I don't think this must be called "patterns" in computer science patterns are a model applied to give solutions to recurring problems. I was expecting something like Martin Fowler Patterns-Enterprise-Application-Architecture but for databases.
This should be called something like database designs.
So what you're saying is that "design patterns" should only be for code, not for data?
If you apply some recipe to structure code, that's a "design pattern"; if we apply some recipe for structuring data, it's a "data(base) design"?
But code is data. But sometimes it's not clear whether something is code or data, or whether it's closer to being code than to data.
Design patterns incorporate data. The Observer pattern requires a list of observers that are notified; that is a data structure which we can have in a database: an observer table joined to an event source by event source ID.
If I make such a database (say for a large number of users to set up persistent notifications about some interesting interesting things), am I doing "database design" or implementing the Observer pattern? :)
This should be called something like database designs.