>

Idk where you live, but they have short in Canada and Europe. They don’t make short sized specialty drinks, so that might be why you don’t recognize it. They even have a smaller “Demi” cup for espresso
Also the point of the Paul Rudd skit mentioned is being severely misunderstood.
Small, Medium, and Large aren't just labels, they are descriptive terms.
If you have an 8 ounce, 10 ounce, and 12 ounce size those ARE small, medium and large by definition regardless of what you want to call them.
Someone ordering a small drink means they want the smallest serving you sell.  Nothing in whatever you label the drink sizes can change that.
It's like if you go to a cupcake shop and the menu behind the counter just shows a blue cupcakes and red cupcakes and you order a red cupcake and they go "I'm sorry we only have magenta and aquamarine."  Motherfucker you know what they meant. >

My only question though would be what do we call - generically - the "Short"? Mini? Child's? Extra Small? There's not set convention on what they should be called. In your example of 8, 10, and 12 ounces you're only correct insomuch as there are only three options and objectively small, medium, and large are correct relative to the other options. You provide no options for smaller than 8 oz or larger than 12 ounces, as there are with Starbucks. You argument needs to be extended to included more than three sizes. But you can't because mini/extra small/tiny are all relatively the same per your use. >

I have never (I think) used their size naming scheme but rather just say small, medium, or large, and never hd an issue. >

Okay but... why?  What actual positive purpose does just not using universally understood terms get you?
Why not start at small, medium, and large and add extra-large if people want a bigger size? >

This is more so an inconsistency issue. Every store has specific sizes for certain things. This is why it’s frustrating when a customer says one version of a size, but it isn’t as they thought. For example, regular at some stores can mean small, medium, or large, and based on whatever the customer’s expectation was, they can be very disappointed. Starbucks isn’t the creator of this issue, and honestly, it’s easier to recognize exactly what each size is since it’s specific to that chain. >

I have literally never seen short. Tall is the smallest size in every Starbucks I’ve ever been to. >

Idk where you live, but they have short in Canada and Europe. They don’t make short sized specialty drinks, so that might be why you don’t recognize it. They even have a smaller “Demi” cup for espresso >

In the US. And I’ve gotten both regular coffee and specialty drinks. Have never seen a short. I’m curious now though. >

Huh, that’s interesting. Maybe shorts didn’t sell well enough in the US to keep around? >

Possibly. We like our caffeine to be plentiful. >


The sizes are short, tall, grande, venti.

The sizes are small, medium, large and lard ass. All their drinks are just over priced vessels for sugar. >

I get what you mean, but I also just don't care for Starbucks' naming convention. I don't really care for starbucks that much at all tbh so I guess it doesn't matter lol >

I agree, but I always feel weird asking for a Trenta size drink. I think they’d misinterpret me as saying “train to” or calling someone called Trent. >

They need to bring back the trenta >

They have it here in Canada >

Invented, pretentious names for sizes are stupid.  The extremely few times I have gone to a Starbucks I order using small, medium, and large.  They have never had a problem understanding me. >

Assuming you are from the US, it’s unpopular and impractical for the other 99.9% of countries. So you get my upvote. >

It’s dumb because Starbucks isn’t Italian >

But the naming scheme isn't consistent. One means 20 oz, one means big, tall and shot just describe the height of the cup. How am i suppose to know how much a tall holds compared to a grande based on the name? Why not just use all names that translate to the number of oz it is or better yet just have you sizes be "8oz, 12oz, 16oz, 20oz" >

Also the point of the Paul Rudd skit mentioned is being severely misunderstood.
Small, Medium, and Large aren't just labels, they are descriptive terms.
If you have an 8 ounce, 10 ounce, and 12 ounce size those ARE small, medium and large by definition regardless of what you want to call them.
Someone ordering a small drink means they want the smallest serving you sell.  Nothing in whatever you label the drink sizes can change that.
It's like if you go to a cupcake shop and the menu behind the counter just shows a blue cupcakes and red cupcakes and you order a red cupcake and they go "I'm sorry we only have magenta and aquamarine."  Motherfucker you know what they meant. >

My only question though would be what do we call - generically - the "Short"? Mini? Child's? Extra Small? There's not set convention on what they should be called. In your example of 8, 10, and 12 ounces you're only correct insomuch as there are only three options and objectively small, medium, and large are correct relative to the other options. You provide no options for smaller than 8 oz or larger than 12 ounces, as there are with Starbucks. You argument needs to be extended to included more than three sizes. But you can't because mini/extra small/tiny are all relatively the same per your use. >

I have never (I think) used their size naming scheme but rather just say small, medium, or large, and never hd an issue. >

Okay but... why?  What actual positive purpose does just not using universally understood terms get you?
Why not start at small, medium, and large and add extra-large if people want a bigger size? >

This is more so an inconsistency issue. Every store has specific sizes for certain things. This is why it’s frustrating when a customer says one version of a size, but it isn’t as they thought. For example, regular at some stores can mean small, medium, or large, and based on whatever the customer’s expectation was, they can be very disappointed. Starbucks isn’t the creator of this issue, and honestly, it’s easier to recognize exactly what each size is since it’s specific to that chain. >

I have literally never seen short. Tall is the smallest size in every Starbucks I’ve ever been to.