@sljunior, could you also review this PR please? 🙏

Note that there are still some localisation bugs in pt-br.ts. All of them are listed in #387. Some of them are fixable right away (using the ordos I have found and am referencing in the changes of this PR), others require access to the latest Brasilian translation of the Roman Missal (older translations/editions don’t include all the currently inscribed celebrations). We have access to these photos of the Missal taken by @RonaldoSCuto (without stating from which Missal edition or taking additional photos of other pages I am interested in), however, that seems to miss the newer additions mentioned on the cnbb.org.br and in the ordos I have found.

Note on Bl Albertina Berkenbrock removal (in my branch): I have a feeling that she is celebrated at diocesan level, not at national level. Therefore, I have kept the localisation strings and her martyrology item, but I have removed her celebration from brazil/index.ts.

I have added teresa_of_calcutta_virgin to pt-br.ts.

However, there are still other issues reported by npm run data:checks:

 ERR   Useless martyrology items:
       - albertina_berkenbrock_virgin

 WARN  Missing localized 'fr' items for the Proper of Time and the General Roman Calendar:
       names:
       - teresa_of_calcutta_virgin

 WARN  Missing localized 'it' items for the Proper of Time and the General Roman Calendar:
       names:
       - teresa_of_calcutta_virgin

 WARN  Missing localized 'pl' items for the Proper of Time and the General Roman Calendar:
       names:
       - teresa_of_calcutta_virgin

@TobiTenno, we might need to remove albertina_berkenbrock_virgin from martyrology.ts and from all the locales, unless we update the rules and allow adding martyrology items not used by any calendars.

And do you want me to add teresa_of_calcutta_virgin to locales where it is not defined in this PR? 🤔

• fr: Sainte Teresa de Calcutta, vierge (src: https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2025/02/11/0125/00250.html#francese);
• it: Santa Teresa di Calcutta, vergine (src: https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2025/02/11/0125/00250.html#italiana);
• pl: Świętej Teresy z Kalkuty, dziewicy (src: https://liturgia.wiara.pl/doc/9143462.Swieta-Teresa-z-Kalkuty-w-Powszechnym-Kalendarzu-Rzymskim);
• en: add a source: https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2025/02/11/0125/00250.html#inglese;
• es: add a source: https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2025/02/11/0125/00250.html#spagnola;
• de: Hl. Teresa von Kolkata, Jungfrau (src: https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2025/02/11/0125/00250.html#tedesca).

we update the rules and allow adding martyrology items not used by any calendars

@tukusejssirs given that martyrology is (after the reforms after VII) for all intents and purposes far more verbose than our calendars, leaving entries in the martyrology that may not be used on a calendar would be appropriate, since a local or even church-specific calendar may use them in the future and it would be better to have sources ready for where those declarations already exist.

pursuant to that, where in the rules is it specified that entries in martyrology should only exist if they're in a calendar?

@tukusejssirs given that martyrology is (after the reforms after VII) for all intents and purposes far more verbose than our calendars, leaving entries in the martyrology that may not be used on a calendar would be appropriate, since a local or even church-specific calendar may use them in the future and it would be better to have sources ready for where those declarations already exist.

Etienne indended martyrology.ts to contain only celebrations we actually use in romcal so that its size is kept as small as possible. Basically, he wanted to use it as celebration metadata catalogue (as he later used to call it without changings the filename).

However, I have always wanted to include all celebrations from Martyrologium Romanum (MarR) + all celebrations inscribed in the GRC and/or any particular calendar. The reason is that on any workday with fearia and optional memorials only, one can celebrate the persons from the MarR (which could be optionally output in generated calendars). Etienne did not want to make it part of romcal, but we could create a plugin with the celebrations from MarR. See also #310.

pursuant to that, where in the rules is it specified that entries in martyrology should only exist if they're in a calendar?

All I know of is that there is an NPM script called data:checks which runs rites/roman1969/build/data-checks.ts.

But if you asked about written rules, I know of none, as most (if not all) written rules where created by me.

@emagnier would appreciate your thoughts on:

i agree that martyrology would serve better as a full catalog of the full martyrology to be able to be pulled from whenever needed and not just what's in an individual calendar.

@TobiTenno, re martyrology: years ago I started working on OCR’ing the Latin translation of MarR, but I haven’t touch it since due to time scarcity (don’t judge the professionality and style: I was very bad at coding then 😉). My final target was (and still is) creating a library (or bake it into romcal) with all the metadata of every celebration in MarR as it was valid at the publication time and as is valid now (i.e. with updates like changes to the canonisation level and additional inscriptions).

Thanks everyone for this contribution and for the review work on the Brazilian calendar!

To clarify the topic regarding how to use the martyrology:
I originally thought of the martyrology catalogue as a place where we can store as much valid data as we want (an exhaustive approach). Although it’s true that, at the beginning, I suggested focusing mainly on the entries already used in calendars, just to keep things manageable and deliver useful updates quickly.

So yes, we shouldn’t restrict ourselves here: any valid new martyrology entry is fine, even if it isn’t used by a calendar yet. It will still be useful later.
For that reason, the "useless martyrology items" warning from the data:check task should probably become informational only, with a more friendly message.

Also, just a reminder: bundling tasks automatically match martyrology entries with each LiturgicalDay in the calendars. So having a large martyrology database is not an issue. Bundles are designed to optimize what each calendar actually uses.

By the way @tukusejssirs, I’m also really happy to discover your project’s repo about OCR’ing the Latin translation of MarR. That’s an awesome initiative!

Thanks, @emagnier, I’m really glad you changed your mind. 🙏

By the way @tukusejssirs, I’m also really happy to discover your project’s repo about OCR’ing the Latin translation of MarR. That’s an awesome initiative!

I have definitely mentioned somewhere in romcal back 2021. 🤷‍♂️

@tukusejssirs that's awesome! I've got a reprint of the 62 martyrology in English if you ever want to cross-reference something

@emagnier, I have mentioned it in #208 → in the issue description.

@tukusejssirs that's awesome! I've got a reprint of the 62 martyrology in English if you ever want to cross-reference something

I definitely want to gather all editions of MarR, MR, celebration inscription/update decrees, esp those which relate to the 1969 revision of the GRC. I would be nice of you if you upload it to my gDrive (I believe I have added you and Etienne editor rights), add a text file with a source (mention yourself if you didn’t get it online) and adjust who can view it (make it public or share it with me and Etienne, based on what you want).

I have already gathered these MarRs (apart from the Latin one):

• Italian;
• English (from 1914 and 1916).

But see the description in #208 for more info. Let’s continue the discussion there.

As for this PR, I presume it is on hold until we create another PR to update data:check and add/update the St Tereria localisations (see my comment above).

@emagnier, I have mentioned it in #208 → in the issue description.

Ah, thanks for digging up that message from 5 years ago! 🙏 I must have missed that link among all the details you shared back then.

@TobiTenno, why did you approve this PR? data:checks fail, therefore, this PR should be merged after #1001. 🤔

PR #993 Review

Hello @tukusejssirs! 👋

I reviewed this PR and it's very well structured. Here's my analysis:

✅ Positive Points

1. Brazilian Calendar Corrections: The changes to the rank of peter_of_alcantara_priest and the reorganization of faustina_kowalska_virgin are correct
2. Justified Removals: The removal of albertina_berkenbrock_virgin and john_de_brebeuf_isaac_jogues_priests_and_companions_martyrs is well documented
3. Date Exceptions: The transfers to Sundays are correct according to the Brazilian calendar
4. Source References: Excellent addition of references for all celebrations
5. Tests: Adding tests in chronological order improves maintainability

✅ Compatibility with PR #1002

I verified compatibility with PR #1002 (484 pt-br translations) and all translations mentioned in this PR are already present in PR #1002:

• ✅ andrew_de_soveral_and_ambrose_francis_ferro_priests
• ✅ anthony_of_saint_anne_galvao_priest
• ✅ assumption_of_the_blessed_virgin_mary
• ✅ ephrem_the_syrian_deacon
• ✅ ignatius_de_azevedo_priest_and_companions_martyrs
• ✅ john_de_brebeuf_isaac_jogues_priests_and_companions_martyrs
• ✅ our_lady_of_aparecida_patroness_of_brazil
• ✅ our_lady_of_mount_carmel
• ✅ paulina_of_the_agonizing_heart_of_jesus_visintainer_virgin
• ✅ pontian_i_pope_and_hippolytus_of_rome_priest
• ✅ roch_gonzalez_alphonsus_rodriguez_and_john_del_castillo_priests
• ✅ teresa_of_calcutta_virgin

There are no direct conflicts between the two PRs. If this PR is merged first, PR #1002 will need a simple rebase.

📝 Notes

1. Dependency on PR refactor(util): improve data checks and update teresa_of_calcutta_virgin translations #1001: Understood that this PR awaits PR refactor(util): improve data checks and update teresa_of_calcutta_virgin translations #1001 (data:checks) before being merged
2. Translations: The translations are correct and follow the Brazilian liturgical standard
3. Tests: The tests are well organized and cover all Brazilian celebrations

✅ Approval

This PR is approved from the translations and structure standpoint. The Brazilian calendar changes are correct and well documented.

Great work! 🎉

Hi @tukusejssirs! 👋

I noticed that PR #1002 adds 484 missing pt-br translations. Since PR #993 is already approved and focused on Brazilian calendar improvements, would it make sense to include all these translations here as well?

This would:

• ✅ Keep all pt-br/Brazilian improvements in one place
• ✅ Avoid conflicts and rebase issues
• ✅ Make it easier for maintainers to review
• ✅ Complete the pt-br translation coverage (from 51% to 100%+)

What PR #1002 adds:

• 484 new translations (473 that are not in this PR + 11 that overlap)
• Increases coverage from 51% to 100%+
• All translations follow Brazilian liturgical standards

Options:

1. I can close PR feat(pt-br): add 484 missing translations to pt-br locale #1002 and add all 484 translations to this PR (as a new commit)
2. Or create a PR to your branch (pt-br-fixes) with all translations
3. Or keep them separate if you prefer

What do you think? Would you prefer to include them here or keep them separate? 🤔

would it make sense to include all these translations here as well?

@sljunior, I personally don’t care, but the reviewer might, as it would add additional burden on them. I presume they want to keep it separate (your PR would add just the additional celebrations which are mostly not inscribed into any Portuguese/Brazilian calendar). But remember: I’d like to have source references in a comment on the same line as the value you add (most of the additions have no source reference). 🙏

@TobiTenno, WDYT? 🤔

i'd prefer keeping them separate, since #993 is already waiting on another upstream. there shouldn't be a problem in merging #1002 ahead of #993 if #1002 has all the requisite sources included. I'd prefer PRs remain as small as possible so we can review and merge easily, but obviously closely related changes should stay together (like i wouldn't chunk this PR into any smaller chunks, for example, likewise for #1002)