two properties to describe how administrative/economic/statistical and organisational entities have been merged. This pair of properties could be a better alternative or a complement to replaced by (P1366) and end cause (P1534) in many cases
See for example how fotnot @ "Template:Befolkningsutveckling" is used in sv:Stockholm (tätort): Amalgamated with "Flemingsberg", "Jakobsberg" and "Tullinge" 1970, amalgamated with "Alby", "Bollmora", "Fittja", "Handen", "Kallhäll" and "Norsborg" 1975, amalgamated with "Stäket" 1980, amalgamated with "Sollentuna" and "Tyresö" 1995
Domain
administrative entities, organzations etc
Allowed values
same type of entity as the subject-item. (A company merge with another company, an administrative entity merge with another administrative entity)
Not a systematic work, I plan to use it when I come across such items. I do not plan large bot-/tool-works with this in the near future, since I am not sure it fits such work.
"Amalgamated by" to me reads as the third of these, and so I would expect the value of the property to be a person or (more likely) a piece of legislation or a proclamation.
What happend in 1970 was that the "blob" of Stockholm urban area swelled into a larger "blob" and consumed the area of "Jakobsberg". (The uninhabited area between these two entities were populated and they merged.) When it comes to urban areas, nobody "causes" anything to happen, it is the Statistics organisation who interpretate the situation and they normally interpret it as that the larger entity consumes the smaller. In some cases (your #1) they form something new. That description is used when the entities are of the same size. "Replaced by" is maybe better in those cases. One such example is Timrå (Q1195439) who was formed when "Vivsta" and "Sörberge" were merged.
What said above is about statistical entities. When it comes to administrative entities, it is not as obvious what should be said about them. Skåne County (Q103659) was formed by an amalgamation of "Kristianstad county" and "Malmöhus county". The new entity is of the same kind and the former, but have a new name. The new entity inherited all the codes used by "Malmöhus" so you could say that "Kristianstad" was amalgamated into "Malmöhus" and thereafter renamed. That is open to interpretation, but I guess most people would say that they both were "replaced". In the same way, many municipalities were merged 1971-74 in Sweden. All municipalities 1971 was of a new kind, so all merges then could be interpreted as "replacements". But since many small municipalties were merged into larger and the largest often kept the name and codes of the former, it could also be interpreted as an "amalgamation" or "incorporation" of the small ones into the larger who only changed it name from "X City" to "X Municipality".
I agree that my model isn't flawless. But I think only rely on "replaced by" is not enough to describe the reality in a good way. It becomes maybe more obvious in Q10723852#P1365. "Ytterlännäs" became larger in 1952 by merges with "Dal" and "Torsåker" and overtook the administrative responsibilities of "Nyland" as of 1971. Ytterlännäs was formed 1863 and was dissolved 1974. The statements that describe what happend 1952/1971 could be misinterpreted as that Ytterlännäs was founded then, but it wasn't. The assets, liabilities and inhabitants of Dal, Torsåker and Nyland became Ytterlännäs and it became now one single organisation. (Nyland was a second level municipality, so its inhabitants and area was already a part of Ytterlännäs, but it was until 1970 still a municipality with assets and liabilities of its own.) -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gröndal (blue), Vallentuna (red) as of 2005. In 2010 the red "blob" swallowed the blue blob.
Comment we have part of (P361) but I'm not sure that is quite right here. I'm wondering though if a slightly more generic "formed from" would be better? I'd like to see you and other people's opinions on these before deciding whether to support or not. Thryduulf (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that part of (P361) imply that the subject is more or less still a part in itself. In organisations, that could very often be true. "A Ltd" becomes a subsidiary (Q658255) in "B Ltd" and still is an entity in itself. Swedish urban areas do not behave like that at all. Gröndal as an urban area was disintegrated when it is was eaten by Vallentuna as of 2010. And merges of administrative entities neither behave like that (at least not here). I have seen descriptions of municipalities (I think it was in Italy) who became boroughs of the larger municipality and in a way survived as a subsidiary entity within the larger entity. But that is not how things works here. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about calling this "absorbed by" (sample "A" absorbed by "ABC") and "absorbed" (sample "ABC" absorbed "A", absorbed "B", absorbed "C") ? --- Jura17:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support a property "absorbed territory of" for use on the continuing, now geographically larger, item. An separate inverse "merged into" for use on the other item may also be worth having. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In cases where the smaller area continues to exist as a distinct subdivision of the larger, contains the administrative territorial entity (P150) with time qualifiers is necessary regardless of whether this property is created. In cases where the smaller area does not continue to exist, replaced by (P1366) is similarly necessary. In situations where the smaller area continues to exist, but not as a distinct subdivision in the regular chain, part of (P361) is necessary. In each of these situations, the "merged" status is already implied by previously existing statements. This proposal is therefore redundant. Oppose --Yair rand (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Yair rand: A Swedish urban area, as describe in the illustration above is not an "administrative entity", it is statistical. And when they have been merged into a larger unit, they have ceased to exists as a statistical entity. When it comes to administrative entities as Municipalities, they also cease to exists when they have been merged. Kramfors Municipality (Q514815) was formed 1971 out of Kramfors City. It was merged by Ytterlännäs, Bjärtrå and other Municipalities in 1974. Ytterlännäs and Bjärtrå are no longer administrative entities. Kramfors Municipality today does not "contain" any other Municipality. Ytterlännäs Municipality "contained" the "Municipal city of Nyland" until 1970, when the belongings of that entity was transferred to Ytterlännäs. Since 1970 no Swedish municipality "contains" any other municipality. And not even all 'municipal citys' were "contained" inside another municipality. Sometimes they were completely integrated with the "mother" entity and sometimes they had two or three "mothers". One drawback of the change of description Jura1 made above is that not only the "territory" of the municipalities were merged. Also the assets and liabilities were merged. That is important information for those who worked for these "merged" entities and want to know who will pay their retirement. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might want to decide what exact usecase you want to cover. Is it change in territorial scope, succession of entities or any of the two. Then we can try to build a query that shows if it works with existing properties or not (or ask Yair rand for one supporting his comment). --- Jura11:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1, Innocent bystander, Yair rand: I have created User:Thryduulf/Amalgamations which lists all the types of goegraphic amalgamation I can think of (but feel free to add more). I may add diagrams later (out of time now). Which of those can currently be represented (please show there how) and which of those that cannot will be represented by this proposal? I've withdrawn my support until it's clear everyone has the same understanding about what is being proposed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm confused by what exactly your trying to represent here? Are you saying
Not done, since I think this needs a broader discussion, than can be accomplished in this Property proposal today. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
-- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Done. 
Support a property "absorbed territory of" for use on the continuing, now geographically larger, item. An separate inverse "merged into" for use on the other item may also be worth having. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose --Yair rand (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
