IGNORETHISOHGODDIDN'TSEETHEDATES.
I'm terribly sorry to possibly stir up more controversy, Melyria, but you had posted, on page thirteen, that:
"Blizzard has also said that the RPG books are confirmed lore as well."
You are not, technically, incorrect, in that they were, at one point in time, considered canon, as the wowpedia page attests to:
http://www.wowpedia.org/Warcraft_RPG
HOWEVER.
On that very same page, there is a quote from Bashiok which contradicts the affirmation that the RPG books are canon; this quote also has a link to the source of said quote.
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2721372142?page=1 This is the "Ask Creative Development -Round II Answers" thread.
The first question in this thread is:
"Q: Are the Warcraft and World of Warcraft RPG books considered canon?
A: No. The RPG books were created to provide an engaging table-top role-playing experience, which sometimes required diverging from the established video game canon. Blizzard helped generate a great deal of the content within the RPG books, so there will be times when ideas from the RPG will make their way into the game and official lore, but you are much better off considering the RPG books non-canonical unless otherwise stated."
As posted by Bashiok.
Therefore, the RPG books are not in any way, shape, or form, canon, and essentially hold the same weight as fanon. No information derived from the RPG books would be canon, and any information in this Night Elf Guide (or any guide) which is derived from the RPG books holds essentially the same weight as fanfiction. Using it isn't a -bad- thing, but there's no point in stating or otherwise acting as if it's an official source. It was. But it's not anymore.
I do get that there can be a lack of lore on various topics within the Warcraft universe, and I don't have any qualms about filling it in with fanon where necessary, be it in the form of formerly official books or in the form of community ideas, or even ideas from a single individual. I just don't personally believe that information of that nature really belongs in a Night Elf Guide, unless said guide was perhaps split into a "canon section" (which would be heavily cited and would use sources from the game itself, as well as any other canon sources), and a "fanon section".
Also, a random tangent on Necromancy (one which is fraught with inference based on what I've observed in-game): So far as I am aware, in the Warcraft universe, Necromancers -specifically- utilize Necromancy as a magical force in their casting. Things like Shaman Ghost Wolves, Night Elf Wisps, and that sort of thing all come from differing magical sources, as I understand; in the case of the former, that would likely come from the Shaman's innate connection with nature (as the Elements and Nature seem to be intertwined to a certain extent). It's also possible that said Wolves are simply a physical manifestation of the Elements; as I recall, however, Shamanism was highly popular among the Orcs, and, if I'm remembering correctly, the Orcs have a Wolf deity of some description called Lo'gosh, which is often correlated with Godrinn (http://www.wowpedia.org/Lo%27gosh confirms this). So the Shaman is, in that case, possibly drawing upon the power of the Ancient. In the latter case, the Wisps could be a blessing of Elune or a Druidic thing (as all Night Elves, when they die, become wisps in-game. It's possible that Night Elves may choose to remain behind as spirits to help tend to nature, though that's just opinion).
I never can understand why people think that one type of magic is confined to one type of thing. An excellent example of the possibility of a completely unrelated classes performing a similar function to another class is the Mage's Water Elemental spell; while the Elemental is, so far as I'm aware, not an actual Elemental, so much as it is an Arcane construct in the form of water, it's still pretty similar. Another, even better example is the fact that the Light, Elunite casting, Shamanism, and Druidism can all heal wounds magically, albeit in different manners.
Sorry; that was a bit of a tangent.
EDIT: I'm terribly sorry for the crappy quoting, as well; for some reason, I cannot figure out how to use the quoting feature elegantly, and therefore refuse to fiddle with it. Also edited for clarification and for a big ol' tangent.