If/when you were going to do some updates, another one is to change Category:National Register of Historic Places in Washington to Category:National Register of Historic Places in Washington (U.S. state) in new articles.  Apparently the former worked previously, but was CfDed.

Also there are a number of new valid architecture categories based on NRIS architecture categories which could be added, such as Category:Early Commercial architecture, Category:Bungalow/Craftsman architecture, Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture, and Category:Late 19th and Early 20th Century American Movements architecture, that i have been sharing about at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#new NRHP-specific architecture categories where Ebyabe also shared.  Some of the newly valid ones now being redirects / covered at Architectural style (National Register of Historic Places).

I bet others would have suggestions/requests, too, if you let others know you might do some updating.  Your tools have been tremendously useful to me and to others.

About previous stuff, what I understand mostly is that you have not liked me or others generating minimal stub articles, unless a certain threshold of development or need is met, a threshold that you set differently than i have.  I don't want to re-open anything like an argument, but I wonder if you think list-articles i've been working on recently are good or bad.  These are about fraternal organization buildings (List of Odd Fellows buildings and others linked in its See also section), and also List of YMCA buildings and List of YWCA buildings.  I think they serve a good purpose, broadly, like the NRHP-listed bridge lists do, and I have chosen to develop them and to open stub articles for all their entries up front.  I think this rapid development approach has headed off a lot of misunderstandings that woulda been generated if they were shorter lists or had many redlinks.  I think i've had a lot more cumulative experience now, good and bad, with dealing with disambiguation- or Masonic- or Connecticut- or other-focused editor groups, and I think that rapidly generating the articles works a lot better, often, than leaving open red-links.  It certainly helps in establishing good categories right away, and also I've seen/learned the need for the architectural categories that correspond to these kinds of buildings.  Doing all of a certain type, at once, seems beneficial.  You can comment or not, but I just thought you might be less miffed about my going ahead with a lot of article generation, if you considered the pretty-good, immediately stable list-articles of these sort that I've been making.  Anyhow, hope you are doing well in your other activities.  Thanks,