A recent defence of the idea of analyzing names as predicates that relies on the calling relation to explain their meanings, an account developed by Fara, is claimed to escape the problems afflicting analyses that rely on the calling relation that are meta-linguistic. For Fara, this is because the calling relation itself is not essentially meta-linguistic. Fara claims that distinguishing between meta-linguistic and non-meta-linguistic notions of calling disperses with the common objection to treating names as predicates, specifically, Kripke's objections to (...) the informativeness of these kinds of accounts. To fully address Kripke's worry, two things must hold (a) the theory must yield a criterion that allows us to determine a name's reference, and (b) it must be non-circular. I argue that Fara's theory satisfies neither of these criteria. (shrink)