Ideally, the first reference for an airframe is to the relevant page on the owning museum's website. (It is not enough to simply link to the museum's homepage.) The use of the museum's website rather than a third-party website serves to prove that the airframe does indeed exist at that location, since they can be presumed to know better than anyone else what is in their collection. The museum's website is presumed to be correct regarding specific information (i.e. variant, identification) unless reliable contradicting information can be found. A second reference must be added that states the airframe's specific identity (e.g. construction number, serial number, bureau number, etc.) if the first reference does not include it. (When choosing between multiple secondary references, the one with the most complete information/profile should be selected.) An additional reference to the aircraft's airworthiness certificate from the respective country's aviation regulatory agency is required if the aircraft is airworthy. Registration numbers are to be replaced with one of the former numbers wherever possible. Airframes are to be referred to by their actual identity, not the one they are painted to represent.

The format for the first sentence of the entry for each airframe should be of the following format: [Identity Number] [Nickname] – [Variant] is airworthy/on display/in storage at [Name of Museum, Airport, etc.] in [City, Region]. (If the airframe is located at a secondary site (i.e. an annex or storage facility), that should be included before the organization's name.) When dealing with an airframe manufactured in one country and subsequently operated by another (for example, lend-lease aircraft), the identity number and variant should be split with a forward slash. The manufacturing country's identity number should come first followed by the operating country's identity number. The same applies to variants. (The manufacturing country's information is included to create a common format between all entries so that the list can be ordered. The operating country's information is included because that is the information that is most likely presently used to identify the airframe and out of respect to the operating country.) When all airframes in a composite are known, their identities will be divided by a forward slash and listed in the place of a single identity number. When all identities are not known, the identity number will be replaced by the word "Composite". The identity number is placed first as that is the distinguishing feature of each entry and as such it should occupy the most prominent position. The statuses used should be one of the following: airworthy, static display, display, in storage. "Display" is used for when the status of the airframe is unclear. Because some museums either have not gotten around to restoring or choose to display them that way, sometimes the word "unrestored" is added to the status of an airframe. If the organization has more than one branch, which branch the airframe is at should be noted before the organization name. (However, individual galleries or hangars should not be noted. Museums often move airframes around, and this would be too much to keep track of.) If the museum is located on a military base, that should be noted after the organization's name, but before the location. The city and region should be the same as the street and/or mailing address listed on the organization's website. Beyond the first sentence, there is no set format. However, there are restrictions on what type of information is appropriate. Appropriate information to add to an entry includes history of the specific airframe. Inappropriate information includes mentions of how often or when the airframe is flown (that is covered by the status section of each entry) and information that is common to all aircraft of that model (that should be covered elsewhere in the article). If there is more than one airframe at a site, there must be a separate entry for each airframe – they are not to be combined in one entry. Furthermore, each entry should be able to stand on its own – it should not need information from any other entry on the list to be complete. The entries are to be ordered according to their identity numbers. (That is to say, the order in which they were built and/or assigned serial numbers.) Whether or not the list is organized according to the airframes' construction number or military serial number is determined by whether the aircraft was initially a civilian or military design, whether more were used in civilian or military service, and/or whether the aircraft is more known for its civilian or military service. Aircraft registrations are not to be used unless there is no other identity number. This is because they lack permanence (as airframes can have more than one registration and multiple airframes can have the same registration at different points in time) which can cause confusion.^[1][2] They also do not allow entries to be ordered chronologically by production date.

One of the intents of this standardized format is that there is an equality between all entries. Some organizations and individuals may seek to promote the airframes in their collection by giving theirs a more prominent treatment than the other airframes in the list. There are a number of examples of people associated with aviation museums editing articles related to their museum and causing a potential conflict of interest. (Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, Example 5, Example 6, Example 7, Example 8, Example 9, Example 10, Example 11, Example 12, Example 13, Example 14, Example 15, Example 16, Example 17, Example 18, Example 19, Example 20, Example 21, Example 22, Example 23, Example 24, Example 25, Example 26, Example 27, Example 28, Example 29, Example 30, Example 31, Example 32, Example 33, Example 34, Example 35, Example 36, Example 37, Example 38, Example 39, Example 40, Example 41, Example 42, Example 43, Example 44, Example 45, Example 46, Example 47, Example 48, Example 49, Example 50, Example 51, Example 52, Example 53, Example 54, Example 55, Example 56, Example 57, Example 58, Example 59, Example 60, Example 61, Example 62, Example 63, Example 64, Example 65, Example 66, Example 67, Example 68, Example 69, Example 70, Example 71, Example 72, Example 73, Example 74, Example 75, Example 76, Example 77, Example 78, Example 79, Example 80, Example 81, Example 82 and of course, myself) This is not to suggest that these people are selfish, but simply that they are unfamiliar Wikipedia's standards and are pursuing the admirable goal of raising awareness of their institutions. By establishing a standardized format this problem is mitigated.

The philosophy laid out in this section is partially based on the layout taken from existing Wikipedia aircraft survivor lists and partially of this user's own design.

• For a discussion of the subject see this talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft)#Surviving Aircraft/Aircraft on Display Section Formatting
• For further discussion of the subject see this talk page: Talk:List of surviving North American P-51 Mustangs
• For discussion of section headers see this talk page: Talk:Ilyushin Il-2#Suggested Section Title Change