In the pattern edit form, a description should explain what the label is used for

Yeah, just ran across this. I have no idea what to enter for label.

I don't see how just having a machine name would make it easier for site builders? I don't think we can generate a machine name out of the pattern or the selection, the second at least not without quite a bit of custom JS code I suppose.

Moving the label at the bottom was an experiment that I did when building that form in the first place, so you can select what the pattern is before you have to think about a label.

I'm not sure about completely removing it. We did generate labels also for the upgrade path, so it is possible. However, there we had a simple pattern with one entity type + maybe a bundle + maybe a language. What if you select 3 node types?

Maybe we could have a bit of JS that suggests a label based on the selection, I'm sure we can also improve the UI texts and descriptions, a description like "Provide a short description of this pattern to be able to identify it again later" might also help users already? And the label could make it clearer that it is just an administrative label, shown only in the backend.

It's not so different from a label for a View, a Page Manager page and many other config entities.

I must admit that I too had no clue what to enter for the label.

EDIT: To clarify this, I'm not saying that means the label should be removed. If we have a machine name, then we should also have a label. It would just make sense to provide a description, an example, the explanation that its for admin purposes only, etc. Autogenerating the label would probably be too magical.

> It would just make sense to provide a description, an example, the explanation that its for admin purposes only, etc.

+1 to this.

I was a little bit thrown by the label, but not massively.

I also agree that the label should stay. It's easier to find the pattern later. But a description would help to understand what the label is used for.

Thanks for the patch!
The first sentence of description looks perfect to me. I'm not so sure about the bit about 'content type' in the second though -- don't pathauto patterns apply to things that aren't nodes?

The 2nd sentence was just an example. Here is another patch with the first sentence only.

Thanks.