I am a chemistry beginner who has got it into his head to start learning all the elements of the periodic table.

 

I'm looking at this wikipedia version which seems pretty up to date, but I'm not sure what the standard terms for all the colored groups are. Also other versions seem to group some parts of the table slightly differently.

 

Normally I would just start reading up on the basics, but I want to put together a standard, simple, colour coded reference table for myself before I begin.

 

As far as I can tell from left to right, top to bottom:

1. Pale Green Hydrogen (nonmetals?)

 

2. Red Alkali metals

 

3. Wheat Alkaline earth metals

 

4. Pink Transition metals

 

5. Lanthanides (Rare earth) marked on table already

 

6. Actinides (Rare earth) marked on table already

 

7. Dirty Green Metalloids?

 

8. Grey Poor metals? (a mini table on wikipedia includes zinc and cadmium here)

 

9. Pale Green Non metals? (includes Hydrogen)

 

10. Yellow Halogens

 

11. Turquoise Noble gases

 

My questions are:

 

1. Is this table a standard way of grouping the elements?

 

2. Are the categories I've noted above correct?

 

Thanks!

What format is that file in?

My pc won't read it.

Sorry it seems it's an .svg file.

 

I got it from the wikipedia page here where it is shown as a .png.

 

But I should have looked harder earlier as I just found the main wikipedia page explaining the structure of the periodic table, which basically clarifies the color coding. The table on this page is similar to the one I had, except it doesn't predict the groups of the undiscovered ununtrium etc elements.

 

...

 

And this page explains the difference between wikipedia's hybrid organisation and IUPAC approved categories.

 

Beh, this is more complicated than I thought it would be. Why can't everything be nice and standard and simple.

 

I guess my questions should now be:

 

1. Should I create a table with groupings according to IUPAC approved categories or follow the wikipedia version?

 

2. Which would be more helpful in the long run?

 

Maybe it doesn't matter so much.

It really doesn't matter all that much. It is more important to understand the trends and properties of the periodic tables and the groups.

Fair enough, thanks.

1. Is this table a standard way of grouping the elements?

 

2. Are the categories I've noted above correct?

 

Yes, people try to group the elements by similar properties. The groupings tell you something, but it is more important to understand what is says than what its name is. You seem to have gotten everything right. The dirty green and grey groups are where they "should" be non-metals but act more and more like metals due to their being larger and so not attracting electrons as strongly.

 

The groups are kind of arbitrary though, which is why the properties are more important. Hydrogen, for example, is usually considered a non-metal, but it could be treated as an alkali metal or a halogen.