Short author bio enough to keep editions separate?

The e-book edition of Octavia Butler's Bloodchild and Other Stories is currently separate from the second print edition, but the only difference between the two is a short author biography and nine pictures; both editions contain the same stories, essays, and afterwards. Are a one page bio and a handful of photos really enough to keep the two editions separate?

second print edition: https://www.librarything.com/work/16235325
e-book: https://www.librarything.com/work/24118725

>1 amanda4242:

You're absolutely right, it's clearly the same work.

Even fairly substantial textual revisions are combined. iirc, the 1st and 2nd editions of Fowler's are combined here, and I don't think anyone's actually suggested that the Hobbit's early editions should be separated out because Tolkien made some (fairly substantial) revisions to make it work better with LoTR.

NO, we normally combine those if you're sure it contains the same 7 stories + essays. There's a disambiguation notice about different editions with the same title having different stories, though

>3 SandraArdnas:

But both have a list of contents under the book description that's identical except for the biography of the author. So definitely the same work.

>2 gabriel: When there are major textual differences between editions I generally think they should be separate. I would guess that some of the combinations of substantially different editions exist simply because no one bothered to separate them.

>3 SandraArdnas: I have both editions literally right in front of me and they contain the same stories, essays, and afterwards. I know the first print edition doesn't contain two of the stories, so that one definitely shouldn't be combined.

>4 gabriel: Yep, same stuff except for the bio--which is the same bio Open Road uses in all of their editions of Butler's works.

>4 gabriel:

I think SandraArdnas' "NO" was in response to Are a one page bio and a handful of photos really enough to keep the two editions separate?

>7 lilithcat: Yes, indeed. I think it's even clearly stated somewhere as policy that different intros, afterwords and such (and short bio fits) are not grounds for separating

>7 lilithcat:

I was not confused by Sandra's "No", I was addressing the mention of the disambiguation notice stating that there were different selections under different titles. While I don't think Sandra meant to, that left a bit of an impression that the works were somehow different, despite OP's statement.

>5 amanda4242:

I believe there has been a fair bit of discussion about exactly what constitutes a different work, but I think we can leave that discussion for another time. I would say that Fowler's 1st and 2nd editions are probably an edge case. I think I separated out the 3rd edition myself some years ago, and left 1 & 2 together, so I suppose I'm responsible for that example.