I think a common name for a concept, one that's descriptive (NOT prescriptive), is very useful - for example, "hash function" or "hash table" or "lexicographical stable sort" or "gossip protocol" are extremely useful for human communication and documentation. They cannot be implemented as macros/templates etc, because they are too general (and even Nim's "concept" which comes closer isn't enough). Concrete, specific versions may be implemented, of course, but that's just a type/class/generic; no need for a new "pattern" distinction which adds nothing.
This is, I think, the equivalent to what Alexander's original "Patterns" referred to (w.r.t city architecture), and what the software patterns e.g. as advocated by the GoF _claim_ to do - but as @mratsim says, just show how limited C++/C#/Java/Friends are.
