Refactored old documentation links

[KroZen-Dev]

This pull request updates various documentation links throughout the codebase to use the correct, lowercased URLs and new documentation structure.

• Updated links in README.md to point to the correct documentation URLs, including installation, updating, and donating pages.
• Updated Docker setup instructions in docker/standalone/README.md to use the new documentation path for basic setup.
• Updated documentation links in admin views (index.blade.php) for updating instructions, documentation home, crontab configuration, and donations to use the new, lowercased URLs.

🔗 Linked Issues:

Fixes #1301

[MrWeez]

You're using main as your base branch. Don't do that! This creates conflicts when merging and potentially increases the risk of overwriting existing changes in the development branch.

You're pushing to dev branch, so you want to create new development based branch. Also, its recommended to use conventional commits tags in branch names (e.g. fix/big-bug, feat/better-settings or refactor/creation-controller). Btw, it's also a good practice to use conventional commits

[KroZen-Dev]

You're using main as your base branch. Don't do that! This creates conflicts when merging and potentially increases the risk of overwriting existing changes in the development branch.

You're pushing to dev branch, so you want to create new development based branch. Also, its recommended to use conventional commits tags in branch names (e.g. fix/big-bug, feat/better-settings or refactor/creation-controller). Btw, it's also a good practice to use conventional commits

In the issue description, the branch was explicitly set to main, so I followed that. I've wasted more time discussing the branch than it takes to fix two links that don't even conflict. I'll redo it from development to match your 'perfect' workflow, but you might want to update your issue templates first...

[MrWeez]

You're using main as your base branch. Don't do that! This creates conflicts when merging and potentially increases the risk of overwriting existing changes in the development branch.
You're pushing to dev branch, so you want to create new development based branch. Also, its recommended to use conventional commits tags in branch names (e.g. fix/big-bug, feat/better-settings or refactor/creation-controller). Btw, it's also a good practice to use conventional commits

In the issue description, the branch was explicitly set to main, so I followed that. I've wasted more time discussing the branch than it takes to fix two links that don't even conflict. I'll redo it from development to match your 'perfect' workflow, but you might want to update your issue templates first...

The branch in the issue tells you which branch has this problem. Also, this is common sense in development practice, you never want to push changes based on main branch to development. It's not my "perfect workflow", it's the quality of the code. @LakshmiBhaskarPVL already fixing a lot of overwrited code in #1303

[KroZen-Dev]

Should I make a third PR based on development or will you accept one of those two pull requests?

[MrWeez]

Should I make a third PR based on development or will you accept one of those two pull requests?

You dont need to made changes again manually, just cherry-pick them and create new PR with development based branch