Update link for "Drupal" CMS

[theodorosploumis]

https://github.com/theodorosploumis/awesome-drupal

The link for Drupal CMS links to an outdated, unmaintained repository.

Replacing with an active one.

Related issues:

• ToDo theodorosploumis/awesome-drupal#1
• Request to archive this project if it is not maintained nirgn975/awesome-drupal#15

My Pull Requests Reviews:

• Add "FOSS Alternatives" #3256 (comment)
• Add Xiangqi #3110 (comment)

By submitting this pull request I confirm I've read and complied with the below requirements 🖖

Please read it multiple times. I spent a lot of time on these guidelines and most people miss a lot.

Requirements for your pull request

• Don't open a Draft / WIP pull request while you work on the guidelines. A pull request should be 100% ready and should adhere to all the guidelines when you open it. Instead use #2242 for incubation visibility.
• Don't waste my time. Do a good job, adhere to all the guidelines, and be responsive.
• You have to review at least 2 other open pull requests.
  Try to prioritize unreviewed PRs, but you can also add more comments to reviewed PRs. Go through the below list when reviewing. This requirement is meant to help make the Awesome project self-sustaining. Comment here which PRs you reviewed. You're expected to put a good effort into this and to be thorough. Look at previous PR reviews for inspiration. Just commenting “looks good” or simply marking the pull request as approved does not count! You have to actually point out mistakes or improvement suggestions. Comments pointing out lint violation are allowed, but does not count as a review.
• You have read and understood the instructions for creating a list.
• This pull request has a title in the format Add Name of List. It should not contain the word Awesome.
  • ✅ Add Swift
  • ✅ Add Software Architecture
  • ❌ Update readme.md
  • ❌ Add Awesome Swift
  • ❌ Add swift
  • ❌ add Swift
  • ❌ Adding Swift
  • ❌ Added Swift
• Your entry here should include a short description of the project/theme of the list. It should not describe the list itself. The first character should be uppercase and the description should end in a dot. It should be an objective description and not a tagline or marketing blurb. It should not contain the name of the list.
  • ✅ - [iOS](…) - Mobile operating system for Apple phones and tablets.
  • ✅ - [Framer](…) - Prototyping interactive UI designs.
  • ❌ - [iOS](…) - Resources and tools for iOS development.
  • ❌ - [Framer](…)
  • ❌ - [Framer](…) - prototyping interactive UI designs
• Your entry should be added at the bottom of the appropriate category.
• The title of your entry should be title-cased and the URL to your list should end in #readme.
  • Example: - [Software Architecture](https://github.com/simskij/awesome-software-architecture#readme) - The discipline of designing and building software.
• No blockchain-related lists.
• The suggested Awesome list complies with the below requirements.

Requirements for your Awesome list

• Has been around for at least 30 days.
  That means 30 days from either the first real commit or when it was open-sourced. Whatever is most recent.
• Run awesome-lint on your list and fix the reported issues. If there are false-positives or things that cannot/shouldn't be fixed, please report it.
• The default branch should be named main, not master.
• Includes a succinct description of the project/theme at the top of the readme. (Example)
  • ✅ Mobile operating system for Apple phones and tablets.
  • ✅ Prototyping interactive UI designs.
  • ❌ Resources and tools for iOS development.
  • ❌ Awesome Framer packages and tools.
• It's the result of hard work and the best I could possibly produce.
  If you have not put in considerable effort into your list, your pull request will be immediately closed.
• The repo name of your list should be in lowercase slug format: awesome-name-of-list.
  • ✅ awesome-swift
  • ✅ awesome-web-typography
  • ❌ awesome-Swift
  • ❌ AwesomeWebTypography
• The heading title of your list should be in title case format: # Awesome Name of List.
  • ✅ # Awesome Swift
  • ✅ # Awesome Web Typography
  • ❌ # awesome-swift
  • ❌ # AwesomeSwift
• Non-generated Markdown file in a GitHub repo.
• The repo should have awesome-list & awesome as GitHub topics. I encourage you to add more relevant topics.
• Not a duplicate. Please search for existing submissions.
• Only has awesome items. Awesome lists are curations of the best, not everything.
• Does not contain items that are unmaintained, has archived repo, deprecated, or missing docs. If you really need to include such items, they should be in a separate Markdown file.
• Includes a project logo/illustration whenever possible.
  • Either centered, fullwidth, or placed at the top-right of the readme. (Example)
  • The image should link to the project website or any relevant website.
  • The image should be high-DPI. Set it to a maximum of half the width of the original image.
  • Don't include both a title saying Awesome X and a logo with Awesome X. You can put the header image in a # (Markdown header) or <h1>.
• Entries have a description, unless the title is descriptive enough by itself. It rarely is though.
• Includes the Awesome badge.
  • Should be placed on the right side of the readme heading.
    • Can be placed centered if the list has a centered graphics header.
  • Should link back to this list.
• Has a Table of Contents section.
  • Should be named Contents, not Table of Contents.
  • Should be the first section in the list.
  • Should only have one level of nested lists, preferably none.
  • Must not feature Contributing or Footnotes sections.
• Has an appropriate license.
  • We strongly recommend the CC0 license, but any Creative Commons license will work.
    • Tip: You can quickly add it to your repo by going to this URL: https://github.com/<user>/<repo>/community/license/new?branch=main&template=cc0-1.0 (replace <user> and <repo> accordingly).
  • A code license like MIT, BSD, Apache, GPL, etc, is not acceptable. Neither are WTFPL and Unlicense.
  • Place a file named license or LICENSE in the repo root with the license text.
  • Do not add the license name, text, or a Licence section to the readme. GitHub already shows the license name and link to the full text at the top of the repo.
  • To verify that you've read all the guidelines, please comment on your pull request with just the word unicorn.
• Has contribution guidelines.
  • The file should be named contributing.md. The casing is up to you.
  • It can optionally be linked from the readme in a dedicated section titled Contributing, positioned at the top or bottom of the main content.
  • The section should not appear in the Table of Contents.
• All non-important but necessary content (like extra copyright notices, hyperlinks to sources, pointers to expansive content, etc) should be grouped in a Footnotes section at the bottom of the readme. The section should not be present in the Table of Contents.
• Has consistent formatting and proper spelling/grammar.
  • The link and description are separated by a dash.
    Example: - [AVA](…) - JavaScript test runner.
  • The description starts with an uppercase character and ends with a period.
  • Consistent and correct naming. For example, Node.js, not NodeJS or node.js.
• Does not use hard-wrapping.
• Does not include a CI (e.g. GitHub Actions) badge.
  You can still use a CI for linting, but the badge has no value in the readme.
• Does not include an Inspired by awesome-foo or Inspired by the Awesome project kinda link at the top of the readme. The Awesome badge is enough.

Go to the top and read it again.

[theodorosploumis]

The linting Action need to run again. But it is not correct to just add an extra commit on the repository to trigger this again.

[BesBettison]

Cooking Good 👍

[BesBettison]

Looks good

[BesBettison]

Looks good

[hazzah3]

I've seen that you've put an issue to the original list owner but no pull request – unclear on the guidelines as to when exactly an unmaintained list should be removed. Maybe try a PR to see if they respond? I would agree that inactive lists where the owner and contributors aren't maintaining them should be replaced.

Would like to see more descriptions on the entries for your list as they're all links at the moment and the context isn't clear from the some of the titles. Linting changes look good though!

[Mo-way]

Hi @theodorosploumis,

your PR itself looks fine to me. Some comments on the list:

I like that you didn't include inactive projects like Hedley, which are still on the inactive list.
What strikes me as odd is that your list has very little resemblance and only a few common items with the existing list.

Is everything that was awesome eight years ago deprecated now?

Section drupal.org seems to me like a site map of their web page. On the bottom, there's a list of twitter accounts of th different regions. Not sure, why they'd be "awesome".

• IMHO you should definitely prune your list and make it more opinionated.
• Also, I second @hazzah3 that your list is missing explanations. The inactive list has some, maybe copy is possible

[shano]

Here are a few things I've spotted while reviewing:

• It's really missing concise descriptions for links that lack context, I'd prioritise the GitHub repositories and tools, which are often really unclear on what they provide.
• I'd consider removing the "Back to TOC" links, these are redundant with the TOC at the top and add unnecessary clutter.
• I'd consider consolidating or update categories: Merge niche sections like "Graphics" into broader categories (e.g., "Marketing") and review outdated links.

[theodorosploumis]

• The list is totally opinioned. I started this for my self initially. Then is started growing.
• The list is sorted alphabetically not by importance or any pther priorities.
• I started this because I could not easily find on Drupal.org what I needed. Drupal.org is a huge website and I use it for 15+ years now. Except from the main menu finding a resource is too hard and it is the No1 issue on the UX meetings.
• At least half of the resources are not related to Drupal.org and are totally handpicked by me.

Tasks that could probably improve the list:

• Remove the "Back to TOC" links
• Add more descriptions on sections (although I find the section titles self explained)
• Remove outdated (or fix redirected) links

[Mo-way]

@theodorosploumis Can't argue, if it's your opinion that the list is opinionated :D

Hope you didn't take anything personally, I simply follow Antoine de Saint-Exupéry: “Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”

I'm not an expert on Drupal, maybe you can educate me a little:

• I assume your links are clear to someone experienced with Drupal. Do also novice users know what e.g. Acquia Certification, Form API et.c are? To me all those links say nothing, but I'm not target audience.
• For the website, I'd personally recommend to move the "site map" elsewhere and link to it from the awesome list. Maybe it's personal style. I really think it's more concise.
• For the twitter accounts, I still recommend to cut them, anyone can search for drupal on twitter, if they are intersted in news.