Talk:Manhole cover

Untitled
I altered the text to remove the suggestion that most manholes are round because this is not the case in most countries I have been to outside of North America. Also removed suggestion that they are made of steel as this contradicts the later assertion that most are made of cast iron. Added section on political correctness. --Ali@gwc.org.uk 08:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised at your statement - I've traveled in 35 countries in my life, and while I can't say I have studied manhole covers I never recall seeing a non-round one! Where have you seen non-round manhole covers? - DavidWBrooks 22:36, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Rectangular covers are common in the UK. http://www.saint-gobain-pipelines.co.uk/watersewer/telecom/mc_shdbriton.cfm Bobblewik (talk) 11:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I don't recall ever seeing a round one in the UK... Whilst I don't claim to pay much attention to them, I don't recall seeing many round ones anywhere in Europe. --Ali@gwc.org.uk 20:32, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

>> In reality, there is little danger of lids falling through the hole with any shape of manhole because small shelves, or lips, are built into the hole to help hold up the cover, effectively reducing the hole's diameter.
 * This wasn't quite right as it stood. There's a ledge because the cover has to sit on something, and one has to be pretty clumsy in the first place to let it slide diagonally. But when it happens there's a difference between round and square and the ledge plays no big role in it. Femto 18:39, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A round manhole cover cannot fall down the hole because the lip (under the manhole that the cover sits on) is smaller than the cover thus the cover cannot ever fall into the hole. A square or rectangular cover (like a storm drain cover) has the same lip that the cover sits on but it is fairly easy for a cover in the shape other than a round cover to slip sidewise and fall down the hole when installing the cover. I learned this the hard way mdeluca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.233.102 (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the Feynman quote to the external links, because it isn't a quote but a made-up "what if" skit. If we include satirical content we also have to put in Andrei Codrescu: "In a fight, a round shield is better than a square one. The circle is also a symbol of infinity, which is why church domes are also round. The principle of 'as above as below' reminds pedestrians that they live in a divine world." ...Makes you think, doesn't it? Femto 18:39, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I had included the now removed sentence about diagonally parted covers because of what appears near the bottom of http://www.pavingexpert.com/drain05.htm. Any reason not to mention those? Femto 12:46, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Only that it was very hard to understand. I tried to rewrite it and made it worse, and ended up deleting it, which was perhaps not the best move. - DavidWBrooks 13:38, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I feel your pain here. If anybody thinks they succeed in explaining it in a simple wording, be our guest then. Femto 14:02, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Machining of manhole covers
I have added the sentence about machining manhole covers. It is nearly impossible to machine the bearing surface of a rectangular frame in the corners. Turning is far easier. M Pulver

What the hell?
It looks like User:Sonjaaa is engaging in political correctness run amok. I just ran a Google search for "maintenance cover" and nearly all hits use it as a shorthand for "maintenance coverage contract." While I am well aware of the need to use gender-neutral language, Wikipedia is subject to the no original research policy. Making up a gender-neutral term that no one actually uses is "original research." If Sonjaaa has a cogent argument that "manhole cover" should be replaced by "maintenance cover," she can go make the argument to the appropriate professional organizations for whomever works in manholes. When they change their official terminology, then Wikipedia can follow the change. Also see the guideline on naming conventions at Naming conventions (common names), which states that Wikipedia should use common names as much as possible. Manhole cover is the common name. Like it or not, "maintenance cover" is not the common name. --Coolcaesar 04:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article should be put at Manhole cover to reflect prevalent usage. As far as I know, there is no WP policy on using gender-neutral language that over-rides this primary axiom of the naming conventions.  Either way, a non-trivial move like this one should have been preceded by talk-page discussion first.   A    q    uilina   11:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Besides, "man" is already a gender-neutral term when used in the generic sense. See http://www.onelook.com/?w=man. 209.208.77.86 21:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Manhole, and manhole cover, are gender-neutral in my mind. I would not be surprised if there are people who want to eliminate "man" from as many words as they can, but I don't think "maintenance cover" is as meaningful to native English speakers as "manhole cover" is. But maybe I'm just perpetuating the patriarchal hegemony. UltraNurd 16:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hilariously, the only Google hits for "maintenance hatch cover" reference this article, and copies of it. I call "original research" on that, and have removed the section, which was not supported by any citation. If it's restored, I will drown it in Fact tags. -- Rogerborg 23:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On further searching, I can't find any references for "maintenance cover" or "maintenance hole" anywhere, and have removed uses of these terms from this article. I'm fairly sure that there will be uses of them, but until we see the citations, out they go. -- Rogerborg 12:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
maintenance cover → manhole cover
 * Support Femto 12:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support if only because such a move shouldn't be made without discussion. - DavidWBrooks 16:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support for the reasons I have articulated above. --Coolcaesar 17:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support for reasons detailed above  A    q    uilina   17:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support ~ trialsanderrors 09:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Convention applicable here calls for us to use the most common name, which is Manhole cover. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 07:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Race cars and manholes
If memory serves correctly, ground effects were banned in F1 for safety concerns, so the statement that F1 cars can (implying currently) lift manhole covers is inaccurate. I don't want to make the change without some discussion. Does anyone know another sort of car that can currently do this? - JaKaL! 01:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The incident in Montreal in 1990 was not a F1 car but Group C sport prototype. Group C prototypes were running on the same track as the Formula 1 grand prix on the same weekend.

Microsoft
according the this article on h2g2 IBM has been asking that question since the sixties. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A10607087#footnote1 Scatterkeir 20:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Vapor coming out of manholes
Have you guys ever seen, especially in downtown areas, where vaporous stuff resembling steam or smoke comes out of the sewer manholes? What is this??? JustN5:12 01:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's probably just steam leaking from district heating mains.
 * Or the ground temperature is enough higher than the air temperature and the water vapor from the sewer is condensing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickH86 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Reason for circular shape
Though the reasons listed are pretty much valid, and it is certainly the issue of not dropping it through the hole that is the main one, the following don't make any sense -

"Round tubes are the strongest and most material-efficient shape against the compression of the earth around them, and so it is natural that the cover of a round tube assume a circular shape." - It doesn't matter what shape the hole is, we're talking about the cover, which is most likely smaller than the hole anyway.

"It's easier to dig a circular hole." - same as above

RickH86 (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually disagree. The shape probably has little to do with it not falling in, and everything to do with strength of a circular lid over other shapes, and how using a circular lid can use far less materials than other shapes. This is a well known effect and is uses on a lot of fixtures that need to withstand lots of pressure, like windows on airplanes or on submarines, almost every canned good ever, carbonated beverages, etc. There doesn't seem to be a single primary source that shows that the shape is so that the lid doesn't fall in, and if you understand the whole of the design, you realize how minimal of a role that would likely play in the whole design process.
 * In fact, the only answer in the explanation that does make sense is the one you quoted about strength.


 * I think this whole section should be removed or re-worked to be able to cite primary sources.
 * Nabeel_co (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Opening and Entering?
Does anyone know what possible repercussions might be if one were to be caught entering a manhole unauthorized? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibanezs620 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Generally, it would be addressed by trespassing or burglary (entering a building with the intent to commit a crime) statutes. Some states have laws specifically enhancing trespassing penalties when it violates utility properties. And the way some states define a "building" can include underground utilities since that manhole cover counts as either a door or a roof. When I was younger, I attended a police academy and this was one of the "trick" questions asked in exams about the California Penal Code. Tangurena (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Further Reason for circular shape
Is it possible that humans are less likely to fall into an uncovered manhole because it is more easily distinguishable to the eye due to the typically hard angles of the surrounding features?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

--JFN (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But, they're always square shaped, at least in the UK they seem to be. But, I have to admit I don't go searching much for them, well not much. Lol!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.98.52 (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Image use
Why is there a gallery and a list of images down the side? Shouldn't one join the other? Dude1818 (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Made in India
I removed a claim about India being a major player in the manhole-cover industry due to lax labor laws, since the article cited was anecdotal (it visited one factory in India for one day, and didn't make many systematic claims that would support the assertion in the wikipedia article). Also, there are NPOV issues: many people quoted about Indian labor standards are involved in making manhole covers in the US, and therefore have self-interested reasons to disparage Indian manufacturers. Finally, the claim didn't seem important or comprehensive enough to be the introduction: it mentions only one country (India), with an unknown share of the global market. Does China have a bigger share? Or the US? Without some more systematic discussion of the major players, it's confusing to randomly mention India, because of a nytimes article that says that NYC gets 25% of its manhole covers from India. So, that explains my initial removal of the claim. The claim was restored with the justification that "the nytimes is a credible source." In light of what I said above, I still think the line should be removed, until we're ready to see how the manhole-cover market is divided up globally (and even then, I'm not sure it should go in the introduction). I'm reluctant to revert the undoing of my edit until some discussion. So I'd like to mention it here first. Do people agree with re-removing the line? Or not? Aram.harrow (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Gallery is out of control
As WP:gallery says, "Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons."

The gallery in this article has become an indiscriminate collection of images. In a day or two I plan to delete uninteresting or lesser-quality or redunant examples. Discussion? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll take the lack of response as indicating agreement - I'm going to kill off the gallery entirely, since it duplicates many similar collections online and see what happens. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manhole cover. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612064454/http://www.joblossguide.com/2009/02/why-are-manhole-covers-round_10.html to http://www.joblossguide.com/2009/02/why-are-manhole-covers-round_10.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manhole cover. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080829215326/http://www.mlive.com/flintjournal/index.ssf/2008/07/hundreds_of_manhole_covers_sto.html to http://www.mlive.com/flintjournal/index.ssf/2008/07/hundreds_of_manhole_covers_sto.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20140413132822/http://twcnews.com/content/news/722111/city-officials-investigate-rising-theft-of-manhole-covers--storm-grates/?ap=1&MP4 to http://twcnews.com/content/news/722111/city-officials-investigate-rising-theft-of-manhole-covers--storm-grates/?ap=1&MP4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Should this article be merged?
Should this article be merged with manhole? It seems like a very odd thing to have its own article. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, this is a separate but related topic which has had its own page since 2003 and for now averages 200 views a day. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So? Zilch-nada (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So it works as a stand-alone article. No merge needed. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding 'As art'
One forum on Reddit that features manhole covers as artwork is located at https://www.reddit.com/r/manholeporn/. Despite using the p-word, it is all safe for work. Tangurena (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)