From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Italy (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Coffee vs. espresso[edit]

  • No, a latte shouldn't be made by "pouring milk and coffee simultaneously," as lattes are usually made with espresso, not regular coffe. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .
Espresso is a type of coffee, and the artic(RFC)]] 12:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

We really seem to have a semantic problem...defining something (latte) without agreeing on common definitions. I object to the use of the term "regular coffee" , as if it was agreed that this meant drip machine coffee to everyone worldwide not just U.S. citizens. If "regular" means the norm, then surely regular coffee would be "instant". Probably accounts for the greatest proportion of use of the coffee bean worldwide. Generally accepted that a standard espresso shot of coffee is 30mls...seems like a good starting point for adding milk to.

While I agree there seem to be certain conventions concerning how certain espresso based drinks are served i.e. cup sizes and shapes or glasses, I don't see how they in any way change the actual constituency or proportions of the drink to be served, they are merely the vehicle by which the drink is delivered. Having said that I personally would be horrified to be served an espresso in a paper cup. Sam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Bowls and napkins[edit]

  • I removed the references to Australia and New Zealand, because being served a latte in a glass (with a napkin tied around it) or in a bowl is by no means unique to that part of the world. Skeezix1000 14:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


  • ...and the beverage is in italian correctly written in one word, tied with an extra 'l': caffèllatte ...according to a barista in Firenze - The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .
According to the Italian Dictionary it's either caffellatte or caffelatte [1] -- 14:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


  • Does anyone know why a caffe latte would be served in a glass? - Daniel "burnt hands" in Sydney - The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .
Seems the italians as in the rest of the mediterrenean has not had a tradition to serve in china, but in glasses. Cafés on the continental europe has generally served coffee in white china -cups with handles  :) Italian coffee-shops has served caffellatte in kitchen glasses, french and viennese cafés in china. But why your coffeeshop can't get themselves cups, I don't know. Bring your own  :) -and if you burn your fingers, the milk is far too hot! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by kaffelars (talkcontribs) .
False, as anyone been in Italy can tell, plain breakfast bars always used china cups. Some design glass cups are appearing in fancier bars, but are usually devised for that purpose. No one in his sane mind would ever serve a hot drink in a kitchen glass in Italy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).
I still observe both espresso, caffè macchiato and maracchino (and always caffè corretto) being served in glasses, by sane baristas :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).
It could be a north/south city/countryside thing. AFAIK In northern cities everybody always used china cups, even in the rougher bars, but you never know... Where did you see that?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).


I think it'd be worth mentioning that this is the stereotypical yuppie drink. -- LGagnon 02:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. In Scandinavian politics "the cafe latte segment" is in fact a common, sarcastic term for high educated, trendy, holier-than-thou voters. Medico80 09:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In the US presidential race in 2004 John Kerry's core constituency was accused of being "Latté Liberals". I didn't know this was being done in other countries, too. Lg king 01:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Latte, Latté, Lattè[edit]

Where does the accent in some instances of the word in the article come from? To me it looks like trying to "frenchify" the Italian term somehow. I'm not American, can someone please verify if Latté is indeed a common spelling? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

"Latte" is as above mentioned, the italian word for milk. No accent -neither 'grave' nor 'aigu' should be above the e in this word. You may pronounce it wrong, but don't write it incorrect. The e should be very 'short' in italian. In american, I believe, you pronounce it 'La-teyy'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by kaffelars (talkcontribs) .
Even in french, you would not put an accent there. Latte simply means milk, it's not an adjective or a participle. Anonymous passer-by.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
I think the "French" comment has to do with the fact that if you tried to pronounce the word "latte" as though it were a French word, it would have just one syllable.
The latté spelling is common, and irritating. It's as bad as "habañero" or "Türing". --Trovatore 02:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone actually seen lattè? I'm not convinced that errors on top of errors are encyclopedic... Xcrivener (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

confusing not contradictory[edit]

I've changed the contradiction template for a confusing one as the article doesn't contradict itself, the subject is inherently confusing. The article just needs a little copyediting and restructuring; clarifying the contradictory definitions of different cultures. --Monotonehell 18:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Starbucks has been around since 1971. I don't know if they didn't serve lattes until the 1980's, but i just figured that they would have.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
The original Starbucks did not sell drinks "Entrepreneur Howard Schultz joined the company in 1983, and, after a trip to Milan, Italy, advised that the company sell coffee and espresso drinks as well as beans". Also the original Starbucks didn't sell Starbucks, but sold Peet's for the first year and some of the original owners (not Schultz) bought Peet's and sold Starbucks before its rise to prominence which was handled by Schultz. (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

caffe e latte is the original terma contracted in caffelatte it meas cofeewhith milk son latte in italian does not mean coffe means gust milk so is a degeneraten english slang terminologgy latte it mean oly milk so is time to correct this error  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC) 

Glass, Caffe Latte, etc[edit]

Hummm , "Caffe Latte", the beverage not the "word" is not italian , even of course is very popular in Italy . Americans only think is Italian, cause they know Italy much more than all the other countries, lol . U heard about Italy and France, and thinks that everything from Food (& Recipes) , comes from Italy and France . Rubbish (sorry) . The same, in literature, to France and Germany !! (im wrong?) And then, u put french and italian names, in everything, lol . Just pure non- sense . I'm Portuguese, and what u called "caffe latte", and then many names in french etc, and many theories, etc, in my country have all these names , such : "garoto ", " galão" , "meia de leite", "cimbalino", etc etc .. This, are just the most important types of "caffe latte", in my country ,Portugal . Imagine the others . Sorry, but i will not tell why its drinked in what u called "china" (but ITS NOT BY "TRADITION" ) , but have everything to do with "coffee", "milk", and incredibly (LOLOLOL) with Portugal . (that was a tip) I am Mediterranean, European, consumer, I even used to have a restaurant, I know History , etc etc . My name is Paulo Quintela, and i am here > , (in Portuguese, and serious subjects) , so im not anonymous . All the best to you , all ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Dear Paulo, I did not quite understand you  :) But indeed, the word "caffellatte" is italian, and -as I believe you state here, the beverage did not originate in Italy. True. But it did not come to Portugal until after it had been a common drink in Italy and France and Spain.

The portoguese imported coffee from their colonies just as the french and the spanish did, and the italians has imported coffee longer than any other european country. But it was in Austria the continental "café" traditions developed -in Vienna- , and it is believed it was there someone for the first time served publically coffee with milk in it -as a speciality drink-.

But it was the french who made it popular, and thus the demand for better equipment to serve coffee rapidly and in larger numbers in the popular cafés in larger cities, resulted in larger coffee machines in the 1800's. The italians improved these during the first half of the 1900's, and almost patented the idea itself. Good espresso machines spread from Italy to France to Spain and Portugal. In most of Italy, parts of the french riviera and in Spain, many coffee drinks are served in smaller or larger glasses; I understand that is also the tradition in Portugal. Thus, the beverage named 'caffellatte' (and even more, the cappuccino!) grew in popularity -and the way the italians modernly made it with their new improved espresso machines after the war -the idea was sold to cafés all over quite soon.

The french first served their beverage as 'café au lait', but now commonly names it 'café crème' (Grand Crème if served large).

There is a common misunderstanding that 'café au lait' is a french term used for regular coffee and warm milk being served in cafés. At their homes they may call it this, as the italians would call the same beverage made on their kitchen stove 'caffèllatte'. But as in Italy, you won't find regular coffee (from drip coffee makers) in public cafés anymore. They all have espresso machines. And although you may ask for 'café au lait' in a french café, what the waiter writes down (or shouts to the barista) is 'un créme!' :)

The term has been borrowed, though, and here in Norway, a 'café au lait' -in a café - is the same as a caffèllatte.

People are confused, and some say the french word is used when you serve it in a white china bowl, while the italian word is used when you serve it in a tall glass. There is no true answer -and it does not matter that much. The spanish use their own language: "cafe con leche" (and the catalans in Barcelona use their term "café amb llet"). In Germany, though, a "Milchkaffee" isn't quite the same beverage. But the idea is more or less the same: coffee and milk.

A translation sounds silly in norwegian  :) -just as in menus worldwide, a traditional dish is more specified when named in its presumed original language. A "boillabasse" cannot be translated without losing its identity. English "fish'n chips" has to be presented just like that. 'Cappuccino' is often written differently (capuchino?), but there is no way to translate that.(You may try to translate the word 'spaghetti' to your own language.).

I digress hehe. Did I answer any question? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

A tool such as Wikipedia is useless if those that write entries do not research first... The latte, or cafe latte, or caffe latte (excuse the lack of accents where applicable) was invented in 1959 by the owner of Cafe Mediterraneum in Berkeley, CA. The Med, while a little run-down, is still an operating cafe today.
Caffellatte is not a well-known name in Italy. It is difficult to find published sources for this kind of information, but speak Italian and have tried to order a caffellatte in several cities around Italy, only to get a "what do you mean?" stare from the barista. My Italian friends thought that the drink is probably of international (perhaps American?) origin and has not gained that much popularity in Italy. The closest thing you see on the menus is latte macchiato, which is a glass of hot milk with a small dash (much less than in a typical latte) of coffee. Ruupert (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Who told u this fantasy history? Caffellate (right, it's the correct name) is since centuries the tipical italian breakfast! Every italian know and drink it, and my Grandma too already in the late '20s as child. (very inventive the story of Mr. Lino from Barkleys too!! Caffellatte is much oldier than 50: i've an italian vocabulary of the '40s calling Caffellatte in its items!). You don't find it in locals in Italy becouse caffellate is a "popular" drink, typical home breakfast, while bars and restaurant are some "chic" (so like european Cafès): ordering cappuccino is more elegant, ordering caffellatte at a restaurant sounds to be a rough speaking ;-) at least ask for a cappuccino senza schiuma (without foam) and u will get a caffellatte. By the way, almost all europeans have in their own local culture a milk-coffee based beverage; caffellatte (or caffè latte) is simple the italian milk-coffee one, the only one originally based by espresso and not filter coffee, that is different. Not invented by italians, u think? well, the first cafè in europe, the Procope based in Paris, was opened by an italian... the second one was in venice... even some years before austrian people met coffee... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In italy the drink americans call a latte (which just means milk in italian) is called a latte macchiato (meaning stained milk, ie a glass of milk stained with some coffee, not to be confused with caffe macchiato which is coffee stained with a little bit of milk and what americans just call a macchiato). Italians get annoyed at american tourists who order a 'latte' and then who then get angry when a just glass of milk appears :) Anyhow, the drink is much the same, but in Italy they tend to drink it just in the morning. It's just one of the many examples of italian words being used in English but not being used for the same thing in italian: for instance what americans and english call a 'panini' in italian is called a 'panino', with food and especially coffee there are loads of examples! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Innappropriate language[edit]

Is it really appropriate to refer to anything as "the 'gay' drink", regardless if quotation marks are employed? It seems this is the exact opposite of NPOV...

Article text: "Latte is also reffered to as the 'gay' drink by many people due to its high milk content and the sweet taste in comparison to something much more bitter like a black coffee." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Text removed. It was not sourced. Skeezix1000 15:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so if a coffee drink is made with milk it is "manly". But when made with a different liquid (milk) it is "gay"? What BS!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the homophobic reference to the latte is probably a bastardized variant of the popular trucker's phrase, "If I wanted a cup of cream & sugar I wouldn't have asked for coffee." The inference being that anyone who drinks their coffee any way other than black-no sugar mustn't be a Man. Kwazimoto69 (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


I'm not sure where to put this, but this article is full of mis-information about Lattes. It discusses "Starbucks style" lattes, and describes them as American. This is not true - a proper american latte is the same as the Australian flat white. If it does not contain microfoam, and is not blended in a certain way, it is not a latte as understood in good american coffee houses - ie just about anywhere in seattle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesaf3 (talkcontribs) 18:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Latte vs. Cappuccino[edit]

When comparing lattes to cappuccinos, the Latte article states, "Outside Italy, a latte is typically prepared with approximately one third espresso and two-thirds steamed milk, with a layer of foamed milk approximately one quarter inch thick on the top. The drink is very similar to a cappuccino; the difference being that a spoon is used to separate the layers of foam and steamed milk in a latte, while the milk in a cappuccino is free-poured (lattes also typically have a far lower amount of foam)." Whereas the Cappuccino article states, "Cappuccino is an Italian coffee-based drink prepared with espresso, hot milk, and milk foam. A cappuccino differs from a caffè latte in that it is prepared with espresso and much less steamed or textured milk than the caffè latte."

So which is it? Does a cappuccino have less foam than a latte, or does a latte have less foam than a cappuccino? Also, is there a difference between any of these terms: 'steamed milk', 'foamed milk', 'hot milk', 'milk foam', and 'textured milk'? They seem to be used interchangeably in some articles and very distinctly in others... even within the same articles. And what is the difference between a latte and a cappuccino as ordered in say, a Starbucks? Not that they're necessarily the authority, I'd just like some basis and they're pretty universal and internally consistent (which is more than I can say for Wikipedia). Onlynone (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, there needs to be better internal consistency. I'd like to take a shot at that in the near future to clear things up. But to give a brief summary based upon a few years of working in American coffee shops (and several more lounging around them):
The consistency of the milk is the key difference between a latte and a cappuccino. The confusion comes in the application of this understanding. If you follow the Starbucks standard, which is widespread but actually tends to deviate pretty often from what's accepted at most other professional coffee shops (for several reasons), a latte is a shot or two of espresso with milk poured on top and a layer of foamed milk (around 1/2") at the top. Their cappuccino, on the other hand, is nearly the same, except with less liquid milk and more foamed milk (company manuals suggest about 1/3 espresso, 1/3 liquid, 1/3 foam, but your mileage may vary).
Again, that's the Starbucks model. At independent places (and, as I understand it, in European shops), a latte will be more or less similar, but a cappuccino has a difference in how the milk is prepared. Rather than pouring in the liquid and then spooning on a separate layer of foam, a professional barista will introduce more air into the milk during the steaming process, thereby making it lighter in consistency (but different from the foam created by large bubbles). This is what's referred to as textured milk, and is what goes into a true cappuccino, rather than two separate layers.
Before someone else comes on here to tell me that I've got it all wrong, I should point out that it's hard to land on a universally-accepted definition. It doesn't help that gas stations will have "cappuccino machines" which spit out a powder-based beverage that has nothing to do with an actual cappuccino, further confusing things. So, it looks like there needs to be an appeal to some reliable sources here to define the drinks in as NPOV of a way as possible. Looks like it's time to hit the books. Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Wiki's own Cappuccino page states that a "traditional cappuccino consists of an espresso, on which the barista pours the hot foamed milk, resulting in a 2 cm (¾ inch) thick milk foam on top" while the "Current Use" section of this page states that a cappuccino "consists of 1/3 espresso, 1/3 steamed milk and 1/3 foam." While this may be the standard according to Starbucks Corp., that does not necessarily make it the standard, and to maintain consistency I am amending this page's description of a cappuccino to more accurately match the description on the Cappuccino page, i.e espresso and steamed milk with 2cm (¾ inch) of milk foam on top. Kwazimoto69 (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Caffè latte VS Latte macchiato[edit]

What in US is called 'Latte' could be either a contraption of 'Caffèlatte' (or 'caffèllatte', for gramatically reasons the 'l' should double) or a 'Latte Macchiato', both made with the basic two ingredients: coffee and milk. In Italy, milk'n'coffee is nothing else than a classic traditional breakfast beverage as in many other countries: a big cup, mug or bowl filled up with warm milk and a shot of hot coffee (made with a traditional 'manual' moka, the amount of a shot equals a typical small espresso cup). This is great to dip in breakfast cookies or a whole cornetto (Italian equivalent to croissant). The bar version is more elegant, filled in a long glass since milk (hot or cold) is primarily served in a glass. (By the way, in the public, dipping something into the cup is considered rather rude, therefore a glass helps you to observe bon ton). Another point is the sequence: 'caffèlatte' made at the bar demands commonly fresh brewed espresso coffee first (no moka nor filter coffee served in Italian bars!) and then hot milk added (with or without foam, that's up to the bartender or to your own taste - there is no real rule... Only cappuccino requires foam otherwise it couldn't be called 'cappuccino') and rarely it is milk first and then coffee added. The reason is simple: if you pour a shot of (fresh or cold) coffee into (hot or cold) milk, you would 'stain' the milk, and therefore you get a Latte Macchiato. (Similarly, if you'd add a drop of milk into your espresso, you would call it 'caffè macchiato'). The difference in taste between latte macchiato and a caffèlatte is of relevant importance, according to the purists, mostly because caffèlatte is always done with fresh and warm ingredients whereas latte macchiato can be done with cold milk and fresh hot coffee or warm milk with cold (i.e. set) coffee. And also of most relevant importance: both versions (along with the cappuccino) are still today considered 'morning beverages'. However, if your espresso coffee during your afternoon is too strong, and your 'macchia' is not big enough, Italians prefer a cappuccino rather than a 'caffèlatte'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markus Firenze (talkcontribs) 11:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Caffelatte is not used just at home but you can order it in each coffeshop in Rome. It differs from latte macchiato because it contains more coffee. It is served in a tall glass like latte macchiato but it is darker. Latte macchiato is almost white. So in Rome finally the actual difference between cappuccino, caffelatte and latte macchiato is in the proportion of milk and coffee. Cappuccino (more coffee and less milk), caffelatte (more milk and less coffee) and latte macchiato (few coffee in a glass of steamed milk). (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Nico

I agree with Markus Firenze that English "latte" likely comes from "latte macchiato", a beverage tipical of bars (and served in glass), rather than from "caffelatte", which is tipically homemade or served in hotel breakfasts. Lele giannoni (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggest new layout[edit]

It seems to me there are two main sections that this article needs:

1. Traditional Latte - a description of the origin and what a Latte originally consisted of. This would basically revolve around the typical glass-served caffellate as developed in Italy, and still available in this form in some countries.

2. Modern Interpretations - tracking the various incarnations of what different countries and cultures refer to as a Latte. This would cover the bowl-served versions, espresso over steamed milk, and the many different interpretations that chain stores in the US and elsewhere have taken on the Latte. This could be subsectioned/separated by country or region to account for the different names and styles that are in current usage.

This would give readers a historical understanding, as well as an accurate picture of how this has spread around the world and what the different names mean in different places. Ideally though, we need to find more references to support this, not just accounts of personal experience.

Thoughts? OceanKiwi (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Re: references... I think there are a few solid resources which could be cited, and the sources may not all agree, but present all the various "official" sides of the issue!:
  1. cookbooks with wide circulation (for the U.S., i'm not sure what the widest-circulated cookbooks are, what comes to mind are maybe a Betty Crocker cookbook and a Better Homes and Gardens cookbook, not sure)
  2. textbooks from the most prominent, reputable cooking schools in different countries, both present and past
  3. history books of various countries, especially regional ones which list recipes from that region
  4. if there is a coffee equivalent of an official bartender's guide... those would make good sources to cite, i think
We should always keep in mind, that just because Betty Sue owns a cafe, it does not mean she went to cooking school. She may tweak the "official" recipes to attempt to make more money by "doing it different." I'd like to know what the schools are teaching, what the major cookbooks from various countries are saying (also what the "old editions" of those same cookbooks "used to say a long time ago"), and what the history books say too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallendarling (talkcontribs) 17:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


Why do Americans pronounce it laah-tay (laah as in large) when the Italians (whose word it is after all) say la-tay (la as in land)? (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Italians don't pronounce the first vowel as in land.
You're English, I take it. English and Americans tend to hear the Italian short a differently, or rather match it up with different ones of their own vowels. An American could never match the a in pasta with the a in cat, because the American cat vowel is much more open than the Italian pasta vowel. The English cat vowel is also more open than the pasta vowel, but not so much as to make the identification absurd.
For Americans a more natural identification for the Italian pasta vowel is either the first vowel in father, or the vowel in cot (for those who distinguish it from caught). Again, this is not exactly right, but it's close enough not to be absurd. An Englishman saying father or cot would presumably use a vowel that can't be matched up with pasta. --Trovatore (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds pretty absurd to me! Any Italians care to comment? Xcrivener (talk) 10:05, 11 July

2011 (UTC)

It depends on which dialect of English you speak. In some accents, the, the land-vowel /æ/ is very open. For speakers of such dialects, it may be more natural to identify the "continental" /a/ with it. In other dialects, the land-vowel /æ/ may have undergone various forms of tensing and sounds closer to /ɛ/ or /e/. Speakers of such accents may find it more natural to identify the "continental" /a/ (in loanwords like "pasta", "mafia", "taco", "latte", etc.) with the /ɑ/ of father. It's often the case when one borrows word from another language; the sounds of the different languages do not exactly match one another. For many accents of English, neither the land-vowel or the father-vowel is really the same as the continental (Spanish/Italian) /a/. People in the borrowing language have to pick the sound they perceive to be closest, and that may vary from speaker to speaker, from accent to accent. Nonetheless, I personally find it noteworthy that speakers of RP and GenAm often use opposite pronunciations when it comes to loanwords, as compared to how they pronounce words like path, ask, dance, etc. 1700-talet (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

defined international coffee menu[edit]

What does this expression mean? It's not defined and does not have a citation. Recommend deletion. Wakablogger2 (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Common latte and mocha names (or not so common)[edit]

A "Twisted-Elk" is specifically a double-tall-non-fat-sugar-free-vanilla latte. At starbuck's, two-pumps of sugar-free vanilla will not overwelm the coffee's flavor, their standard three-pumps will. To make sure you only get two shot of flavor, call it a two-point Twisted-Elk.

Something more special, but perhaps not to be had everyday, is a "Full-Moose". A "Full-Moose" is a tall mocha made with whole-milk and whipped cream. Seattle's Best makes a good one and even adds a long thin chocolate bar on top of the whipped cream.

Want something smaller, then the white-tail or black-tail deer would be the choice. These are the eight-ounce versions of the Latte or Mocha respectivly.

Enjoy your coffee and order them by the Northwest Names.

Donn2n (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

espresso to milk ratio[edit]

The article claims 1/3 espresso to 2/3 steamed milk and 5 mm of foam:

"Outside Italy, a caffè latte is typically prepared with approximately 1/3 espresso and 2/3 steamed milk, with a layer of foamed milk approximately 5 mm (¼ inch) thick on the top."

In my experience in the US, the most typical latte is a single tall, which means one shot of espresso plus enough milk to make 12 ounces. A shot of espresso is typically one ounce, making the drink one-twelfth espresso and 11-twelfths milk. Eight-ounce and 16-ounce lattes are also common, as are lattes made with two or three shots of espresso.

Is there a reason for believing the 1/3 & 2/3 ratio to be typical outside of Italy?

Additionally, the foam can be anywhere from none to 10 mm or so depending on the customer's request, the barista and the coffee shop's policy. Is there reason to believe the 5 millimeters to be typical outside of Italy? Wakablogger2 (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Citations missing tag[edit]

The citations missing tag seems out of date. There may be elements of the article that still require better sourcing, but there are numerous citations that appear inline. The general citations missing tag seems like a blunt instrument for dealing with specific issues regarding sourcing. Simply adding the [citation needed] tag would be more helpful to potential editors. Barring objections, I will remove the general tag (unless someone else gets around to it first). LUxlii (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

steamed milk pic[edit]

i'm removing it since it's an inaccurate representation of what steamed milk should be. frankly that's like the ugliest steamed milk i've ever seen. i'm not familiar with the guidelines regarding what images are allowed to be added to an article, but i hope you can find a better one easily. just a head's up. (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Political views section[edit]

The newly created "Politics and Reputation of Latte Drinkers" section has several problems. It seems to be non-neutral and likely represents original research. The first paragraph cites examples of the right using latte-drinking as a derisive term. Published yes, but it is not a published account of the phenomenon, it is a published example. The authors are then synthesizing that it is a phenomenon, and a popular one. The second paragraph now contains a "quote" ( "left-wing intellectual urban elitist liberal snob") which is not found in the source. It is, it seems, a quote of something said earlier on Wikipedia, put in quotes perhaps to make it seem more objective. Third paragraph lacks any citations. I suggest it is best removed entirely. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who has followed politics in recent years on talk radio, all-news TV channels or blogs, is aware of latte-drinkers as a common term to describe liberal elitists. This is not only my opinion, it's a commonly known fact in political circles that the term "latte drinker" is an adjective used by media pundits and bloggers to describe leftist individuals. There's even a specific wikipedia article mentioning this Liberal elite#United States and a book written about the topic (Geoffrey Nunberg - Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show). The phenomenon is even more pronounced in Canada, where Tim Hortons is well known as a cultural icon and taken by politicians as representative of the blue-collar hockey loving ordinary Canadians' coffee - no populist Canadian politician ever wants to be seen on camera with a latte. As for Scandinavia, that comment about latte drinker's reputation there came from an earlier line on this talk page (see yuppies section and statement from Medico80). There are references to the "cafe latte segment" on Googled web pages from Denmark implying what's written in the article, but as I don't get a clear translation to english (and I can't speak Danish), I didn't reference it. The political cultural phenomena of the "latte drinker" as a derisive term to describe liberal elitists is ingrained enough in the media that it needs to be mentioned in this article. Carpet Crawler 2009 (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Politics and Reputation of Latte Drinkers is subject to deletion. I reviewed the three articles referenced for the first sentence-- that latte drinkers were a common target of scorn. The articles do not actually say that and the statement misrepresents the content of the articles. Apparently Carpet Crawler thinks that being thought of as a liberal means being scorned but editors' opinions cannot be the basis for information stated in Wiki articles. See WP:NPOV. The second sentence about Canadian latte drinkers as elitist snobs is not supported by the article. A quote by one of the speakers is distorted as the basis for the statement. I won't rehash the articles at this point. They are there to read and they don't actually say these points. The statement about Scandanavian politics is completely unsupported. WP:RS and WP:Verifiability require that all statements on Wikipedia are found in reliable sources and can be verified. WP:Verifiability states in relevant part: "Appropriate citations guarantee that the information is not original research, and allow readers and editors to check the source material for themselves. Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed." Asserting that "everyone knows" these points is not a sufficient basis for posting on Wikipedia.Coaster92 (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The 'debate' appears to be settled that the section is inappropriate. With two editors seeming to suggest it is removed and only one in support. I also agree that the section is irrelevant and not at all proven by the sources given. That appears to make the thing unequivocally unanimous. So out it goes. BarbarellaTwo (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
2 to 1 is not "unanimous". I'll agree with Carpet Crawler and say that latte-sippers are synonymous in North American politics with leftist bleeding-heart elitists. Populist politicians always avoid being seen with a Starbucks or some fancy coffee cup. They pop into the local diner, or a chain such as Dunkin Donuts or Tim Hortons. That makes it 2-2 and hence the section will be restored.WilliamBurn 166 (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
And 2-2 makes it controversial and does not mean the resolution is to publish it as-is. The problem with this section is how it's worded. It expresses an opinion, rather than discussing it in a factual way. Take, for example, the article on Arugula—it factually states that eating arugula had been used as an attack to call politicians elitists, but it itself doesn't actually call those politicians elitist. I've changed the language to be more factual and less opinionated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crichton91 (talkcontribs) 11:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Volume measurements[edit]

Latte#Caffè latte vs. latte macchiato includes "A caffè macchiato is about 0 imp fl oz; 0 US fl oz (4 mL)...". The total volume is 4 milliliters?? A lot of the text is unsourced. I just fixed some converts added in recent edits, and took the easy path of putting mL first, which it how it was originally. If someone can fix the 4 mL claim, you might omit "|order=flip". I used usoz as the output unit because showing both impoz and usoz looks ugly here. Johnuniq (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)