The name Dinosauria did not change when birds (Aves) were included.
This reflects the phylogenetic reality that birds are a lineage of
dinosaurs, just as bats are a lineage of mammals.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And look at the crapstorm that has created. Even now, the use of a monophyletic Dinosauria is still challenged or begrudgingly accepted. Just look at how often a paper or book will have a variant of this phrase in the introduction: "Non-avian dinosaurs (which we will refer to as just dinosaurs for the rest of the text)". Strict phylogenetic terms are a problem when referring to concept-based names. The glut of "non-avian dinosaur" in the literature also makes it pretty clear that the old, paraphyletic definition still has merit.
______________________________________________________________
Nonetheless, some names have changed when their content has been
changed (either expanded or reduced) - but these name changes are not
necessary. One example is Cetartiodactyla: the original name
(Artiodactyla) was changed to Cetartiodactyla when the content of
Artiodactyla was expanded to include whales (Cetacea). But I'd say
this was entirely a matter of taste; there was no objective reason to
change Artiodactyla to Cetartiodactyla.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Artiodactyla is another concept-based name. It's referred to when dealing with all the various, terrestrial even-toed ungulates, but whales are very, very different from most artiodactyls. Using the monophyletic definition of Artiodactyla in most research studies, would either require an ugly modifier like "non-cetacean artiodactyl", or some kind of qualifying statement at the beginning of the text. Making Cetartiodactyla the monophyletic name frees up the concept-based Artiodactyla, allowing it to continue to function as a paraphyletic group. No information is lost and it doesn't deny the inclusion of whales as a branch of this mammalian group. If anything, it retains the highest degree of fidelity in the literature by not diluting the group definition. I can read a paper from the 50s, 70s, or 10s and know exactly what the researchers are referring to when they say artiodactyl vs. cetartiodactyl.
Similarly, it's more common to see Sauropsida used when referring to reptiles in a strictly monophyletic sense, as it's not bound by the conceptual baggage of the term Reptilia. Meanwhile, in spite of getting the phylogenetic nomenclature treatment, Reptilia is still largely used in the paraphyletic sense.. The separation of these terms provides the best clarity when combing through publications. No need for ugly modifiers or qualifying sentences.
Honestly, it's disappointing that the same wasn't done for dinosaurs. If we went with a monophyletic "Avedinosauria" and a paraphyletic "Dinosauria" I suspect there would be much less confusion in the literature when it comes to using the name.
Jason