It is urgent Jack, because right now it makes Wikitree the subject of frequent criticism among serious genealogists, and that needs to be fixed unless we give up on the project as a whole, or redefine its mission.
I think too much rushing is in any case the last thing Wikitree is in danger of, concerning this question, but it is obvious what MUST happen if Wikitree is to have a future:
Fields made for the database should simply NOT be used as the public human-readable title of for our articles.
(The standard Wiki software never demanded this mixing up of article names with sorting fields. I presume that we now suffer from a "psychology of sunk costs" issue because someone put effort into making it like this, and it has not helped anything. It is not easier to search on Wikitree than on Wikipedia for example.)
The compromise solutions which have evolved are often not improvements because they just create unreadable monstrosities. In areas like non English names we see how there is no problem created by simply giving up the old restrictions, so I think there is no reason not to loosen up the rules all over Wikitree.
As I said before, a more pro-active strategy would be to have an optional field for a human-readable article name, based simply on a common-sense human way of naming a person.
Just to be clear, people who are not used to working on Wikitree do not necessarily find this kind of name acceptable, recognizable, or something they would know how to search for.
John "King of England, Lackland" of England formerly Plantagenet
(For example, how many people would think of the Royal family of England as having a family name let alone that it would be "Plantagenet"? And infamously, what are all the "formerlies" about?)