@FelipeS.S.Schneider I think that qsar is the more appropriate tag here, the acronym is QSAR, and when users are trying to add tags, the first thing they'll think of is "QSAR" not "structure-activity-relationship". They are more likely to start typing q...s...a.... and then auto-completion will give them qsar. Perhaps it can be re-directed to a synonym of "structure-activity-relationship" ? I suppose Martin might disagree with me on this, but let's see.
@user1271772 not really disagree. ;) 'Quantitative structure–activity relationship' is way more than 35 characters. Also QSAR is kind of unambiguous, so I think it's safe. If there's a tag wiki, with the full name, even better.
We need to also see that there are other models for SAR. If we get questions actively tagged with structure-activity-relationship, we might need to create more specific tags, maybe even create synonyms.
@FelipeS.S.Schneider Just to clarify, we're allowed synonyms, but we can't by ourselves. Best way is to have a discussion on meta, then a CM will jump in and do it (probably). Mods can merge and synonymise, but we don't have them yet. Users can propose synonyms, but that requires (Iirc ~1250 rep) and 6 users (iirc) with the same credentials to approve. And those users need to vote, and there is no queue for that... It never happened on Chemistry.se, so the mod route is the one to go... way faster ;)
@Martin-マーチン: Thank you! Similarly, Etienne just made a new tag called DFPT for density-functional-perturbation-theory: materials.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/dfpt ... I suppose this acronym is also okay for the same reasons!
@user1271772 In theory yes. I don't know how popular this is going to be. There is obviously a case for density-functional-theory and I expect there to be a case for perturbation-theory; if we have both of these tags, maybe DFPT is superfluous. Only time will tell though, so for now, I think it's fine. In the next couple of weeks we'll have to go through the list anyway and split and combine.
