Interesting situation. Do we redefine the current magnetic south-pole phenomena to maintain the present compass and mapping infrastructure (in other words, the current south-seeking needle becomes the new north-seeking needle) or do we redefine our maps and naming to follow the current compass infrastructure. (The compass will now point south instead of north, so therefore the current South Pole becomes the new North Pole.)

Almost certainly, we will choose the first option, as it permits the least number of changes. We wouldn't be stupid enough the maintain the compass so that the North Magnetic Pole is located close to the Earth's South Pole in Antarctica. Or would we??

iflscience is sometimes interesting, but often (as here) ludicrously sensationalistic clickbait.

There's a couple major misrepresentations here; while 450,000 is an often-stated average, its important to note that there is no evidence of periodicity, so the idea that the planet would be "overdue" for a reversal is misguided.

The other cited evidence for an imminent shift is drop in the strength of the Earth's magnetic fields, but major variations in field strength appear without pole reversals.

The actual BBC Earth article [0] that IFLS gives a "hat tip" to as its source is not about an imminent pole reversal, but about research that suggests the average frequency of pole shifts has increased over time, and discussion of the possible mechanisms for that, mentioning it in passing in one sentence near the end of the article as something that some people speculate based on the recent weakening of the magnetic field.

[0] http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141110-earths-magnetic-fiel...