I'll throw a few out there: spectroscopy, reaction mechanism, electronic structure

I think that software and software-packages seems too similar

van-der-waals seems too narrow and can fall under molecular mechanics

I don't know what computational frameworks means

mathematical modeling seems a bit too general also but I"m not sure.

New tag suggestions: proteins, condensed-phase,

Also, what about tags for specific packages that are popular with our users? Molpro, Q-Chem, VASP, Amber, …?

New tag suggestion: polymers

van-der-waals maybe could be switched to "long-range-interactions" this includes "dispersion", "van der waals", "LeRoy-Bernstein" and others.

I agree about make tags for MOLPRO, Q-Chem, VASP, Amber, etc. In fact, let's make those tags in advance, because when tags don't exist, people make their own tags, and sometimes they don't have experience with SE and they don't make the most fitting tag names. If the tags are already there, then they can select from something that exists.

Another tag: surfaces

What about "intermolecular-interactions" instead of long-range or vdw?

or "intermolecular-forces"

Yes "intermolecular-forces" is a good one. "long-range" might also be appropriate in the context of Rydberg systems.

o/

thx 4 the note @cody

@user1271772 You cannot make tags in advance. Tags only exist, iff they are attached to a question. And I believe during beta, they must reach a threshold of 6 to not be cleared by the system; but this could have changed.

Also, from experience, having tags there will help, but it won't deter the determined from creating new tags with weird names...

I think geometry isn't a very good tag name. It's ambiguous. I assume we will have questions about crystal-structure, we can already find microstructure, I think molecular-structure would be a better tag for geometry.

we have a duplicate tag: dft and density-functional-theory

@Martin-マーチン Yes, I just saw it. I tried to make a synonym (are we allowed?), but I ended up editing all questions under [dft] to use [density-functional-theory].

(I assumed we want to use the longer version.)

I agree with the longer version

@Verktaj you appear to be asking to replace density-functional-theory with dft ?