Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 4 / Life Start‑class
WikiProject iconButton has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Life. If you can improve it, please do.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


The last paragraph really doesn't follow from the first ones. A thin disc sewn onto cloth can be found on electronic items? This could do with the article being split up, methinks. Darac 13:10, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Fixed long ago!

Ancient Romans[edit]

The reference to ancient Romans was here when I found this article, but I have been unable to find a reference that supports it. Still looking. Anyone? PKM 19:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Found several sources, at least one reputable (!) for buttons as ornaments to prehistory. Will add PKM 18:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I suggest that we merge Mandarin button here. PKM 18:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for doing that - PKM 18:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


No idea why User: deleted the sections on types of buttons and button holes, but I put them back, incorporated Mandarin buttons into "types", and removed redundant see also link to Mandarin button.
Also removed inactive templates for AIDnom and empty To-Do list from this Talk page.
- PKM 18:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Types of button holes are pertinent to Buttonhole, but their discussion here should be limited to how buttons work as fasteners.
    --Jerzyt 07:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Button Phobia[edit]

Apparently, there's a real phobia of buttons out there. Not me. But, I'd be interested to read more about it.

--Jndrline (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A button is a noun —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A disc is round and thin, and thus (explicitly, by most accounts) circular or nearly so and flat or nearly so. That is helpful to the function of a button, but not inherent as the defn states. Rewriting accordingly.
--Jerzyt 05:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I removed the list because tyhe article says "buttons can be made ffom almost all materials". If some materials are specific for buttons, then they are notable amd may be described by text in the article. - Altenmann >t 04:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not undo large amounts of other editors' work like that before at least attempting to discuss it here first.
I'm not sure what do you mean by "If some materials are specific for buttons"? All of the materials I listed (and more) have been used to make buttons (over the long history of button-making). The external links were there to provide proof of each individual material use. (Did you look at any of those links?) --TyrS (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reverted. The source does not meet Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline. You are welcome to cite the websites of textile museums, universities, or reliably published books about Durova412 04:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is not about realiability of sources: the problem is lack of encyclopedic content in the list of materials and notability of individual materials. In the past buttons were made from anything hard. Today the material of industrial buttons probably has some requirements, and probably some encyclopedic text is possible. Non-specific lists are meaningless. For comparison, imagine that an article about, say, socks, or anything else, will have the list: "socks may be of the following colors, red, blue, white, black, maroon, yellow, magenta, black-and-white, red-and-blue, polka_dot"... (I am sure you can find reliable refs which describe socks of all these colors). - Altenmann >t 04:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added several more references now. If you have any more problems with obviously in-good-faith edits by established editors, would you mind doing them the basic courtesy of at least attempting to discuss it with them first (and perhaps move their work to the talk page) instead of just reverting it?
Also, I'm curious, do you sincerely think that a list of sock colors would be of the same level of interest & notability as the huge range of materials (and the associated range of technologies and techniques) that have been used to make buttons (including the use of precious gems and metals, and techniques & skills that are now lost) with linked illustrations? Do you really not see any difference between the two? Are colored socks, in fact, a valuable and diminishing resource in your world?
Of course the range of materials from which buttons have been - and in some cases continue to be - made is notable, as well as relevant to several areas of knowledge and study. If you don't see the difference between the history of button manufacture and all the materials technologies (& their historical developments) that that touches on, and a list of sock colors, I think you should really reconsider whether or not you should be editing this particular article.
It's also a good idea to try to keep in mind the fact that all Wikipedia articles are works in progress, and edits that are obviously in good faith edits should not be immediately reverted without discussion as you did. That's just rude.--TyrS (talk) 07:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needs picture of buttonhole[edit]

There should be a picture of a button sewn onto a piece of fabric, and coupled to a button-holed piece of fabric. Just a picture of a buttoned jacket, some jeans or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why no link to push button[edit]

That is a very common use of the word button. There should be a link on top of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete "Buttons in museums and galleries" section?[edit]

Would removing the "Buttons in museums and galleries" section be appropriate? It doesn't seem encyclopedic to state simply that some museums and galleries display buttons. The rest of the section is mostly external links which, if they belong anywhere in the article, should be at the bottom of the article in the "External links" section. Chickadee46 (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There were no objections, so I've done so. Chickadee46 (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Belated objection! It is common to have such sections. The links should be converted to refs, of course. Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Button. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

why buttons are called buttons[edit]

buttons are called buttons because they  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:7611:4600:2038:DC56:8AF8:C3DF (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] 


toggle disambig says "type of button" and comes here, and that's the end of it. Should say more somewhere. Fuficius Fango (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12 centuries missing from the History section.[edit]

Greetings - The History section jumps from the 5th Century to the 17th Century. What happened during the 12 centuries in between, buttonwise? I came to this article specifically to discover Medieval button use, but the article is silent on that long era. I just saw an episode of Cadfael, a TV show set in 12th Century England, wherein a woman wore a dress with a line of buttons down the front of her bodice instead of lacing. And no lacing is seen down her back or at her sides either, all implying that her buttons are functional as well as beautiful. >_< Thank you for your attention, Wordreader (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: I appreciate the section on button sizing. It was helpful to my understanding. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it's a gap - I think they weren't used much in the medieval period, but were known. The rich were often sewn into their clothes by servants, and unsewn at night. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Johnbod - Thank you for the reply.
Off topic, but interesting nonetheless. I saw research done by a hair stylist that demonstrates women's hair in ancient Rome was sewn with a needle and thread into the elaborate up-dos that you see depicted on their sculpture. -
Yours, Wordreader (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]