This post has not been vetted or endorsed by BuzzFeed's editorial staff. BuzzFeed Community is a place where anyone can create a post or quiz. Try making your own!

Buzz

Posted on Jul 22, 2013

12 Reasons The Chicago Manual Of Style Is Better Than MLA

The pedantic debate ends here.

by Matt Saccaro

Community Contributor

1. The Chicago Manual of Style uses footnotes, which are far better than MLA's equivalent, in-text citation.

2. In-text citation doesn't convey nearly as much information at a glance. This means, as a reader, you have to go all the way to the bibliography if you want more information about a source.

3. Chicago Manual also has endnotes, too, just in case you don't want the footnotes cramping your style. Chicago Manual is considerate like that.

4. The Chicago Manual of Style's footnotes/endnotes can also be informational, like this one...

5. And some can even be used for humorous purposes, like this one:

6. MLA's in-text citations are just ugly. They disrupt the reading process and make what you're reading look like it was done by some high school kid, not a professional writer.

Browse links

12 Reasons The Chicago Manual Of Style Is Better Than MLA

1. The Chicago Manual of Style uses footnotes, which are far better than MLA's equivalent, in-text citation.

2. In-text citation doesn't convey nearly as much information at a glance. This means, as a reader, you have to go all the way to the bibliography if you want more information about a source.

3. Chicago Manual also has endnotes, too, just in case you don't want the footnotes cramping your style. Chicago Manual is considerate like that.

4. The Chicago Manual of Style's footnotes/endnotes can also be informational, like this one...

5. And some can even be used for humorous purposes, like this one:

6. MLA's in-text citations are just ugly. They disrupt the reading process and make what you're reading look like it was done by some high school kid, not a professional writer.

7. Chicago Manual has Ibid, which is short for "ibidem" which sounds really cool. MLA has nothing that sounds cool.

8. Speaking of things that sound cool, the Chicago Manual of Style can also go by a badass nickname, "Turabian."

9. MLA format requires an ugly, bulky heading.

10. Chicago Manual, on the other hand, requires a nice, neat cover page.

11. The Chicago Manual of Style official handbook: 1,026 pages.

12. MLA official handbook: 292 pages.

12 Reasons The Chicago Manual Of Style Is Better Than MLA

1. The Chicago Manual of Style uses footnotes, which are far better than MLA's equivalent, in-text citation.

2. In-text citation doesn't convey nearly as much information at a glance. This means, as a reader, you have to go all the way to the bibliography if you want more information about a source.

3. Chicago Manual also has endnotes, too, just in case you don't want the footnotes cramping your style. Chicago Manual is considerate like that.

4. The Chicago Manual of Style's footnotes/endnotes can also be informational, like this one...

5. And some can even be used for humorous purposes, like this one:

6. MLA's in-text citations are just ugly. They disrupt the reading process and make what you're reading look like it was done by some high school kid, not a professional writer.

7. Chicago Manual has Ibid, which is short for "ibidem" which sounds really cool. MLA has nothing that sounds cool.

8. Speaking of things that sound cool, the Chicago Manual of Style can also go by a badass nickname, "Turabian."

9. MLA format requires an ugly, bulky heading.

10. Chicago Manual, on the other hand, requires a nice, neat cover page.

11. The Chicago Manual of Style official handbook: 1,026 pages.

12. MLA official handbook: 292 pages.

Share This Article