The problem with titles like that is that they don't convey the same thing. "considered harmful" has entered the lexicon at this point, so you know what you're going to get when you see it, which is someone attempting to make a reasoned case about why some behavior that people do and consider okay is actually worse than people may suspect.

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.

Fair enough. Yet it might be difficult to summarize the tradeoffs succinctly enough for a title.

"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.

They should start calling them "problematic"