I'm the co-author of one of such ones: "Schema Later Considered Harmful" [1]. I don't see what's wrong with this "type titles", may you elaborate? :)
[1] https://www.enterprisedb.com/blog/schema-later-considered-ha...
[1] https://www.enterprisedb.com/blog/schema-later-considered-ha...
Drinking bleach is harmful.
Now, I see "Considered Harmful" as just a concise way of alluding to that style of article, basically saying "here are the not-well-known downsides of a commonly-used thing". Many "Considered Harmful" articles do not live up to that promise, but I think this one does.
Another title meme: "Zen and the Art of ...".
It’s smug.
You’re publishing an opinion with a title that suggests an authority has formed a consensus.
(edit, typo)
"Harmful" is less information and kind of suggests an overall judgement for all cases vs "things to consider" (which was e.g. also a criticism of the original letter, that it lead to rules like "never use goto" which forced people to do bad workarounds instead of discussion on where to use it and where not)
In that way, it's much more informative and less likely to have people arguing pedantic points about the title being "correct" than "is harmful" or "is often slow" or "has non-obvious corner cases" or "can create maintenance problems", which might all be items together in a "is considered harmful" article.
In other words, it's come full circle. There was the first, then there was the numerous copycats, then the backlash, and now we're all the way around to the point there it's a fairly succinct way to describe exactly the type of article people use it on and most people know what it means and what to expect when they see it.
All that's left is for people to realize it's not going anywhere and actually has some beneficial use and that there's no point in complaining about it anymore, but that might be asking too much.
"Harmful" conveys enough information to raise awareness of a topic which might not be usually considered. Both examples show this pattern: schema-less is often considered a good thing, when it is not (in Stonebraker's and my opinion); also subtransactions are usually considered a good thing, while the OP shows they can have notable negative effects (of diverse nature) in the database.