Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
	Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End is part of the Pirates of the Caribbean films series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 18, 2007 Good article nominee Listed October 20, 2008 Good topic candidate Promoted May 14, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept March 18, 2018 Good topic removal candidate Demoted February 13, 2021 Good topic candidate Promoted Current status: Good article

This page is not a forum for general discussion about your views on the film. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about your views on the film at the Reference desk.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Disney High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I definitely, definitely read somewhere that Hans Zimmer composed most of the themes for the first film, but had to leave before he could piece it all together and put it in the film, and that one of his 'students' of some description, Klaus Badelt, along with others, made it all fit together. I'm completely alien to how to rework the part of the page with wrong information, but if someone who's familiar with it is willing, I'll try and find sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.213.46 (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Today (7th December 2008) a user with IP address 86.69.27.28 has, so far, made 17 edits in an attempt to re-write what happened at the end of the movie re Will and Elizabeth. These have all been undone by myself and others here - has anyone reported this user in an attempt to stop them carrying out any further edits?--Gaunt (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same editor in the "Will's son" section, who believes because a PG-13 film could not show Will and Elizabeth conceiving their child Will Turner III is not their son. Alientraveller (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the editor in question is reading this I have to ask the following - as no-one is shown 'going to the bathroom' does this mean that the characters lack the necessary facilities for toileting? ;-) --Gaunt (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think in a way you guys are both in the wrong about this. You need sources to vaildate these things, but there may be a solution. I dont have the dvd myself but providing the character is will`s son shouldnt he be listed in the credits at the end of the movie? That said providing if there is no source to back it up, and that theres no source to say he is or isnt then the stauts quo should be present 'Elizabeth and a young boy stand on the hill top observing Wills return'. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a furom for interpreting the movie by viewers ie 'his son' 'her son'. Provide a source or it can be deleted. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is listed here: [1] - Dominic Scott Kay plays Young Will Turner in At World's End. Can't get any more legitimate than that really.--Gaunt (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch, Who would have thought a source could clear up everything?Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

okay heres another source. http://www.ultimatedisney.com/dominicscottkay-interview.html apparently its based on an interview and mentions hes the spawn of elizabeth and Will. or;

http://www.hollywood.com/celebrity/Dominic_Scott_Kay/1610576 anyway theres bound to be a source. Has anyone read the credit roll either? anyway hope one of these is acceptable, cheers Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is here .. you impose the fact they consummate on the island but they MAY consumate OR not. 

The boy's name is Young Will Turner ? God that doesn't prove he is Will's son... He can be adopted or another men son if his mother name is Turner and if she decide to name him William that doesn't made Will as a father. He MAY be the father or not. Nobody knows . Stop to decide of the consumation, the parently and faithful !!! Liz can have consummate or not, can have carry Will's baby or another's man baby and nothing prove she has been faithful... It only a willabeth interpretation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.192.226.159 (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. However, we cannot assume good faith with you clearly because you willingly want to bring this 'Willabeth/Sparrowbeth' nonsense into articles. They got married, they had a son, deal with it, bring your opinions to another website. Alientraveller (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the link's not working, but at the end of the day, it's you who draws multiple conclusions from your imagination. It's your opinion, and your speculation does not belong. Only you have an issue with an ending everyone else describes. You are in denial. Alientraveller (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. To quote Wikipedia's founder, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." So I reiterate you take your conspiracy theories elsewhere. Alientraveller (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to add to this, if something is present in more than 5 sources so ive been told, its common knowlege, we shouldnt actually have to refer to the credit reel (but I figure that helps dispell it a bit). Theres enough links on the web that it can be shown its there son so. Its kind of stretching it to go on a bit with this. Happy editing Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. The lead would benefit from being shortened a bit. I reduced it a bit, but I've only seen the film once, so it would be beneficial for the main authors to take a look. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It may be beneficial to look for any updates, or see if there were any more recent stories in the news. I would also recommend updating the access dates of the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Critical reviews were mixed, but At World's End was a box office hit, becoming the most successful film of 2007, grossing approximately $960 million worldwide, and making it the second most successful in the series, behind Dead Man's Chest." Um, where was Spider-Man 3 when this happened? 71.62.192.242 (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should add a track list to the article. Math Champion | sign! 23:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a cleanup tag in the Cast section specifically for the entry regarding the trained monkeys who played Jack The Monkey. The entry is poorly written and has a couple of spelling & grammar errors. Furthermore I am not in favour of the use of the word 'adorable' in that section. FatDaks (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

someone show the citation to this...Furgoth (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find that more details are needed.198.36.203.162 (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you review WP:FILMPLOT. The current summary is already overly-long and detailed. If anything it needs material removed, not added. Doniago (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this one is on my to-do list for clean up. It's way too long and goes into all sorts of trivial things that don't matter. It's gonna take me a while to get to it though. Feel free to beat me to it. =) Millahnna (mouse)talk 23:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And deprive you of the pleasure of doing it yourself? (laughs) We'll see whether I have the time...it's possible. Doniago (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got it under 800 words. I think that should suffice for a 3+ hour movie. Doniago (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was this really that long? No wonder I didn't want to watch it again. Good job. Millahnna (mouse)talk 06:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:On sets of POTC 3.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 14 August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the language in the Plot. There were a few parts written in inferior English, and I tried to change that, and the result was arguably better. I also removed some irrelevant detail, while adding a few things that would help understand the story better. But Doniago reverted those changes. Why did you do that Doniago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.181.135 (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The wording in the plot's final paragraph is awkward and stinks of edit war. Does anybody have actual citations on that little specific of the plot? If not I'd recommend a revision to avoid the topic entirely. On the other hand, it's probably a detail sought after by page visitors and should be specified if there's actually a source out there proving the whole one-day vs permanent thing conclusively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.150.1 (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the layout on this page is broken it does not read like it should

Kind Regards

Harry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.219.30 (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this page for discussion on Henry's identity. If you have a reliable source identifying Henry, please share both here and on that page.

Thanks, Michelangelo1992 (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070316101703/http://www.comingsoon.net/blog/2007/03/disney_kicks_off_showest_openi.php to http://www.comingsoon.net/blog/2007/03/disney_kicks_off_showest_openi.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080129110654/http://www.comingsoon.net/awards/80thoscars.php to http://www.comingsoon.net/awards/80thoscars.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How come this film and it's first two sequels are listed as comedies in the lead? Is there any reference/source for that? And no, I do not believe when it has been nominated for "Best Musical/Comedy...." awards counts, as awards like that have had a lot of controversy in past as films can be funny but not directly a comedy.

Any source or reference for this inclusion in the lead? If not, I will remove them in a few days if no responses or defence. 82.44.112.108 (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed mention of 'comedy' as over a week has passed and no replies. If you want to add it back in, say why and with valid sources. 82.44.112.108 (talk) 08:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070604021827/http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/632/632009p1.html to http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/632/632009p1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]