Help desk
< March 3	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

March 4

Chronology

Is there a chronological list of Wikipedia articles by date of creation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Special:NewPages would seem to be what you're looking for, but it only goes back a little over a month. —Al E.^(talk) 02:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to learn more about the oldest pages, see WP:OLDEST. Alas, we didn't keep proper backups and records wen Wikipedia was just starting, Who would have guessed back then that we would be where we are now? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to add language link to a Wikipedia page

I'm trying to add an interlanguage link to a Wikipedia page. (Nineteenth-Century French Studies) I've read the instructions given in Wikipedia:Wikidata page, but couldn't get to add the language links.

Here is what I'm trying to do: When I click on the Add link button in the left side, it shows a you need to be logged in pop-up and redirects me to the central data repository (Wikidata) user login page. When I sign-in, it takes me to the Wikidata homepage which I've no clue on what to do. Then, I just tried to search the Wikidata for the page and found the item. At the bottom of the item I've added the french language Wikipedia entry.

But when I open the original Wikipedia page, there is no link to the french page in the languages column. And now, when I click on the Add links button, it again shows the login popup.

Is there any thing that I'm missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.74.69 (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're missing -- insert witticism. Someone can explain this, but let me just declare my sympathy here: it can be awfully complicated. I just added the link; when I'm logged into the English wiki it's simple, with one little screen, but when I'm logged into the Dutch wiki, for instance, it's a mysterious and cumbersome process not unlike what you described. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding pictures

how do I add pictures as well as cite material correctly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crushed Cheerio Music (talk • contribs) 02:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Crushed Cheerio Music, there's WP:CITE, but what do you mean with "add pictures"? Upload images to Wikipedia or Commons (Help:Introduction to uploading images/1), or add an image that we already have to an article (Wikipedia:Picture tutorial)? Drmies (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology 2

Is there a way to search for articles by date and time of creation?2602:306:C541:CC60:51D:B38D:18D2:A14C (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest asking at WP:VPT, but based on the above answer to your other question, I would say it's unlikely.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

name

The name Andrew keeps popping up in Mr Hudson Houck personal page and he does not have a grandson by that name. It keeps coming up in his personal section. Mr houck does not like it when that name comes on his personal section.

Is there a way to block it from adding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houck business manager (talk • contribs) 06:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid not. Please read the article on the lack of censorship. No one really has control over the article about them. You can give advice on the article's talk page, but that's about it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 13 Adar 5775 06:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Flinders Petrie: This issue concerns whether a claim is sourced; it is not related to censorship.

@Houck business manager: I have mentioned on your talk page that there may be a problem with regard to your user name. Re the issue: no, there is no way to stop nonsense being added to articles, although persistent incorrect edits can lead to an article being protected for a short period. I will try to pay attention at the article but don't have much time. The procedure is that any unsourced information about a living person (see WP:BLP) can be removed; use an edit summary like "remove unsourced text" although you might need a computer to do that (does the mobile platform allow edit summaries?). If invalid text is repeatedly added, ask for assistance at WP:BLPN. Stick to the facts: either there is or there is not a source for the claim, and any source might be wrong. Talk about that. Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick look at Hudson Houck. I am not very familiar with BLP issues, but the article is *very* thinly sourced, the one source (there is an additional dead external link), supports only a small subset of what's in the article. In regards to the issue raised in this section, the source only offers the name of his wife, and the existence of grandchildren. Anyway, it's not clear to me how this should be tagged, but I'm pretty sure there are BLP issues here. Rwessel (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster's user name, User:Houck business manager, violates our user name guidelines. It implies a business reason for editing Wikipedia. Please change your user name, or you may be blocked for a user name violation. Other than that, follow the advice given about the biographies of living persons noticeboard, but note that the user of a non-conforming user ID there may also result in complaints. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To resume a display title

I can`t move the display title of the article about the architect Sergei Tchoban - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Tschoban. The correct spelling of his surname is Tchoban (without s) but I can`t change it as the right variant of the title was created from the early beginning and then someone has changed it to Tschoban. What should I do in this case? --Amartovitskaya (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Tchoban

See WP:Moving a page#Before moving a page. Johnuniq (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what exactly do I need to catch from that chapter? Is it possible to change the title back or not? Could you please give me straight instructions? Sorry for stupid question but I don`t understand this bafflegab, ny English is too poor for it(( --Amartovitskaya (talk) 06:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the redirect page (the link in the second line of my above comment) and add {{db-move|Sergei Tschoban|Correct name is "Tchoban" without s}} in front of the first line, or just wait and someone will probably notice it here and attend to the matter. That should lead to the redirect being deleted, and that would allow the move. It would be handy if there were a quick way of verifying that "Tchoban" is correct. Johnuniq (talk) 07:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's not going to be able to move it, there's already a redirect at Sergei Tchoban, as well as one at Sergei Enwerowitsch Tschoban, it looks like those are both the results of prior moves. Rwessel (talk) 07:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a picture on the left side of wiki page

I have created a wiki page for a producer I work for, however I can't seem to figure out how to get the picture on the page. I went through the upload via commons it stated my picture was uploaded just not sure where it uploaded too. Please help my boss is wanting me to complete this ASAP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anthony_%22Pastor_Shep%22_Crawford — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony "Pastor Shep" Crawford (talk • contribs) 07:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of problems before the issue of adding a picture arises. First, it appears we are talking about Wikipedia:Anthony "Shep" Crawford which is not at the correct title because there should be no "Wikipedia:" at the front; User:Anthony "Pastor Shep" Crawford is a duplicate. Second, the text is far too promotional—it should be an encyclopedic article with facts, and should not read like a personal webpage. Third, reliable sources are essential, particularly when creating a biography of a living person. Finally, there need to be independent sources which show the the notability of the topic of an article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you solve the problems with the article, you can find your picture at File:Shep Wiki.jpg. —teb728 t c 07:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should also be aware of our conflict of interest guideline. Dismas|^(talk) 08:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry for the spam) Please also check your Commons talkpage, I have tagged the image for further discussion. If you are not the original photographer, permission of the original photographer is needed. GermanJoe (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Draft:Tonic International

Good afternoon,

we've been updating our page for a while now but never get a reply anymore.

We've stripped Draft:Tonic_International to its bare minimum.

Would this be enough to publish?

Please advise on the best course forward.

Kind regards,

Arnaud — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arno66 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arno66: You had removed the article submission template at the top of the article. I have now added it back so that you may click on the link to submit the article for review.

That said, I am concerned by your use of the phrase "our page". Editors do not own pages. Nor do the companies or people that they are written about. (See WP:OWN) Additionally, if this account is being used by more than one person, please be aware that this is against our policies here. Each account should belong to and be used by just one person. (See WP:USERNAME and more specifically WP:ISU) Also, if you work for the company involved, please be aware of our conflict of interest guideline. (See WP:COI) Thank you for your understanding, Dismas|^(talk) 11:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arno66 says here that he is an ad agency https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Tonic_International&diff=647364924&oldid=647359676' Theroadislong (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invention

section heading added by -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A device called plasma pencil has been developed earlier at Department of Physical Electronics, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Brno (Czech Republic) as published in Czechoslovak Journal of Physics, Vol. 50 (2000), Suppl. S3. See http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/754/art%253A10.1007%252FBF03165919.pdf?auth66=1425476407_57258c6e3c553ef776749e41fb47759a&ext=.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.231.103.8 (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. 147.231.103.8. Wikipedia is not a place to announce new things. Once a subject has been written about in several reliable source (such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers) then a Wikipedia article may be written about it, based entirely on what those published accounts say. --ColinFine (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I think the OP may want information to be added to our article Plasma pencil (note his use of the word 'earlier'). If so, he should make a request at that article's talk page. By the way, the link he gives is broken. Rojomoke (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Indigo Project

It was noted that I have the same draft project going on at both Draft:Indigo Project and Draft:The Indigo Project.

I submitted both because I was not given confirmation that the Indigo Project was submitted. I ONLY want The Indigo Project reviewed. How will I know when it is reviewed? And how can I delete the Indigo Project draft?

SheriS — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheriSmith (talk • contribs) 16:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission has two "linked in" references and a "press release", neither of which are suitable. You also have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia requires references with significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42 Theroadislong (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input

I am not sure I know where the symbols are supposed to be used. I am Warner Mack's cousin, caregiver and Power of Attorney, not to mention partners in Bridgewood Music. I was trying to correct errors and additional notes that correct this situation.Warner Mack (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

some of the issues were that you had extra <ref> and </ref> tags. you also had ref tags in the middle of other ref tags. You also had multiple piping in a wikilink [[Mack |Warner Mack |Warner McPherson]] - there can only be one "|" . And our wiki table formatting is just stupid, there was some error hidden in there too. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to upload an image by a not confirmed account

Hello,

I want to upload an image which is better looking on Grant Gustin's Wikipedia page.

URL of said page: Grant Gustin

URL of picture at said page: File:Grant Gustin March 2014 (cropped).jpg

At this picture, he frowns and there are several other pictures (from the same set) who are better looking and I'd like it to be uploaded.

The link to the picture is here:

http://wpc.4d27.edgecastcdn.net/004D27/2014/OnSet/GrantGustinTheFlashP2/Grant-Gustin-The-Flash-On-Set-P2-Tom-Lorenzo-Site-TLO%20%283%29.jpg

Here he is on the set of "The Flash" on March 14th 2014 in Vancouver, Canada and is NOT frowning like at his Wikipedia page.

Please, I would love, if you could help me, or do it yourself, maybe?

That would be awesome. Thank you. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsrojev94 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Itsrojev94. Unconfirmed accounts cannot upload images. You will have to wait until the account becomes confirmed. But then there is another problem: the image you propose is not freely lisenced, while the curent image is. And our policy we cannot use a non-free image if a free image is available. If you were to upload the non-free image, it would be deleted. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Itsrojev94: (e/c) If this image would be useful, then you would just need to become autoconfirmed by waiting until your account was four days old and making at least ten useful edits, but we likely can't use this image at all. The reason why Wikipedia has so many crappy images of incredibly famous people is that we strive to only present free content. This means that most of our content bears a very un-restrictive copyright license, allowing it to be reused by our readers, even for commercial purposes, with the only requirement being copyright attribution upon use elsewhere. We only allow non-free content under fair use if it meets strict standards, and images of living persons can almost never meet them. The image we are using may not be ideal, but it is a free image, and nothing you have stated would indicate the replacement image is (though I can't tell its license from the link you provided, but most images are not [and we assume full, non-free copyright unless we have affirmative evidence of a suitably free license or public domain release]). So, unless you could establish this image bears such a free license, we can't use it and any upload would be deleted. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edit picture on Todd Haynes' page

Can you please tell me how to change the main picture on Todd Haynes page? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loomings (talk • contribs) 21:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The picture that we want to use I uploaded here: File:Todd_Haynes.jpeg but have not been able to get it on his page. thank you

Replacing one image by another is easy enough, when both are already on English Wikipedia. But you would need to provide an excellent reason for replacing a freely licensed hi-res image of the subject facing the camera by a copyrighted lo-res image of the subject in a gimmicky setting. His own wishes are scarcely relevant. Maproom (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, I'm afraid that picture may not be used, and will shortly be deleted, because it is not free of copyright, and does not meet Wikipedia's rules for using non-free images (because a free image is available). If Haynes, or whoever owns the copyright to the picture, wishes to release it under a suitable licence such as WP:CC-BY-SA (which will allow anybody to use it for any purpose, including commercially), then he should follow the procedure in donating copyright materials, and upload it to Wikimedia commons. Otherwise it may not be uploaded or used. --ColinFine (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were donated, I'd still rather have the image that is currently there than the donated one. The infobox images are for identification of the subject which the current image does superbly! Dismas|^(talk) 01:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Generally_considered_helpful

I need some other editors help which have experience with policy.

"Replacing some or all general references with inline citations: an improvement because it provides more information to the reader and helps maintain text–source integrity" WP:CITEVAR

I wanted to remove some quotes, here - from within references because I think this according to policy considered "helpful" but it was reverted. I think it makes no sense to bring quotes into reference list when there are already references pointing to the quote which should be enough. Besides its possible to add footnotes in a reference to such section. Quotes inside references generate bunches of bytes which are not necessary to see here. I think policy wants that a reference tells who when where said something but not adding a quote itself here. Now one user says like quotes cannot be inline citations which I think is wrong. Can I hear some opinions. I think its not helpful to generate huge reference lists because of the use of quotes within there. So is it according policy, as I read it, to remove quotes not from the article itself but only from in between reference tags? Thanks for your help.Spearmind (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Replace" is not the same as "remove." As I explained at Talk:Conspiracy theory:

Quotations are usually accompanied with in-line citations, but are not in-line citations in themselves. My degree is in English, and unless you can present some damn good sources that refer to quotations as in-line citations, I'm going to have to tell you that you are absolutely wrong. The MLA refers to quotes as distinct from citations, as does the APA. And as I already explained, CITEVARS prohibits using in-line citations and ref tags next to each other, it does not prohibit using in-line citations in ref tag reference if that is needed to provide a fuller reference.

It is simply wrong to equate quotations with citations. Not only that, but the portion about replacing general references with in-line citations being helpful is not even applicable. What "Replacing some or all general references with inline citations" means is going through articles that only have a list of books (with no page numbers) in the references section (with no ref tags to indicate what they are supporting), and linking specifically parts of the article to specific pages in those sources.

The first line of WP:CITEVAR says to avoid messing with stable and longstanding reference formatting (the very first sentence of CITEVAR). Multiple editors added those quotations a long time ago to make sure that the reference provided more information. You are going against stable and longstanding reference formatting to make the reference provide less information. You are editing against WP:CITEVAR.

The suggestion to add a reference section for the reference section is ridiculous and stinks of unnecessary work for the sake of unnecessary work. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umm I did not ask for your stalking help since I know your opinion already. Thats the guy reverted my inline citations/quotes deletion. What other editors have to say. Replace is replace when there is already a reference linking to the quote. No quotes are required here at all. The source itself must prove the articles claim. I think an inline citation is not considered helpful at this place. Thats what the policy tries to explain. Now please dont disturb here. I dont want your further comment to my questionSpearmind (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor with no other history was this obstinate about being so clearly wrong, I'd have to assume they were trolling. Every single claim you've made has been refuted. You refusing to pay attention to that does not contradict it. You repeating countered arguments does not contradict the refutations. Forum shopping does not address those refutations either.

I repeat, the MLA and APA distinguish between quotes and citations. They are not the same. For you to call them the same thing in the face of that is to push a falsehood onto the site. Confusing quotes and citations a few times is an honest mistake, but your persistent confusion of quotes and citations is a sign of either crippling incompetence or bad-faith dishonesty. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One very simple question, that proves that your removal of quotes is against site consensus: "why does the citation template have a quote field?" Ian.thomson (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now thats a very good question. There is no such template. "Quote" is not a regular field! I mean of probably "quote! was part of a template, many many years ago. But it makes absolutely no sense quoting the source right in references. The reference itself is enough. No more text needed here. Thats why policy encourages to remove quotes within refs. Got it?Spearmind (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No quote field? Are you sure?

Where does policy say that? The guideline you cite doesn't mention quotes. The guideline you cite says not to change citations to suit your tastes. The guideline you cite calls for moving from undetailed citations to more detailed citations. It doesn't say to remove information from a citation that is useful in verifying the citation.

What is lost from leaving the quotes in there? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say its not there but its not part of any regular templates anymore. What is lost? Space, clarity, readers time; similar to what wp says.Spearmind (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that? Again, the guideline you cite calls for moving from undetailed citations to more detailed citations, and to not change established citations to suit your own tastes. You need to address this. Also, Wikipedia is not paper. Yes, we should avoid making pages too large for those whose data access is limited, but removing quotations that are only a few sentences at most doesn't really matter.

Removing the quotations reduces verifiability, a cornerstone of this site. Users who have to worry about limited data would be better off checking quotes included with every reference than trying to load a single page of Google books. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that? I think you are wrong; its still about quotes/inline citations within reference tags. When quotes seem to make sense for the article put the right there. For anything else review the references. I think this discussion doesnt make any sense at all and I asked not for your help.Spearmind (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask the same question again here in a new attempt and I ask you for not stalking me again. Please stay out from this request!Spearmind (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2)WP:NOTPAPER says that Wikipedia is not concerned about data except for helping users who have limited data access. That removing the quotes reduces verifiability for these users is self-evident by simply trying to load a single page in Google books. Again, where does policy recomment removing quotes? Your refusal to hear me out (continuing from your refusal to hear out Jytdog, and I expect continuing when someone else points these things out), and your refusal to answer questions is only making you look bad, not right.

Your accusation of stalking lacks evidence and is therefore a personal attack. It is also hypocritical, since you recommended that everyone come discuss the issue elsewhere when you decided to forum shop.

Again, I ask you: What policy explicitly recommends removing quotes? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your question, @Spearmind:. No, the guideline that you mention does not ask for quotes to be removed. What it is asking for is that general references unconnected to the text of an article be replaced by inline citations. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I call it stalking since you followed me from the "conspiracy theory" article, where you reverted my deletions, to this place, knowing that I did read your point of view already.Spearmind (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cease your personal attack accusations. If I was stalking you, I'd've gone to other articles you've edited in. I have not, and I only went to WP:Help because that thread relates to article action I'm involved in, and you invited me. For you to WP:FORUMSHOP for just your views and try to exclude mine is hypocritical.

Again, I ask you: What policy explicitly recommends removing quotes? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article not liked by Wikipedia

Hello,

I have recently created a Wikipedia page for FITGIRLCODE, a Dutch company, however it says on the top of the page that it is not a very strong article, since it needs sources and references. Which I later on added, not to mention the list of external links I have created. Today this article was even proposed for deletion.. I was wonering could you help me, and suggest some specific ways to improve my article and make it verifiable? I have read the general Wikipedia pages on how to improve your article, but it just does not help me fix the problem at all.

My profile has also not been verified yet for some reason, even though I have created it more than 4 days ago and I have made more than 10 edits. For this reason I am also not able to upload images on my newly created article.

Thank you in advance. Jogha (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is FITGIRLCODE. The article reads like an advertisement. I see that you did provide references, but most of them are to the company's own web site. Another editor asked you, on the article talk page, whether you work for the company. If so, you have a conflict of interest and should let other people write the article. If you do not work for the company, then you should try both to make the article more neutral, and to provide additional references in reliable sources such as newspapers or business magazines. Also, while you are being collaborative in asking us to help you build the article, and we appreciate that you are asking for help, many Wikipedians start out skeptical as to notability, and your failure to establish notability is why the article has been nominated (not proposed) for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is looking for significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Almost all the content in an article should be verifiable by references to such sources. Most of your references are to fitgirlcode.com, which is not independent. The ibtimes.com doesn’t mention FITGIRLCODE (as nearly as I can tell). And one only mentions an award. —teb728 t c 23:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section linking

I'm sorry if this is a dumb question, but is there some way to turn off that section symbol (§) that appears next to section headings which allow for linking to that section? It just started appearing on some articles on which I'm working, and it can be slightly distracting. Thanks in advance for any insight.-RHM22 (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it is a new thing. I have never seen it until now – and even now I only see it when I hover over an "Edit" link, and only on this page. Maproom (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Place this in your CSS:

.mw-headline-anchor {display: none;}

PrimeHunter (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter: Thank you! That did the trick. Maproom: I think so too. I've never seen it until today.-RHM22 (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New feature. When you click on it, the page focuses on that section heading and the URL adds the heading. This makes it easy to copy from the URL to make a link, or you can right click on the § and copy the URL. -- Gadget850^talk 10:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]