondering whether the convention currently in place is good, or logical, or consistent with user-expectations?