Talk:Hydroxy group

message: I have a question about the name for OH group. The IUPAC nomenclature recommends hydroxy rather than hydroxyl. The article Hydroxy reads that the term hydroxy- is being used as prefix for the hydroxyl group. But I think, the more correctly, it should be hydroxy group: the last l should be ommited. Is this incorrect? Calvero JP 14:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: May 2006

message: The hydroxyl group and the hydroxyl radical are two different entities.  Why are they described together in one article? Shouldn't this article be split? --InfoCan 03:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should be split 

message: What state is it in at room temperature (liquid, solid,or gas)?  There just isn't a lot of info here.  Does it have uses?  Is it reactive?  For a look at what I mean, see the Nitrogen article. �??The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.142.194.28 (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a radical. You don't get many that can be contained for any length of time. Vimescarrot 16:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need more information.  

message: Is the "SCC" referred to in the radical section short for stress-corrosion cracking? Something else?
216.9.250.6 06:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SCC def? 

message: I removed the sentience "Hydroxyl is awesome because it is closely related to the substance uranium." AS much  as I love chemistry, I don't think we need this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkblast93 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ha...ha...ha... 

message: I'm not a chemist, so I am not going to mess with this article, but there should be just a wee mention of that rather common compound HOH, known also by it's vulgar name "water".  It could be regarded a degenerate alcohol (just put a 0 in the alkyl formula).   Randall Bart    Talk   23:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The hydroxyl group is in organic chemistry. The most basic compound being HCOH, methanol. Water is an inorganic molecule containing two hydrogen atoms convalently bonded to an oxygen molecule. It is not considered an hydroxide nor containing an hydroxyl group. However, water can break up into an hydronium cation (H3O+) and hydroxide anion (OH-). Procule (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is true that the term hydroxyl group (and the term alcohol for a compound of -OH) is used in organic chemistry where it is implied that -OH is attached to some kind of carbon backbone or larger molecule, water is well considered also as a hydroxide, indicated by the IUPAC name of hydron hydroxide for its polarized form H+OH-, which is always present in water even in the purest preparations, albeit will be short-lived due to solvation to hydronium hydroxide.  Kbrose (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What about HOH?

message: Without meaning to offend previous authors who have offered their writing on this article in good faith, the article prior to today's edit -- and still to an extent now, because I haven't time or full expertise -- requires very substantial work to even pass as a good undergraduate effort on this chemistry subject.
In today's edit, in addition to doing a "once over" edit of the entire text, I removed all referencing other than that to the lunar and other non-terrestrial observations. This was done because the other references were substandard (blog and ask.com, not standard text or other reputable source, lacking even standard undergraduate). Inorganic chemistry and radical chemistry content still needs attention.  Nomenclature is still not fully correct, but I haven't the time to do the necessary consultations to make it fully so.
Finally, this article, with its history, is an example of what is wrong with Wikipedia.  My offerings, as a faculty member, are considered comparable, and exchangeable, with those of our uranium editor-poet above (who, thankfully, did not revert the earlier uranium deletion edit). 
Resulting problem: The confusion of the student, commenting above, who came to this entry for help, and left stating their desire for expert attention to the article. (This was stated prior to today's edit, but is still valid from my perspective as a partial content expert.)  Broader problem: At best, bad chemical articles waste others' time; at worst, they provide dangerous misinformation. Move in your minds from hydroxyl groups, to pharmaceuticals and their potentially dangerous off-label use, to natural substances with purported health-promoting properties (but unstated allergic or toxic effects), etc. **Wikipedia should be resolving and correcting, and not generating or propagating misinformation,** especially when it comes to potentially dangerous subjects.
Bottom line: People without a strong knowledge-base in chemistry should not be writing these articles without constructive guidance from someone with proper training. Because the structure of Wikipedia vis-a-vis editorial operations and involvement does not acknowledge and foster, and even inhibits, the notion of true subject area expertise as acceptable, the opening statement of this paragraph will likely never become a requirement by this site. 
How can a responsible professional contribute to a site, knowing that someone can come along, freely afterward, and change text making it dangerous to someone who wishes information to guide some decision they have to make? Because there appears no hope of persuading the Foundation and senior folks to change their minds about process, because of the potential negative impact of the process of generating and disseminating unreliable information as it stands, and because the great effort required to edit and maintain accuracy over articles becomes so much wasted effort, this will be among the last corrective edits I offer.  Bonne chance, mes amis.   Prof D.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.10.59 (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes to continuing needed article attention, still poor quality (and proposal of prior version and process as evidence of Wikipedia failure) 

message: Surely it's simpler and more obvious that an article introducing benzene has a black-and-white R-OH diagram (for an example, look at the aldehyde article) than the current colour-coded picture? This would make it clear what a hydroxyl group is at a glance. Admittedly not a major issue, but still, presumably a quick change to make (for those who know how: I have no idea). 109.154.60.112 (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the picture? 

message: The article should explain that almost all compounds of the form M(OH)n are usually called "hydroxides" (all but boric acid, orthocarbonic acid and orthosilicic acid?), even if they are not ionic.
Look at the Hydroxide article: a large portion of it, if not a half, is virtually devoted to covalent OH compounds. Could somebody copy relevant content to here? The current content make an impression of an article about "those -OH compounds to which chemists do not refer with the word hydroxide". Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hydroxyl compounds, which are named "hydroxides" 

message: As a chemist, I am working on this article.--Twenty2Nine (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burlington House Editathon 

message: As others have noted, this article is so bad as to be worse than useless. I stopped reading after the first paragraph. It starts out "A hydroxyl or hydroxy group is a chemical functional group..." which sure says to me they are the same thing. But then we have "the hydroxy (not hydroxyl) group" which certainly says they are not. Now I'm starting to think maybe hydroxy is a group and hydroxyl is a radical. But that's not right either, because we have "A hydroxyl group bonded covalently". Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a bit too harsh, IMO. The simplest question on the www is "what is a hydroxy group", and wikipedia answers this via that article a -OH compound, which IMO is correct. It could be better, in particular "hydroxy" versus "hydroxyl" (I actually only use hydroxy these days), but by and large the article is definitely not "horrible". If you have specific recommendations for improvements then it may be better to simply add WHAT EXACTLY should be improved. I do that myself in many other articles. I agree on the confusion issue, but the article mentions that IUPAC distinguishes between "hydroxy" and "hydroxyl". IMO "hydroxy" is the more fitting name, and the article mentions this as of right now. 2A02:8388:1604:F600:0:0:0:4 (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a horrible article