Is ghost actually a seperate classification? I though it was just used for humans who stayed after death, wil animal ghost, is a term for several species of dead animals.--Rodolphus (talk) 19:42, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

Without "ghost" the sub-classifications would be incomplete, because ghosts do not fall under neither "Animal ghost", "Spirit-being" or "Non-being". That was my rationale for adding it. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 20:11, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn?t human ghosts be classified as "Spirit beings"? Wizards are beings, after all.--Rodolphus (talk) 20:14, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

Since the only spirit-being we know of (the Caipora) is described as "furry" and said to be mischievous, I'm guessing that the term is used for tangible but otherwise spirit-like creatures (i.e. more resembling Poltergeists than actual ghosts). So, I take it "being" is not being used in its legal wizarding sense (as in Being), but to mean something tangible, living. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 20:32, January 30, 2016 (UTC)