What to do with expansions of pre-existing catalogues?

We already have a reference to the Aschoff catalogue for German Play money

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/catalogue.php?id=857

This catalog seems to be unfindable, but Thomas Engelen has edited and expanded Aschoff and also included part of the German play coins listed in Rogers (is being added https://en.numista.com/forum/topic152030.html). And … Wunderbar! … this catalogue is available online for all to enjoy and can even be downloaded as pdf:

online: https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/624801

pdf: https://ia601607.us.archive.org/18/items/DeutschesKinderspielgeld/DeutschesKinderspielgeld.pdf

As fas as I have been able to check with the items already listed from Aschoff, the numbering is indeed identical, but newly found items have been added following the original numbering system. Do we use the online catalogue to continue listing items as “Aschoff#”, as most of the work was done in that original publication. Do we add both “Aschoff#” and “Engelen#”, but most items will then have two identical numbers (except the new ones, and all those that are not added by someone who owns Aschoff to check the listing). Or do we only use “Engelen#” as this catalogue is available to all to check and remove the references to Aschroff as they are identical.

The first option gives credit to the original work of Aschroff, but will then also inlude items that were added by Engelen (information on the Engelen edition could be added on the page of Aschroff)

The second option is stupid, as too many pointless duplicates and someone owning the original Aschroff should then check which ones were added by Engelen.

The third option would throw out the work of the more renowned original Aschroff catalogue.

What to do? Maybe a fourth option … to make an "Aschroff/Engelen#" reference?

To me, imo, both references should be listed. There are 10 spaces for the references and unless all 10 are used i see adding both as a benefit. Even though it would appear as redundant. Some members may not see the point in having both references. For whatever reason some members may only posses or have access to one reference over the other. So, by listing both they would be able to locate it in their reference or the reference they can review. They, may not be aware that both references use the same numbers as well.

There are several references for USA Exonumia that also use the same numbers from one author to another.

We usually only have the most up-to-date edition listed. 

Book series that have many editions but use widely different numbering systems each revision are not really suitable as a reference (at least not for Numista) and should only be listed in special circumstances (like there nothing else that covers that specific field etc.).

So if it has the same numbering system and is simply expanded an update request should suffice.

It's not a 2nd edition like usual, a new numismatist decided to continue the work so we should différentiate the 2 books in DB