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)