Euphemistic spelling of cocksucker. Was created to win a competition back in the day. --Rockpilot 12:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately we've got a ton of these and some have already passed, e.g. . Equinox◑ 12:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
this is just a bowlderization, should simply be noted in cocksucker, usage notes that to avoid censorship and as printed in newspapers it is stylized and printed in this manner but is still read cocksucker.Gtroy 01:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep as it's attested. I see no problem with having entries for things like this. In my own reading, I have encountered censored spellings like this that I haven't been able to figure out (e.g. b****** for bastard, which baffled me partly because of so many asterisks and partly because it never occurred to me that bastard was such a dirty word it needed to be censored), so dictionary entries will be helpful to some people. Perhaps non-native speakers more than native speakers, but sometimes (as in my own case) even native speakers. —Angr 09:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
By extension, if three prudes decided to bowdlerize p**, b-----, and b❚❚, then we should be adding these entries, representing poo, breast, and bum. And logically, we must add an entry for every attested variation of @#!$*, defined as “unspecified profanity.” Are you sure we should launch this rocket? I'll be spending long nights poring over Beetle Bailey cartoons for citations.
I think c**cksucker is a stylistic or editorial expression, not a separate word, and not an alternate spelling of cocksucker. —MichaelZ. 2011-09-22 05:03 z
Keep Every attestable spelling. If someone wants to offer an alternative, like an appendix filled with frequently bowlerdized words ("words starting with b, 7 letters" would be more reliable and as easy to find for Angr as b******, especially as it could be b------ or something else), I'll take it, but this is a solution that's well within the rules. Call it a "stylistic or editorial expression", but omitting these letters means that you can't look it up if you don't know what it means. For the user of a dictionary, it functions as a alternate spelling.--Prosfilaes 07:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Do we also add an entry for F——, a veiled use of Frances? This is cited in two poems by Poe and countless articles mentioning them. —MichaelZ. 2011-09-23 03:01 z
Let's see, does it fit WT:CFI? One independent use? Then no.--Prosfilaes 13:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Alternative spelling seems like a reasonable way to handle such things, though a redirect would be more graceful. — Robin 04:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I have changed the entry to what it is, an alternate of cocksucker, i propose that this is the best solution for now that matches current policy. But honestly an exception to the redirect rule would be in order if you ask me, because these are not "spellings" they are censorings. sometimes parts of words or redacted in black marker, shall we therefore have articles for every variation of mother fucker with just the ck or second word or all but the first two letters represented by black boxes? i don't think so. but i do believe all the variants can be cited and that is a problem.Gtroy 23:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Restored and still under RFD. Can't determine why this had been deleted. DAVilla 03:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to cocksucker. There are various other ways to spell the same thing most of which can probably be attested (e.g. c*cksucker, c***sucker, c---sucker, etc.). --WikiTiki89 (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Send to RFV. The only durable citation currently in the citations page is of a different spelling. - -sche(discuss) 06:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
It actually seems to be a clerical error Talk:c**ksucker demonstrates a clear pass, reopening this debate at this time seems wrong based on such a clear pass. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I felt that such censored forms (being a stylised way to rewrite any word) should not be included, but I seem to remember the vote went against me. Equinox◑ 22:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
sent to RFV -- Liliana• 17:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.