Talk:Wilson prime

Near Wilson primes

Regarding this thread and this thread I would like to have some input by other editors on how to proceed with the near-Wilson primes in this article. I agree that my addition of Rogues near Wilson primes perhaps was a bad idea. And I also agree that my unilateral removal of the values added by Robert Gerbicz was another extremely poor choice. Thus could we try to reach a consensus here on how to proceed with the near-Wilson primes in this article? Should we list all values by Rogue and those by Robert Gerbicz? I am happy with a consensus in either direction. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should leave the table as it is for now and wait for the ongoing search initiated by Robert Gerbicz to advance more significantly. I am currently gathering the up-to-date information from the mersenneforum thread on my webpage which might or might not be a good place to cite the results in the future. Rajula (talk) 10:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I can agree with Rajula. Furthermore note that the results of the search comes frequently.Robert Gerbicz (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I now updated the search bounds and added some new results with a citation to the page mentioned above. Rajula (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)