would this not be better just as a spelling variation on bollocks, and then just redirected tobollocks, which has a fuller definition.--Richardb 16:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
We don't use "#redirect []" for spelling variations though. A short entry referencing bollocks from ballocks seems appropriate to me. --Connel MacKenzieTC 22:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
At the moment there are duplicate articles,though no doubt with differrences. Which is what I'd prefer to see us avoid. I was not suggesting a simple #redirect, but a brief entry saying something like "Spelling variant (archaic) of bollocks"