I like it. The only thing I'd change is "Hash" because just labeling it 'hash' makes me expect to see a cryptographic hash. It's naming the typographical symbol in the url instead of what comes
after the hash mark. Literally the opposite direction from what is surely meant.
That "hash" has a name: Fragment Identifier. There's probably a more user friendly term or even description. It's not a hash that shows up in that result. Only its symbol in the URL that potentially points to an aref. That's why they're so good for Table of Contents.
