You've developed a microservice. You know it is because it does one thing well, can be independently versioned as well as deployed, and best of all the consultants you employed to help say it is too! Maybe you've even had it in production use for a while, receiving positive feedback on the benefits a service oriented approach brings. Let's assume you developed the service so it can run within a Linux container (some other container technology, including one based on the JVM, would be just as suitable for this example.) Hopefully you've embraced immutability and therefore take the approach of producing a new instance each time you need to make a modification. So far, so good.
As I've mentioned before, once you start down the microservices road, as with other services approaches dating back beyond even CORBA, you immediately enter the world of distributed computing, with all that entails. Therefore, it is inevitable that at some point either you, your team, or some group of developers at some point in the future, will wonder what they can do to improve performance or reliability in the face of distributed invocations and partial, independent failures. Co-location of services will likely be close to, if not top of, the list of things to try. Let's face it, the ability to improve the networking interconnect is limited in any meaningful timeframe, as is finding money to purchase machines with higher MTTF and lower MTTR (plus entropy increases, so you're going to have failures eventually). That leaves moving services (physically) closer together to reduce the network latency and increase the probability that they fail as a logical unit. Ok let's stop there for a second and back up a bit: just to be clear, I'm talking about services which are related closely such that they rely upon each other to work though can be invoked independently as well.
At some point some group or groups of developers will come (back around) to making microservices infrastructures dynamic in so much that individual placements of services are (initially) made based on heuristics from inter-service communications (interactions) to reduce network overhead. And these placements will (eventually) be computed frequently to enable services to be redeployed if those usage patterns change and new clients come in to play which need the services (or copies) placed closer to them. So it goes that eventually microservices will want to be placed within the same container. As I mentioned before, this could be the same Linux container, especially if each service is a separate process, or could be in the same language container, such as an OSGi container if each service is an OSGi bundle. And whilst these co-location deployments could be done in a volatile manner initially, such that the reboot of the container causes the services to no longer be co-located, it makes sense that a new durable instance of the container be created if the updated configuration proves valuable.
However, that then leads me finally to the question in the title: you had multiple microservices before they were co-located in the same container but does that change now? Are they still microservices? Maybe not if they can't be redeployed independently, but as I mentioned earlier, maybe they aren't that independent anyway. But in which case maybe they should have been collapsed into a single microservices in the first place? Lots of questions!
To be perfectly honest I'm not hung up on the "independently deployable" aspect of microservices in general. I think dependencies between components, objects, services etc. in distributed systems are things which may ebb and flow over time and usage patterns. I think the more important aspects are the service oriented nature, with a well defined contract between user(s) and service, quick deployment ('quick' being a relative term), and well defined APIs. Therefore, in my book these co-located microservices may still be microservices, or maybe composite microservices (what about a milliservice?) But one thing I'm sure of is that some people will disagree and the "goodness" which is the lack of standards in this area, will encourage these kinds of discussions for a while to come.