Choosing the title of a paper: are provocative titles better? I am currently working on a paper that challenges some long-standing practices within my field, but am questioning how to title the paper. Basically, the old view in the research field is "we do Y instead of better method X, because X takes too long." We show that X is usually just as fast as Y, and often is actually faster. 

Given the fact that we're taking what could be a "controversial" stance, does it make sense to put the controversial idea directly in the title, or should it be saved for the abstract.

Basically, the question is if a "traditional" title, such as:


  Using New Method X to Improve Solving Problem Y


is preferable to directly mentioning the issue in the title:


  Using New Method X Makes Assumption Z Obsolete.


Or is finding a title that suggests superiority without questioning relevance a satisfactory compromise?
It might be viewed as incivil to refer to someone else's work as "obsolete", whether or not one could defend such a claim. An editor or referee might object to the title, too, and, perhaps even be subliminally biased against your result because of a too-aggressive title.

That is, "provocative" in the sense of more-vividly-descriptive, without too-direct negativism about prior work, might be a very good thing. But I think if "provocative" too much means "antagonistic", the net would be counterproductive and regrettable.

Asserting that you've made progress is already a bit aggressive, suggesting, as is inevitable, that previous work is being superceded (even if still relevant as some sort of historical/dialectic record). My own taste is that winners can afford to be generous.

Edit: in light of edits to the question... I'd still encourage a sort of "innocent" -seeming, or almost-apologetic seeming, self-description. My point would be that people who understand the situation will see the implications of even a very-modest statement. Descriptiveness is good, yes, but perhaps not "judgemental" phrases.