This is one of those instances in which reductio ad absurdem is a helpful and persuasive rhetorical argument.  I get it.  I understand your point-of-view, and I'm sympathetic.  I'm not even disagreeing.  I only explain that disambiguation for the ships of the CP fleet is informed by a consensus:
(a) I understand that this consensus is not one which you unquestioningly accept. 
(b) You clarify the ambit of this "consensus" by pointing to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). 
You announce that your background has to do with articles about military ships, and this informs my measured and somewhat cautious response.  In the period in which I was more engaged in developing the articles about this relatively small fleet. I was not inattentive to the consequences of lexicographical order  see Taxonomy#Military taxonomy.  
 RMS Empress of China  disambiguation
 RMS Empress of China (1921)  disambiguation

Bottom line: I have not reverted nor disputed your recent move; but I'm disinclined to move too quickly in moving each article about a ship in this fleet again  see  here and  here; see also
 RMS Empress of Britain >  Empress of Britain  disambiguation
 RMS Empress of Britain (1930) >  Talk:RMS Empress of Britain (1931)#Redundant useful links

I don't quite understand the point-of-view which appears to argue that the distinction between military and non-military vessels should reasonably extend to this minor issue of disambiguation. Application of the phrase "consensus reality" in our Wikipedia context is one of those  lessons learned the hard way.  I'm still investigating the nuance of unintended consequences.  

For example,  was moved by  to RMS Empress of Australia, and the disambiguation date was simply deemed unnecessary at this point.  This edit is entirely justified, of course; but the modification fails to take into account an article which has yet to be created about RMS Empress of Australia (1953).  As you know, this trivial misjudgment doesn't matter, if indeed the term "misjudgment" can be applied at all  which perhaps makes it an excellent illustration of a grey area.