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