Should a page be created for tentative ID?

Look exactly like as determined by a top expert, in light of biogeogrphy, phenology, and knowledge of regional and local status,maybe yes?

Doesn't the utility or lack thereof of an approach depend on the state of knowledge of the group and state of development of the guide?

Is it so simple to determine that something looks exactly like a particular species?

Strict scientists very often use morphospecies when contending with poorly known insect groups.

Either/or pairs can have this or that no taxon pages.

Most likely determinations may deserve a no taxon page if 99% certain but not 51% certain. Agreed?

No one should pick what they want without basis!

I think Ken's just asking if a tentative expert ID warrants making a new species page.

But it may warrant making a new no taxon page

There are two options. One, tentative IDs could be left at the taxon they can be reliably attributed to. For example, if you know it's Alaus, but cannot determine A. lusciosus vs. A. oculatus and it's from TX. Your tentative ID may be lusciosus but it should be left at the genus level.
Another is yes, if the tent. ID comes from an expert, create a page for it. It can be moved later if it is voucher-confirmed.

'No Taxon' pages are for organizing groups not based on a defined taxon, or clumping for convenience (for example, Beetle California Species A).

The point is to group images that match and to prevent these from being buried among mundane submissions in a general taxon page

Do you object to my "resembles species X" no taxon pages for cases where I recognize a morphotype and can propose a likely species identification but am not entirely certain so cannot create a species taxon page?

Surely this is better than posting a tentatively identified image to a species taxon page or leaving the images in question embedded separately among dozens of pages of images undetermined to genus.

In the example you cited, a "no taxon" page could be created for "Alaus lusciosus or oculatus." There are numerous examples of this in the guide pages for bees, moths, etc. I'm not sure if anyone has been doing the same for beetles, but if there are a number of images that clearly show one of those two species (and not any of the other four), I think it would make sense to make a guide page for them.

As to the specific example Ken was asking about, I had moved it to species level, because it had a tentative ID from the North American authority on the group. This is the best that can be done without examining/dissecting the specimen, but I don't mind if anyone wants to move it back to genus. If we're applying a standard of 100% certainty to microleps, there should be hardly any of them placed to species unless they have been reared, dissected, and/or barcoded.

"resembles species X" to make explicit that it is not a proven identification, although it may be the best possible from an image

I am not an expert on the Ichneumonidae, but I'd like to clean up that family a little. Right now there are over 80 pages of images under "Ichneumonidae". While the vast majority of these have no further ID remarks, a small proportion do, for example: one has an ID of "Possibly Pimplinae", and another has "Neotypus nobilator?".

I hate the idea of leaving these out in the sea of undetermined ichs, since the odds of someone else picking up on them are very low. So it seems the best alternative is to follow John's suggestion and construct "No taxon" pages for each of these, and place them within the most appropriate taxonomic level. So the "possibly Pimplinae" would have that as the page name, and placed under that subfamily, and the "Neotypus nobilator?" would be placed (as that page name) under "Neotypus".

It is true that this may be misleading should the provisional IDs prove incorrect, but it is my belief that someone with authority is more likely to see the images if they are moved in this fashion, and either confirm or deny the ID, than if they are left to languish amongst the rest of the unnamed ichs.

but not beyond that

seems like the right choice rather than making a "possible species" page. We don't want to create tons of No Taxon pages that will have to be changed to something else as we learn more. Especially since only John VanDyk has that capability. Nor do we want a lot of No Taxon pages that get linked at various places on the internet only to delete those pages later on and break all those links.
We would say that an occasional "possibly Pimplinae" No Taxon page might be worthwhile if you have twenty or thirty images to put on that page, but not if you only have one or two images. And we certainly wouldn't want thirty "possibly ...inae" pages, one for every subfamily of Ichneumonidae. That would be chaos. Frustrating, but better to just leave them on Ichneumonidae.
If, however, you could identify a large number of images as being in subfamilies a, b, or c, it would be good to create a No Taxon page for "subfamilies a, b, or c" and move fifty images there. That would clean up Ichneumonidae and move the images one step closer to an ID. If not, we're afraid you might just have to leave the Ichneumonidae for someone who does know them, sorry.

Unless there are multiple images identified as "Neotypus nobilator?", though, you might just place that one under Neotypus without making a special page for it.