Is the Sveshnikov Variation a subvariation of the Lasker-Pelikan Variation? Wikipedia says that the Sveshnikov Variation is :

[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5


While chesstempo says that is the Lasker-Pelikan Variation, and the Sveshnikov is strictly :

[FEN ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5.
There is no central authority for opening names, and the ones used shift over time. So a definite answer to this question isn't possible.

Bad_Bishop quotes Silman's review of "Sicilian Sveshnikov: Move by Move", which is a bit odd as the book itself treats all variations after 5...e5 (see the PDF preview of the book, chapter "Sixth Move Alternatives".

The same is true of "The Sicilian Sveshnikov" by Kotronias (PDF preview).

But these are repertoire books for black; if you play 5...e5 and white wants to, he can basically force 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 as there are few serious alternatives for black. So if you play the Lasker/Pelikan, you play the Sveshnikov too, and vice versa. It's logical that they want to treat white's alternatives at move 6 too, so that the book is more widely useful. But then, why not call it "The Lasker/Pelikan: Move by Move"?

I think the name "Lasker/Pelikan" is obsolete, at least in English language chess publications. I've never seen it used in any book or periodical or website in at least twenty years, it's always Sveshnikov. You can easily find many books on the Sveshnikov, and I don't know any on the Lasker/Pelikan. Apart from that Silman review, but he has played chess for a long time.

ECO (and thus the Informant) calls it the Lasker/Pelikan, but its codes and their names are set in stone since the 1960s. Those codes and their names have also ended up in many computer files of opening names, but as far as I can see it's not actually used by anybody anymore.

It's just the Sveshnikov.