Wrong.When China in history names anything with 'beautiful' artistic names, it always implys China (the official) has not master that technology yet.
I look this way, when Qing dynasty names shore cannon artistic name 红夷大炮 Hong yi da pao, and in some cases, each cannon have its own name (they are so few), China is in deep trouble; when US names her battleship with dull name like Missouri, named after non-innovative doctrine of names, it implys she is at the way to systematic dominance of the field (in this case, navy) it dully named.
My 5 cents (hey, Chinese way of "two cents")
China have laws that regulates how their vessels are named, besides using name of cities/provinces and famous landscape features are common practice in the world too, the only complaint you'd hear about such arrangement would be from those cities/states/provinces who got no ship named after them (like Montana, US, for example)...though there're people who'd prefer artistic names (like those still use by Japanese) or avatar of aspects (UK and a few of the Commonwealth nations, like Singapore).
Dull or not, however, there has been no conclusive argument...but naming after any person is always a dicey thing, political-correctness is a nasty minefield.