Talk:Helvetica

Antique Legacy

Hello,

Does anyone know a font called Antique Legacy by Optimo?

Those font is very similar to Helvetica. NIKO (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Antique Legacy is the most faithful revival of Helvetica. All other digitized Helveticas thus far have not accurately replicated the design from the hot metal / phototypesetting age. I would say it is more official than even the "official" Helveticas. Aprilhatescake (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

"Text optical size"

This term needs explanation. "Optical size" is linked from the article (to Font#Optical size) but not the prefix "text". The target says "(regular)": is that what is intended? One or other article needs to be revised. @Thunderbird2013:, am I correct in identifying this as your introduction? It doesn't seem an unreasonable one but would need citing, please? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The names of optical sizes are, to my knowledge, not standardised.

For instance, Helvetica Now uses "Text", "Micro", and "Display". The page you mentioned (Font#Optical size) lists the optical sizes commonly used by Adobe, "Regular" is conventionally equivalent to "Text" and is usually unspecified (i.e., Garamond Premier Pro Regular is only called "Garamond Premier Pro"). I think that's why it is termed "(Regular)" on that page.

Going back to your point, I think perhaps Font#Optical size should be edited and include this information (that names of optical sizes are not standardised). Helvetica Now and Neue Haas Grotesk both explicitly use the "Text" label to call their "regular" optical sizes, so I don't think the information on this page is wrong. Thunderbird2013 (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Citation? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Lead section

Should we remove "widely-used" because of undue weight and WP:NPOV. Other "widely used" fonts like Times New Roman. 103.246.79.6 (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Specimen

For the infobox, should we use an image of a specimen of the original Helvetica instead of Helvetica Neue? 64.114 etc 01:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Request to add content – Disclosure: Monotype affiliate

{{request edit}}

Hello editors,

I consult for Monotype, which is connected to this article’s subject. Because of this COI, I will not edit directly. Instead, I propose the following factual updates:

**Proposed addition:**  (existing introduction section)

Originally named Neue Haas Grotesk (New Haas Grotesque), it was soon licensed by Linotype and renamed Helvetica in 1960, which in Latin means 'Swiss', from Helvetia, capitalising on Switzerland's reputation as a centre of ultra-modern graphic design. Monotype Imaging acquired Linotype and, with it, ownership of Helvetica in 2006. Under Monotype’s stewardship, the Helvetica brand has been expanded to support languages for many regions of the world.

* * Sources:**

- https://www.myfonts.com/pages/linotype-monotype-imaging-acquires-linotype/?srsltid=AfmBOoqdiX1-pXYChM165VK2Dj9kYXIs_U3WN-Mlsvkrdp7WT7tr90Vy

- https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=5353

**Proposed Addition:**  (existing Usage examples section)

Helvetica’s minimalist aesthetic has extended beyond print and screen into physical product design. In 2014, Swiss watchmaker Mondaine released the Helvetica No.1 watch series, directly inspired by the typeface’s clean lines and geometric precision. The timepieces use Helvetica numerals and branding to reflect the typeface’s values of clarity and rationality in a wearable form.

**Source:**

- https://www.fastcompany.com/3039663/the-helvetica-watch-is-a-real-thing-that-you-can-buy

**Proposed Addition:**  (existing Derivative designs section)

Haas Unica

In 2012, Monotype rediscovered the original Haas Unica—a design conceived in 1980 as a hybrid of Helvetica and Univers—and commissioned a digital revival by Toshi Omagari. Released as Neue Haas Unica, the new family preserves the original design intent while enhancing humanity and readability, offering a contemporary counterpart to Helvetica that blends familiarity with refinement.

  **Source:**

- https://www.wired.com/2015/04/legendary-redesign-helvetica-reborn-30-years/

**Proposed Addition:**  (existing Helvetica Now Variable (2021) section)

In 2019, Helvetica Now Variable received the Red Dot: Best of the Best award for outstanding design quality. It was further recognized in 2022 with a Red Dot Award in the Brands & Communication Design category, as listed in the official Red Dot Award database.

**Sources:**

https://www.red-dot.org/project/helveticar-now-variable-61130

https://www.red-dot.org/magazine/typographic-discoveries  

**Proposed Addition:**  (Neue Helvetica section)

Neue Helvetica is often referred to as Helvetica Neue in digital font libraries and software menus. The renaming was a practical decision intended to improve alphabetical sorting and user discoverability. Despite the name difference, Neue Helvetica and Helvetica Neue refer to the same typeface design.

** Source:** https://fontsinuse.com/typefaces/3483/neue-helvetica

**Proposed Addition:**  (new “Design scholarship and critical history” section)

In 2010, design historian Paul Shaw published Helvetica and the New York City Subway System: The (True) (Maybe) Story, a detailed investigation into the commonly held belief that Helvetica was used throughout the New York City subway signage. Shaw’s research concluded that while Helvetica eventually became dominant in the subway system after the 1980s, earlier signage relied more on Standard Medium (Akzidenz-Grotesk) and other typefaces. Shaw's work challenged simplistic narratives about Helvetica's influence, highlighting the nuanced evolution of type in urban infrastructure.

**Source:**

-https://www.popmatters.com/140409-helvetica-and-the-new-york-city-subway-system-by-paul-shaw-2496039952.html

**Proposed Addition:**  (new “Cultural impact” section)

Helvetica was recognized by Architectural Digest as one of “The 25 Designs That Shape Our World,” listed alongside influential objects such as the iPhone and Swiss Army Knife, highlighting its pervasive role in shaping visual culture and everyday design sensibilities.

**Source:**

- https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/designs-that-shape-our-world

**Proposed Addition:**  (new “Cultural impact” section)

Following the broadcast of the documentary Helvetica, critics described the typeface as a “global monster,” praising its transparent and rational aesthetic while also criticizing its omnipresence and subconscious influence.

**Source:**

-https://www.wired.com/2007/03/sxsw-film-helve/

**Proposed Addition:**  (existing “Re-issuing foundries” in info box)

Monotype Imaging

**Rationale:**

These updates improve accuracy and are supported by independent sources.

Thank you for reviewing.

{{request edit}}

--~~~~ 2601:404:CD00:26A:9DD6:AA69:865:44AD (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

We can't do any of that - that's all promotional writing, and Wikipedia cannot be turned into an advertisement for your company. MrOllie (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response and for reviewing our suggestions. For further background, Monotype asked me to review font pages so we could recommend factual corrections and more historical detail, not promotion. I’ve been working with type designers and industry experts (including those with direct experience with Helvetica) to ensure accuracy and neutrality. Our aim is simply to add well-sourced context on Helvetica’s history, usage, and cultural relevance.

Would you be open to suggesting an alternative way we approach this, so we can add value to the article within Wikipedia’s standards? 2601:404:CD00:26A:4850:FC8E:4646:5EB0 (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

First, you should register an account and follow the disclosure requirements you can find at WP:PAID. Suggesting changes on the talk page is the way forward. I appreciate that you were attempting to suggest factual corrections, but what you actually wrote here is clearly advertising language and is unusable for an encyclopedia. MrOllie (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your messages-my suggestion would be to add pictures! My guess is you have in the archives lots of interesting materials like promotional designs or original drawings which could add a lot to the typeface articles. (I've seen photos of the Pencil to Pixel exhibition Monotype did about a decade ago, things like the materials shown there.) That would add something interesting and unique.

There's definitely room for improvement in the article (I keep meaning to add more information on the condensed weights from Professor Kupferschmid's book) and if you have factual suggestions please raise them! As MrOllie has said, some of the text you originally suggested sounds a bit too much like marketing to be likely to be accepted by the community on here, I'm afraid, but will review what you and your colleagues post and think about if it can be added. Blythwood (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)