Since Martin Sleziak wrote an answer defending making the name
pointless-topology the main tag (with
frames being, ultimately, synonyms of it), let me play the devil's advocate and defend making
frames-and-locales the main tag (with the existing
locales and also
pointless-topology being synonyms of it). Actually I don't have strong opinions on the matter but having two opposing answers will make it possible to use their scores as a kind of straw poll between these options.
One reason why
frames-and-locales might be a better choice is that it is slightly more general: the title of the present question notwithstanding, frames can be considered from the point of view of algebra (e.g., universal algebra) and/or order theory, not necessarily with a view toward generalized topology. In this case, the primary objects of study will be frames, locales are less likely to be of interest, and “pointless/pointfree topology” may not be an adequate description.
An example of this is J. Todd Wilson's thesis (“The Assembly Tower…”, 1994), which was referred to me in this answer, and which is about algebraic aspects of the category of frames: locales are barely mentioned past the introduction, and it's hard to argue that the thesis is about “topology”, pointfree or otherwise.
Another problem concerns the choice between the terms “pointless” and “pointfree” to qualify the topological study of locales: “pointless” is catchier and probably more memorable, but can be construed as derogatory and may be a misnomer because a pointless locale is one whose spatial part is empty, whereas “pointfree” topology describes the study of locales without qualification as to whether they have points or not.
frames-and-locales, on the other hand, clearly encompasses the algebraic study of frames as well as the topological study of locales, whether they have points or not.