Well, if you want your reference to be successful, I suggest you convince me that you do, in fact, have a cat which you have named Cookie. At this point, I truly believe that this is imaginary, so your reference is far from successful.

You have successfully directed my attention to a subject, a matter for discussion, (an imaginary cat named Cookie) but you have not directed my attention toward any physical object or living creature. — Metaphysician Undercover

You need not believe that I have a cat named Cookie in order for you to be referring to her by name. You may think/believe that my cat is an imaginary one. You're still talking about my cat.

You need not believe that I have a cat named Cookie in order for you to be referring to her by name. If your use of "Cookie" is not referring to my cat, then what on earth are you referring to? — creativesoul

I told you what I'm referring to, a subject, a matter for discussion, an imaginary cat name Cookie.

You may think/believe that my cat is an imaginary one... no problem. You're still talking about my cat. — creativesoul

Let me get this straight. You claim to have named something. I claim that the thing named is non-existent. Now you claim that you have successfully directed my attention toward this thing which I do not even believe exists. How do you propose that I have focused my attention on something which I do not even believe exists?

If you have an example of successful reference which does not include what I've set out, I'd like to see it. If you do not, then all you've done is gratuitously assert a contrary position... and a groundless one at that.

I'm not interested in self-perpetuated confusion by virtue of inadequate framework.

Let me get this straight. You claim to have named something. I claim that the thing named is non-existent. Now you claim that you have successfully directed my attention toward this thing which I do not even believe exists. How do you propose that I have focused my attention on something which I do not even believe exists? — Metaphysician Undercover

What's the name of the thing you're talking about here?

Oh, yeah!

"Cookie"...

What's the name of the thing you're talking about here? — creativesoul

Sorry, but I'm not talking about a thing. I'm talking about an imaginary cat. When are you going to get that through your head? I refer to a subject, you refer to an object. You think I'm referring to an object, and I think you're referring to a subject. Neither of us is successful in our reference.

I'm not interested in self-perpetuated confusion by virtue of inadequate framework. — creativesoul

Right, I've demonstrated that your framework is inadequate and perpetuates confusion, yet you appear to be uninterested. So be it.

Well, if you want your reference to be successful, I suggest you convince me that you do, in fact, have a cat which you have named Cookie. At this point, I truly believe that this is imaginary, so your reference is far from successful. — Metaphysician Undercover

The reference has clearly succeeded. You believe Cookie is an imaginary thing. You're mistaken about that, but you do use the name "Cookie" to pick out my cat, nonetheless...

I've demonstrated that your framework is inadequate and perpetuates confusion, yet you appear to be uninterested. So be it. — Metaphysician Undercover

You've not used the framework in the OP. Rather, you've used your own. It has been shown problematic by both of us...

What the OP asserts as the primary methods of successful reference, are two commonly argued for.

Many folk will conclude that names(and thus naming practices) are not necessary for successful reference, because some actual and many written examples do not include names or obvious naming practices. Such cases are actual examples of descriptive practices being used for successful reference. Many of these - particularly the arguments here - are steeped in naming practices. That would be to successfully refer to that which had been already named and described.

Our notions of successful reference.

If the criterion for what counts as being "not necessary" is satisfied merely by virtue of what a written report of an actual example does not include, then then it would only follow that no description used for successful reference is existentially dependent upon it's referent.

That cannot be right.