That is the same URL two times.

sean wrote:

Here is a link to the page:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Mexican_Sunflower_Tithonia_rotundifolia_Vertical_2000px.jpg

And I'm assuming this is the thumbnail:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Mexican_Sunflower_Tithonia_rotundifolia_Vertical_2000px.jpg/80px-Mexican_Sunflower_Tithonia_rotundifolia_Vertical_2000px.jpg

While this isn't spectacular, I'm not sure it's a bug as it might just be the loss-level we have ImageMagick set to.

It's probably more noticeable in slightly bigger thumbs. For instance, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Mexican_Sunflower_Tithonia_rotundifolia_Vertical_2000px.jpg/200px-Mexican_Sunflower_Tithonia_rotundifolia_Vertical_2000px.jpg or http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Mexican_Sunflower_Tithonia_rotundifolia_Vertical_2000px.jpg/300px-Mexican_Sunflower_Tithonia_rotundifolia_Vertical_2000px.jpg look terrible.

Created attachment 5856
Resized with default options

Attached:

Created attachment 5857
Resized with sharpening

Attached:

Created attachment 5858
Resized with sharpening and reduced quality

Attached:

Sharpening adds a slight halo at the edgges of the petals (attachment #5857). Reducing the JPEG quality adds some blocking artifacts, and creates an increased halo at the petal edges (attachment #5858). It also reduces the file size by 46%, which of course is the point. It would be helpful to know which of these two processes it is that you're objecting to. But I suspect this is going to be a WONTFIX either way.

EN.WP.ST47 wrote:

Wontfix per Tim Starling.