This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.
Unless it's the hotels that the city is famous for, then information about accommodations seem inappropriate for an encyclopedia and is probably much more appropriate in its entry in WIkitravel. YooChung 07:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
How is the name pronounced? According to Korean phonology, |ls| tends to become [ls͈] rather than [ls]. Is this the case with Ulsan? Is it [uls͈an] or [ulsan]? - Gilgamesh (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
It is [uls͈an] in Standard Korean, with a short first syllable (for those still making vowel length distinctions). The Pyojun Gugeo Daesajeon provides pronunciation keys when the spelling is ambiguous. In the local dialect, however, I have a feeling that /s͈/ and /s/ would be merged, so that you would have the non-standard [ulsan]. Actually, Korean /s/ is aspirated as well as lenis, and the fortis /s͈/ is for virtually all intents and purposes identical to /s/ in most other languages, but this is a whole other can of worms. --Iceager (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
For further clarification, this was not a case of ambiguous spelling as I originally thought. The fortis /s͈/ pronunciation in /uls͈an/ is regular, because in Sino-Korean words like "Ulsan" (the vast majority of major Korean place names are Sino-Korean with the notable exception of "Seoul") /l/ triggers the fortition of the following tautomorphemic coronal obstruents /s/, /dʑ/, and /d/ to /s͈/, /tɕ͈/, and /t͈/ respectively. So in addition to Ulsan /uls͈an/ you have Uljin/ultɕ͈in/ and Paldang/pʰalt͈aŋ/.
For the status of the Korean /s/, you can consult "The Acoustics of Korean Fricatives Revisited" by Charles B. Chang for a summary of the debate whether to group it as part of the lenis or the aspirated series. It is true that it displays characteristics associated with both aspirated plosives and lenis plosives at the phonetic level, though it doesn't necessarily follow that it should be grouped as part of the lenis and aspirated series at the same time at the more abstract phonological level. My actual inclination would be to reserve judgement and describe it simply as non-fortis, since only the two-way distinction with the fortis /s͈/ is salient. Iceager (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)