Talk:Soap substitute

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class because it uses a sub-category of Category:Environment stubs on the article page.

If you agree with this assessment, please remove this message.
If you disagree with this assessment, please:

Change the above "class=stub" to "class=start" or another applicable class per Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Assessment#Quality scale;
Remove the stub template from the article.

Soap contains a increasingly high amount of synthetic elements than actual ingredients intended to cleanse the skin. The use of everyday cleansing soap has correlated to several cases of topical skin problems like acne and eczema. Making the switch to soap alternatives welcomes the replacement of chemical-ridden body wash for eco-friendly products.Tiarah2 (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section moved from article

Please re-add this if and only if proper sources are located to enforce the implication that this is not true of all soaps. Removed section:

==Advantages==
* One of the main advantages of soap plants is their biological degradability; this eliminates the need of filtering afterwards and any lather may thus be discarded straight into the soil.

Removal of citations/notability templates?

Looking at this article, it seems to me to have adequate citations - and the existence of so many references about synthetic detergents (aka natural soap substitutes) seems to me to satisfy the GNG. I believe the templates were added before the article was substantially revised and improved in 2020? Unless anyone has lingering concerns, I proposed the two "issues" templates now be removed? 45154james (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC) [typo corrected] 45154james (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As no-one has expressed any concerns or objections following my note above, I'm now going to remove the two templates. 45154james (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reference #12 is broken - can anyone figure it out?

I see ref#12 is completely borked. The very first edit that includes it is also borked, so there's no way of knowing what it might have been. Also, the editor who wrote the draft no longer seems active. So there is a little job to do trying to guess what this ref might have been and/or replacing with an alternative citation. 45154james (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reference#12 carried the ref ":5". I've now removed all references and replaced them with "citation needed". 45154james (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed now. 45154james (talk) 09:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]